Appenzell
Switzerland |
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
|
|
|
|
News & Analysis
Building the Long War
Thursday, July 15, 2010 – by
Staff Report
Israeli attack on Iran would start long war ... An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would start a long war and probably not prevent Iran from eventually acquiring nuclear weapons, a think-tank said on Thursday. Oxford Research Group, which promotes non-violent solutions to conflict, said military action should be ruled out as a response to Iran's possible nuclear weapons ambitions. "An Israeli attack on Iran would be the start of a protracted conflict that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it," it said in a report. It would also lead to instability and unpredictable security consequences for the region and the wider world, it added. The United Nations Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran last month over a nuclear programme the West suspects is aimed at developing atomic weapons in secret. Iran says it wants nuclear energy for peaceful uses only." – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: It is possible though not prudent.
Free-Market Analysis: In several previous articles we've examined the possibilities of the US opening a third (or fourth) military front with Iran. Certainly the US and its allies seem on track to do this and from our point of view the examination of this possibility, combined with an endless stream of articles vilifying Iran and calling for yet more sanctions, is a kind of dominant social theme. It is one gradually being assembled so as to accustom the West to the possibility of a greatly expanded war in our view.
This article at Reuters does not directly discuss an American war with Iran but focuses on Israel. While it concludes that such a war with Israel would be counterproductive to Israel, it brings up some interesting points. First of all, it uses vocabulary that has been used in previous discussions about the Anglo-American axis' approach to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. This vocabulary includes the term "long war" and uses this nomenclature in a kind of subdued approbation (though not in this article). We wrote about the long war syndrome, previously, when responding to an article by leftist Tom Hayden excerpted from the LA Times:
Your Government Is Planning to Stay at War for the Next 80 Years Anyone Got a Problem with That? Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War, which projects an "arc of instability" caused by insurgent groups from Europe to South Asia that will last between 50 and 80 years. According to one of its architects, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are just "small wars in the midst of a big one." ...
The term "Long War" was first applied to America's post-9/11 conflicts in 2004 by Gen. John P. Abizaid, then head of U.S. Central Command, and by the retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Gen. Richard B. Myers, in 2005. According to David Kilcullen, a top counterinsurgency advisor to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and a proponent of the Long War doctrine, the concept was polished in "a series of windowless offices deep inside the Pentagon" by a small team that successfully lobbied to incorporate the term into the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the nation's long-term military blueprint. President George W. Bush declared in his 2006 State of the Union message that "our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy."
The concept has quietly gained credence. Washington Post reporter-turned-author Thomas E. Ricks used "The Long War" as the title for the epilogue of his 2009 book on Iraq, in which he predicted that the U.S. was only halfway through the combat phase there. It has crept into legal language. Federal Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a darling of the American right, recently ruled in favor of holding detainees permanently because otherwise, "each successful campaign of a long war would trigger an obligation to release Taliban fighters captured in earlier clashes." ...
This is how dominant social themes are built in our opinion, bit by bit over a long period of time so that they appear to have been generated by a series of suggestions rather than any larger plan or secret agenda. But there is an agenda in our opinion, one that has been endlessly written about on the Internet. The agenda is simply to militarize the West, especially America, while causing a maximum amount of chaos in the Middle East. The longer this situation extends, the more effective it may be.
In Britain there is more outward pushback. Maybe this is because Britain is a smaller country or more likely it is because Britain suffered terribly in the First and Second World Wars and that cultural memory still looms large. In America, militarization proceeds apace. Despite signaling a contrary approach before governing, the Obama administration has continued the Bush administration policy of using American military resources within USA borders, thus vitiating habeas corpus and accustomizing Americans to internal military presences. The military glorification celebrates destruction and the expenditure of blood and treasure. America has virtually turned into a security state with local police officers regularly stunning women and even children with tazers while harassed citizens line up at airports to be irradiated by unproven "security" technology.
The article by Reuters can be seen within this context in our opinion. It criticizes Israeli military action while granting that the possibility exists. It leaves us with a perspective that such an attack COULD occur, even though there may be a debate as to whether it SHOULD happen. Once people have granted the possibility that it could happen, then the jump to expecting that it might or would happen is not nearly so broad.
This is how, in our opinion, even the most shocking possibilities can become tomorrow's realities. It happens gradually via constant discussion over time. Even individual nomenclature can be corrupted this way. Seventy years ago another American generation waged war against the German "Homeland" or Fatherland. Today, the sons and daughters of that war support an aptly (mis-) named "Homeland Security" apparatus with their tax dollars.
The military industrial complex in America has been very clever in terms of how it has waged the current long war. By removing the draft, the powers-that-be eradicated a potential sore spot and a controlling issue as well. There is no point around which the American people can easily rally anymore as a professional army is in charge of the conflict, and the professional army can be enlarged through the judicious use of private military contractors. The determined impulse is to ensure that the US military and its enablers will do virtually anything to avoid a draft and subsequent exposure to energetic public scrutiny.
Two final points ought to be made about the "long war" scenario. We wondered in past articles how on earth an expansion of current Middle Eastern wars would make sense. But perhaps we were not properly envisioning how such a war would be fought. If a long war is actively being sought by the Anglo-American elite, and it appears that it is, then an attack on Iran might make sense because Iran cannot retaliate massively but would have to fight back on an ad hoc basis. This means terror attacks, oil and gas price hikes, military skirmishes, etc. – but such aggression would probably embroil the Middle East before reaching Western shores.
Secondly, as a Bell feedbacker pointed out to us yesterday, the areas of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq are contiguous, which places the war firmly in a regional context and makes it easier to prosecute from a military and resource standpoint. Thirdly, a vastly expanded war would give the US a chance to proclaim an even firmer common cause with the EU. This in turn, could help prevent that artificial entity from breaking up in the immanent future. Here's a final unhappy thought: A war with Iran might give the US an opportunity to use TACTICAL nuclear weapons, and therefore destigmatize the use of nuclear weapons generally, making it easier to wage a wider war and use war, generally, as a means of social control.
Within the above context, a "long war" is certainly a possibility, so long as the money does not run out. The NATO military, especially the American military, has been secured from the consequences of "endless war for endless peace" by the absence of a draft. Private military contractors can expand the amount of troops as necessary. Funding is an issue but it is one that has been dealt with in the past; Congressmen can be easily cowed in this era of the warrantless wiretap.
As mainstream media discussions about Iran continue, the possibility of a war with Iran will gradually become less shocking, at least on the surface. People will be desensitized to the process. The impact on the prices of gold, oil and other commodities (and world trade generally) would be enormous. But it is perfectly possible that the power elite feels it has no other choice. Western economies are not easily salvaged at this point and war is a good alternative to social unrest that would be aimed at the power elite itself.
Conclusion: Because of the Internet, it has become far more difficult to launch the kinds of "false flag" operations that the CIA and other Western intelligence organizations have become famous for. The alternative to such operations is an external war that has the same galvanizing effect on Western populations. War is indeed the health of the state. If there are indeed plans for an expanded "long war," we would expect to see additional mentions in the media building up into a feverish blizzard of accusations against Iran. There will of course be arguments pro and con about such a war (as evidence by the Reuters article above) but it will be pro-offered within the elite's fear-based paradigm: Iran is an existential threat and must be confronted.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
View Feedback
Posted by Jeff on 7/15/2010 6:48:07 AM
The Western populations have been so dumbed down and scared they'll buy any propaganda. The Persians are biting off more than they can chew. The only problem is gas prices. Americans love their cars and this would be political suicide.
When Americans wanna be astute is when it hits them in the pockets and with the depression, a war of that magnitude would be hard to sell. The start of the war will be a terrorist attack, sadly enough. See ya.
P.S Will have nothing to worry about if there's a methane explosion in the gulf of Mexico anyway it'll be biblical.
Posted by Duane Bass on 7/15/2010 8:31:31 AM
Some sites are calling for a major False Flag operation, or a another crisis, or even a war, right before the November elections. . .
That would be Alex Jones. The more I listen to him, the more I like him. . .
Posted by Don Lowery on 7/15/2010 8:45:46 AM
I hate to see people respond with "Biblical" interpretations. Of course they are victimized by a long time essoteric so called fundamentalist christianity. Their intrepretations of prophecy makes them blindly pro Israel. This was planned a long time ago and is the basis of zionism. Its a materialistic intrepretation of prophecy and it is British Israelism which was code named in its inception "Earl Of Dysart" Its not christianity and masonic in origin.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
You have a link?
Posted by MetaCynic on 7/15/2010 9:39:05 AM
Wars always have a way of spinning out of control to produce disastrous unintended consequences for the belligerents (once again there go those pesky unintended consequences of von Mises's). Witness the ongoing global trauma triggered by the breakup of empires following WW1.
My only disagreement with DB's analysis is that there is a real possibility that a war against Iran, especially one employing tactical nuclear weapons, will reach America's shores. Such a war may not be existential for the U.S., but it will be so for Iran. The Iranians are no dummies, they saw the horrors unleashed on an occupied Iraq and its former leaders and will do anything to avert a similar fate.
So, it's not unreasonable to assume that Iran has already infiltrated highly trained agents into the U.S. whose mission it is to threaten to release some sort of deadly bio/chemical weapon upon American cities in the event of an American sponsored attack on Iran.
A grim You Tube broadcast demonstration on a herd of cattle in Texas, followed by an announcement that a similar fate awaits a few large cities unless the attack is immediately called off, will provoke a spontaneous, panicky exodus of tens of millions of Americans from cities all across the country, instantly imploding what's left of the economy.
Perhaps the Power Elite will shrug off the loss to Russian supplied supersonic cruise missiles of a few aircraft carrier battle groups bottled up in the Persian Gulf. But they will be unable to ignore the mother of all blowbacks " the ghost towns of New York, D.C., Chicago, Houston and L.A. nor the millions of angry, frightened and starving refugees in the Homeland.
My guess is that Russia and China will not sit around idly as their ally, Iran, is pulverized by the Anglo-American-NATO axis. They understand that they are the ultimate big game in the cross hairs of American imperialism. If China's oil gets cut off as a result of an attack on Iran, they can exercise their option to take down the dollar thus defunding the war. Russia can put an uppity Europe back in its place by cutting off Europe's natural gas supply. Who can do without for six months? Europe without natural gas or Russia without revenue from its sale.
This is how wars between belligerents of asymmetric conventional military capabilities will be fought in the 21st century.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Yes, you are correct. We should have qualified that phrase. What we meant was that the Iranians wouldn't attempt a formal military counterattack on the West. No D-Day storming the beaches, etc. But of course terror strikes, etc. - and that will only give Western governments more chances to reduce freedom at home.
Posted by K. Honeyager on 7/15/2010 10:38:22 AM
I take exception to "America has virtually turned into a security state with local police officers regularly stunning women and even children with tazers while harassed citizens line up at airports to be irradiated by unproven "security" technology."
Where are you getting your information? The bias in this statement is offensive and could be a 'meme' that you so often discuss. The comment is patently absurd and diminishes the overall impact of an otherwise interesting article.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Ron Paul ... see full article at link.
Click to View Link
Congressman Ron Paul
(Later to run for President on Republican ticket)
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002
(eight years ago! Much worse now don't you think?)
Is America a Police State?
Mr. Speaker: ... (snip)
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.
The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.
All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.
snip ----
See link for more.
Posted by Sovereignjims on 7/15/2010 10:54:24 AM
Islam, by its dogma, has declared a long war on the west---conducted since 7th century with dogma advised truces when warranted---with their new tactic of infiltration, breeding and terrorism.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Is untrue. Religion with state power is a belief system, not a weapon of war. Without the state Islam is no more harmful than Judaism or Catholicism.
Posted by NanoFly on 7/15/2010 11:27:24 AM
@ K. Honeyager
"Where are you getting your information?? The bias in this statement is offensive ...." You might wish to Google "police brutality " Video" for about 1.5M hits.
Posted by Veritas on 7/15/2010 11:35:04 AM
@ K. Honeyager
Sometimes, the truth hurts. Surely, you cannot challenge the "lining up at airports to be irradiated" portion of the DB comments. If you do , simply conduct an internet search on the radiation levels emitted by whole body scanners (which are higher than the TSA states). Add to that the frustration of having to submit to being viewed in the buff by public employees whenever one wants to board a commercial flight. Additionally, the scanning technology employed is not as effective in identifying inert modern explosives as the powers-that-be would have us think. Again, a simple internet search will reveal a wealth of credible articles on the subject.
As far as the over-application of tasers to members of the citizenry is concerned, it is simply a matter of public record. I typically read a couple of articles per week in which the police have unleashed their tasers on such violent criminals as eighty year old bed-ridden women and ten year old children. The public has been desensitized into believing tasers are harmless. These "harmless devices" have killed three hundred sixty people in the U.S.A. since 2001.
Patently absurd? No way.
Posted by Ken on 7/15/2010 11:55:48 AM
The war thing won't gain them any extra credibility here in the US of A. What will they gain from an Iran war that they don't already have from Iraq and Afghanistan? They've beat the "support the troops" drum so hard they've put a tear in the drumskin.
Posted by Javawerks on 7/15/2010 2:12:29 PM
With the USD likely to collapse this year or next, how would the US pay for the 'long' war? Just curious.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Good question.
Posted by Sovereignjim on 7/15/2010 3:41:17 PM
@ Daily Bell
9/11 was conducted by Islamic Saudi nationals, without opposition from the State of Saudi Arabia. The American military officer slaughtered many in Texas in the name of Islam without official Islamic state support, and on and on and on.
What state supported the Islamic invasion of Spain and then France? By saying, that the invasions of lands from Mohammed's home to the Mediterranean, then North Africa, Balkans and up to Vienna twice are not invasions by Islam, you ignore history, the Koran and Mohammed's sayings.
The only thing you can use to call Islam a religion and not a conquering-by-war-cult is that it refers to an evil creation Mohammed's that he called a God. Islam is not a creation of a state. States that support the killing of innocent non Muslims are the creation of Islam. Your unrealistic use of the words war and religion do NOT fit with reality.
I agree with what you say about the miss-use of war by states. What I think what you miss is that the weakness of Islamic states' war fighting abilities, as shown by failed state attacks on Israel, has led Islam, as a cult, to adopt the new non traditional war tactics.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
"9/11 was conducted by Islamic Saudi nationals, without opposition from the State of Saudi Arabia."
Are you sure about this? Aren't a number of the supposed terrorists still alive?
Click to View Link
BBC News ...
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. ...
He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.
But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.
Posted by B.Benhamid on 7/15/2010 3:47:56 PM
It becomes more and more clear that Israel and its compliant US Congress care nothing for the rights of other nations as their promotion of agressive action against Iran proclaim, a virtual mirror process that brought about the war agaist Iraq, the world communities must face the reality that the US cannot control Israel nor its own policies. Therefore, the UN must assert its responsibility for all its menmber states and resolve a conflict that has plagued the World for the past 60 years.
It is time illusion gives way to reality.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Is UN an illusion?
Posted by Sovereignjim on 7/15/2010 4:51:57 PM
@ B.Benhamid
Where were you when the Islamic states attacked Israel in an attempt to destroy the UN mandated new state?
Posted by Biresh on 7/15/2010 11:53:12 PM
The New World Order elite want a big war. They may vacillate initially but the worsening economic scenario may force them to drag the world to war. And consequences will be devastating. However, if the elite continue with their statist (socialism for the rich is good for everyone) economic policies, war would be inevitable.
Posted by Clayton on 7/16/2010 4:08:29 AM
I think the increase in "talking the War" began after the failure of the US and the UK to push their reflation agenda during the recent G20 meeting. In the complex of energy politics, Europe has two sources, the Middle East and Russia. Iran has sizable contracts with the Chinese. Control over Iran puts Europe in the position of having to turn to Russia, or do the bidding of the Anglo/American Power Elite.
Reflation coordination is one of the immediate central objectives of the Power Elite. Currency hedges are such a critical element to the success of this reflation effort that the decline in the purchasing power of the various paper moneys must remain relatively even so as to mask the depreciation effort underway. The Germans have been creating a lot of friction in this regard. The Germans have been the favorite whipping boy of the last hundred years. So, we should be watching the 132 level on the Euro very closely.
Much has been said lately about the new large finds of petroleum in the West Central part of the US. So ponder the circumstances that might evolve should we turn off the spigot in the Middle East (not our friends, the Saudis, etc. of course) and then, secure in our new found energy independence, turn on the Europeans and others not inclined to "tow the line." I know that this sounds a bit like Science Fiction, but the operators in DC and NYC, as well as London (not to mention Tokyo) are not happy with the push back they received from their colleagues at the G20.
Finally, I think that the US Military is not prepared for this adventure. If it occurs, the operation will be hopelessly undermanned. We will create chaos and in the end have to rely on locals with their own particular axes to grind to maintain any sort of order on the ground. Much of what transpires will quickly descend into the realm of the ad hoc.
I think we would do well to pay particular attention to the Kurdish issue and the spill over effects on Turkey. Iran has a sizable Kurdish population who would want to break away from the control of Persians and join their kinsmen in the semi-autonomous Kurdish parts of Northern Iraq. This could lead to the creation of a sort of critical mass in the establishing a true Kurdish State.
The Azeris in Northwestern Iran might have similar wishes with regard to their kinsmen in Azerbaijan. Then there are the tribal areas in the South and the Baluchis, who are currently divided between Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When you think of all the uncertainties involved, you can see why certain elements in the intelligence community are eager to get it all going. The potential for intrigue makes this a career factory for spooks. And of course there is the near certainty of numerous bribes and payoffs and the associated money laundering necessary. The CIA could offer a second life to many of the financial crooks who have been displaced by the recent crisis on Wall Street.
A hundred more years of this kind of thing and what we think of as Civilization will largely disappear.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Well done!
You write: "But the operators in DC and NYC, as well as London (not to mention Tokyo) are not happy with the push back they received from their colleagues at the G20."
You know this how?
Posted by AmanfromMars on 7/16/2010 9:08:29 AM
"When you think of all the uncertainties involved, you can see why certain elements in the intelligence community are eager to get it all going. The potential for intrigue makes this a career factory for spooks. And of course there is the near certainty of numerous bribes and payoffs and the associated money laundering necessary. The CIA could offer a second life to many of the financial crooks who have been displaced by the recent crisis on Wall Street" .... Posted by Clayton on 7/16/2010 4:08:29 AM
Do you think that it is now Dept of Defense/Special Forces policy to target the heads of corrupt banking systems, so that they can place their proxies in vacated positions in order to rule differently, without the danger of war being thrust upon them and innocents, by such perverse and subversive third parties?
And would that be a better strategy than the present one of attacking ghosts in foreign lands, and creating whole nations as new enemies?
Such a change would be easily exercised by a Military with IT and Command and Control Powers which are equally easily Para-Militarised to deliver Civil Order. From Pariah to Hero in just a few Small Simple Steps for a Man, and a Quantum Leap for Mankind.
It is certainly a much smarter option than thinking to start another dumb war to support a corrupt failed System and puts Power in the hands and hearts and minds of those who are equipped to deliver a disciplined assist to any eventuality.
Posted by AmanfromMars on 7/16/2010 9:26:55 AM
Hmmmm? ..... Click to View Link />
Pure coincidence, of course, and nothing to do with the above ..... Honest.
Posted by Sovereignjim on 7/16/2010 10:23:07 AM
Daily Bell;
Tricky non opposition to my arguments. Next I expect you to respond with "Islam is a religion of peace". I guess that somewhere in the trail of the money that supports Daily Bell is Islamic oil money.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
You decline to address the facts and cast aspersions instead.
Posted by Victor Barney on 7/16/2010 11:05:57 AM
Building the Long War? True; but this war started a long time ago in Chicago by the weatherman black revolution by two white guys(talk about racism(Bill Ayers was one), but it's also about Marxism(anti-messiah))to elect a black President from Chicago and use his veto power in the UN and Africa(70% of countries in UN, which already has a Marxist Charter, if you didn't know!)to have blacks rule over white men in America through the UN! This is common history! They were considered "terrorists" then, but now have overthrown our government by this Terrorist Black Marxists revolution! I'm sure that you have heard about this time when good is called evil and evil is called good! As the Old Covenant Prophet Daniel predicted, a people from a small world population(Blacks are 11 1/2% of the world's population and the smallest in number of all races) will rule the world at the end of man's time! In addition, blacks always have committed 97 1/2% of violent crimes in America; but almost totally against themselves(until what's coming?)! Jacob's punishment is soon to begin for 3 1/2 years lead by the Two-Witnesses of Revelation! Watch! PS: No wonder because America is actually "Israel" by the seed of Joseph(Gen. 48:16)! Looks like the "Anti-messiah" of Revelation also has identified himself also by promising to "fundamentally transform" our system of government into Marxism(anti-messiah by definition) and "we the people***" actually voted him in office despite his promise! No wonder "Jacob's trouble" must occur at the end! Again: Watch!
Posted by Michael Hodgkiss on 7/17/2010 10:27:25 AM
Here is the LPAC take.
LAROUCHEPAC:
Obamawatch, Empire
Is Madman Obama Going To Bomb Iran?
July 17, 2010 • 10:14AM
A flurry of propaganda has surfaced over the past 48 hours, indicating that, in the aftermath of the Obama-Netanyahu White House love-fest last week, the Obama Administration is seriously considering military action against Iran. If it were simply a matter of media black propaganda, the threat would be limited, at best, given U.S. military resistance to another Persian Gulf war. But, given the fact that the President is stark-raving mad, and given that several extremely well-informed Washington sources have confirmed a renewed consideration of an attack on Iran, coming directly from the White House, the matter has to be taken very seriously.
On July 15, Time magazine prominently featured a story by Joe Klein, headlined "An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table," in which it was reported that the Pentagon, for the first time, considers military action against Iran's nuclear program to be both feasible and possibly necessary. "Intelligence sources say that the U.S. Army's Central Command, which is in charge of organizing military operations in the Middle East, has made some real progress in planning targeted air strikes—aided, in large part, by vastly improved human-intelligence operations in the region," Klein wrote. He quoted an Israeli military source telling him, "There really wasn't a military option a year ago. But they've gotten serious about the planning and the option is now real." The source reported that the Israeli military has been consulted on the war planning, because the Obama Administration does not want Israel to act on its own, in attacking Iran. Klein added, "One other factor has brought the military option to a low boil: Iran's Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do it... Senior American officials who travel to the Gulf frequently say the Saudis, in particular, raise the issue with surprising ardor." Klein claimed that "For the moment, the White House remains as skeptical as ever about a military strike," but that, according to senior U.S. intelligence sources and one top Democrat, is no longer true. Reportedly, President Obama is personally talking about an attack on Iran, and views it as a potential boost for his 2012 reelection plans.
On July 15, the same day that the Klein story was posted, Spiegel Online published a very similar story under the headline "A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East," by Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand. They cited a strong push from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for an attack by the United States on Iran, regardless of the blowback. Spiegel noted the recent speech by UAE's Ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, at an Aspen, Colorado forum, in which he aggressively promoted American military action to knock out Iran's nuclear capabilities. "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster," the ambassador said, "but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster." While acknowledging that there would undoubtedly be a severe "backlash," "If you ask me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb that [it] takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Even Arnaud de Borchgrave, who, in recent years, has been a harsh critic of the Bush-Cheney preventive wars, and an opponent of military strikes on Iran, wrote on July 13 that "Global Sentiment Builds to Attack Iran." Citing the same Saudi and UAE statements that were reported by Time and Spiegel Online, de Borchgrave concluded: "The temptation for Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan that is bound to get worse and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Obama a three-front war and a chance to retain both houses of Congress."
Posted by K. Honeyager on 7/17/2010 10:37:53 AM
I surrender. Good points everyone. Thanks Daily Bell for such a comprehensive rebuttal.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
|
News & Analysis
Guest Editorials
Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire
|
Exclusive Interviews
|
|
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Daily Bell website.
|
|
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6_207x100.gif)