Does the banker-owned "U.S." government have the moral high-ground on nukes?

Author Topic: Does the banker-owned "U.S." government have the moral high-ground on nukes?  (Read 131386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Iranian Ayatollah: “War Within Weeks”
« Reply #200 on: August 01, 2012, 11:44:55 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/iranian-ayatollah-war-within-weeks.html

Iranian Ayatollah: “War Within Weeks”

Iran prepared for strike on nuclear facilities in September or October

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told top Iranian military chiefs to expect “war within weeks,” at a recent war council meeting, according to Israeli news outlet DebkaFile.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE5c_9reXz4

“While retaliation had been exhaustively drilled in regular military exercises in the past year, Khamenei ordered the biggest fortification project in Iran’s history to save its nuclear program from even the mightiest of America’s super-weapons. Rocks are being gathered from afar, piled on key nuclear installations, covered with many tons of poured concrete and finally plated with steel,” states the report.

Despite more substantive reports speculating that any decision to attack Iran on behalf of Israel had been delayed until spring 2013, a parallel narrative that a military strike could take place in September or October has been doing the rounds more recently.

Whether the DebkaFile report is accurate or not, Iran has finalized preparations for conflict with its recent announcement that plans for closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key choke point through which 33% of the world’s oil shipments pass every day, are now complete.

The United States responded last month by sending underwater sea drones that would find and destroy mines and prevent Iran from being able to block the Strait.

U.S. aircraft carriers Eisenhower and Enterprise remain stationed in the waters surrounding Iran supported by several smaller attack ships.

Although U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta denied reports that his upcoming trip to Israel would include discussions on a potential time frame for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, during a recent visit presidential candidate Mitt Romney signaled that he would back an assault by the Jewish state.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
US and Israel Use Propaganda and Proxy War in Syria to Pave Path Toward Iran
« Reply #201 on: September 08, 2012, 08:01:22 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-and-israel-use-propaganda-and-proxy-war-in-syria-to-pave-path-toward-iran.html

US and Israel Use Propaganda and Proxy War in Syria to Pave Path Toward Iran

Susanne Posel
Prisonplanet.com
Sept 7, 2012

Mohammed Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood member and current president of Egypt, warned Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down “before it’s too late”. At a meeting of the Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, Egypt, Morsi stated that he would not tolerate non-Arab influence in his country. He had harsh words for the “non-aligned movement” that he claims has taken over in Iran and gave his full support of the CIA-sponsored terrorist group, the Free Syrian Army, who are waging a proxy war in Syria on behalf of the US and Israel.

At the same meeting, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke harshly toward Assad claiming:

    The regime has become one of state terrorism. Syria is going through a huge humanitarian saga. Unfortunately, as usual, the international community is merely watching the slaughter, massacre and the elimination of Muslims.

Syria’s allies, Iran, Russia and China have publicly stated their support for the sovereign nation and condemned the Zionist attack aimed at forcing Assad out of presidency in order to install a pre-approved pasty to take over the country.

In the mainstream media, claims that Iran is arming Syria with military equipment with shipments flying over Iraq are lending to the propaganda campaign against Iran as the next target of the Obama and Netanyahu campaign to take over all Middle Eastern nations.

According to Mohsen Sazegara, an Iranian pro-democracy activist who lives in the US, the Iranian agenda is to help Syria remain independent. Sazegara condemns the US approach as he explains:

    Plan B is that, if they can’t keep him in power, they will try to make another Iraq or another Afghanistan – civil war – then you can create another Hezbollah.

Israeli media is reporting that the US is planning to “supply Israel with advanced Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-buster bombs that can penetrate through up to 60 feet (almost 20 meters) of reinforced concrete.”

These bombs have finished manufacture according to the Pentagon with the taxpayer price tag of more than $200 million for 30 bombs.

This “gift” would “make the job of demolishing Iran’s nuclear weapon production array more feasible for Israel, should it decide to do so.”

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Panetta: U.S. Will Attack Iran if It Decides to Build Nuke
« Reply #202 on: September 11, 2012, 04:00:29 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/panetta-u-s-will-attack-iran-if-it-decides-to-build-nuke.html

Panetta: U.S. Will Attack Iran if It Decides to Build Nuke

Kurt Nimmo
Prisonplanet.com
September 11, 2012

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Tuesday that if Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon the United States will take military action.

“We have the forces in place to be able to not only defend ourselves, but to do what we have to do to try to stop them from developing nuclear weapons,” he said.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the United States and Israel claim they believe the Islamic Republic is working toward building a nuclear weapon. Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran and has criticized the U.S. for fence-sitting.

The intelligence community in the U.S. released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in 2007 indicating Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. This resulted in the U.S. taking military action against Iran off the agenda.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline AllSight

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
@ Geolibertarian.

I really want to credit you big time.
I am somebody completely involved to geo politics, economics and all the other subjects discusses on truth sites as these. Regardless of my post count as I haven't been involved on this community as of yet.
Most of what you tell though is on general basis part of my wisdom. Being aware on a general basis that Al-Qaeda is U.S. government funded was once a first step for truth just to give an example.

However, you so accurately hand over all the details, hidden/unpopular news articles and the inside chess moves on the board. It gives me and others a whole battle/game and geopolitical report involving names, institutions, operations and more.

I really feel satisfied to read proper information of yours. Whenever I read your ports and/or click one of your directing website links in your threads. I read actual reports and transparent legitimacy to your claims to link the details together that even more so guarantee the general information of truth.

I hail you and I hope you and your team can steadily continue your spread of wisdom and your magnificent construct of posts.
I feel good that I can get insider details on the whole geo-political chess game available even although it takes some investigative reading.
Credits from me to you, and anybody next to you contributing to your job on this site.
I ""wish"" you a long and productive life ;)

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
@ Geolibertarian.

I really want to credit you big time.

Thanks.

Quote
I am somebody completely involved to geo politics, economics and all the other subjects discusses on truth sites as these. Regardless of my post count as I haven't been involved on this community as of yet. Most of what you tell though is on general basis part of my wisdom. Being aware on a general basis that Al-Qaeda is U.S. government funded was once a first step for truth just to give an example.

However, you so accurately hand over all the details, hidden/unpopular news articles and the inside chess moves on the board. It gives me and others a whole battle/game and geopolitical report involving names, institutions, operations and more.

Some call it "connecting the dots." Sort of like a jigsaw puzzle: if you put all the pieces together, one sees the big picture; if not, one sees only a confusing assortment of "disconnected facts" (to quote John Taylor Gatto).

Quote
I really feel satisfied to read proper information of yours. Whenever I read your ports and/or click one of your directing website links in your threads. I read actual reports and transparent legitimacy to your claims to link the details together that even more so guarantee the general information of truth.

That's the whole idea. It's disheartening that more people don't seem to fully appreciate this.

Quote
I ""wish"" you a long and productive life

And I, you -- and everyone else (including those not fond of me for whatever reason). But that wish won't come true for any of us if World War III breaks out. Hence this thread.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Former Insiders Criticize Iran Policy as US Hegemony
« Reply #205 on: March 02, 2013, 04:23:28 PM »
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2013/02/25/former-insiders-criticise-iran-policy-as-us-hegemony/

Former Insiders Criticize Iran Policy as US Hegemony

by Gareth Porter
February 26, 2013

Going to Tehran” arguably represents the most important work on the subject of U.S.-Iran relations to be published thus far.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett tackle not only U.S. policy toward Iran but the broader context of Middle East policy with a systematic analytical perspective informed by personal experience, as well as very extensive documentation.



More importantly, however, their exposé required a degree of courage that may be unparalleled in the writing of former U.S. national security officials about issues on which they worked. They have chosen not just to criticize U.S. policy toward Iran but to analyse that policy as a problem of U.S. hegemony.

Their national security state credentials are impeccable. They both served at different times as senior coordinators dealing with Iran on the National Security Council Staff, and Hillary Mann Leverett was one of the few U.S. officials who have been authorised to negotiate with Iranian officials.

Both wrote memoranda in 2003 urging the George W. Bush administration to take the Iranian “roadmap” proposal for bilateral negotiations seriously but found policymakers either uninterested or powerless to influence the decision. Hillary Mann Leverett even has a connection with the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), having interned with that lobby group as a youth.

After leaving the U.S. government in disagreement with U.S. policy toward Iran, the Leveretts did not follow the normal pattern of settling into the jobs where they would support the broad outlines of the U.S. role in world politics in return for comfortable incomes and continued access to power.

Instead, they have chosen to take a firm stand in opposition to U.S. policy toward Iran, criticising the policy of the Barack Obama administration as far more aggressive than is generally recognised. They went even farther, however, contesting the consensus view in Washington among policy wonks, news media and Iran human rights activists that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election in June 2009 was fraudulent.

The Leveretts’ uncompromising posture toward the policymaking system and those outside the government who support U.S. policy has made them extremely unpopular in Washington foreign policy elite circles. After talking to some of their antagonists, The New Republic even passed on the rumor that the Leveretts had become shills for oil companies and others who wanted to do business with Iran.

The problem for the establishment, however, is that they turned out to be immune to the blandishments that normally keep former officials either safely supportive or quiet on national security issues that call for heated debate.

In “Going to Tehran”, the Leveretts elaborate on the contrarian analysis they have been making on their blog (formerly “The Race for Iran” and now “Going to Tehran”) They take to task those supporting U.S. systematic pressures on Iran for substituting wishful thinking that most Iranians long for secular democracy, and offer a hard analysis of the history of the Iranian revolution.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Elitists Continue to Push For War With Iran
« Reply #206 on: March 14, 2013, 02:18:23 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/elitists-continue-to-push-for-war-with-iran.html

Elitists Continue to Push For War With Iran

James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
March 14, 2013

President Obama, who takes dictation from Bilderberg, has done an about-face. After having been critical of Israel’s expansionist wars in the past, he is visiting Israel for the first time March 20 to grovel apologies.

“This trip is a signal that the president has an interest in . . . the broader concerns that Israel is facing,” said Dennis Ross, a Bilderberg luminary and senior Middle East adviser in Obama’s first term. “It will be the president traveling to Israel to ask for a new beginning.” (He will also be “asking” for a Middle East war.)

In June 2009, Obama said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” in Palestinian lands after the 1967 invasion of Egypt and Golan heights. Obama had also been critical of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinian land, including killing and torturing men, old women and children. Now, Obama is embracing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and increasing aid to Israel. These heads of state will discuss military attacks on Iran to prevent the development of “nuclear weapons.”

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and promises not to develop nuclear weapons. Its facilities are inspected regularly. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades but refuses to sign onto international agreements that regulate nuclear weapons. Additionally, Israel refuses to allow nuclear inspectors a peek.

On March 1, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, an MIT-trained engineer, said the nuclear negotiations were “on the right track and moving in the right direction.

“Our case is neither like North Korea’s nor Libya’s,” Salehi said. “It will be resolved. We have nothing to hide and we have always been clean.”

The warmongers persist, however.

“Iran has a long track record for feints, misdirection and failure to deliver,” said Clifford Kupchan, a former State Department official and Middle East analyst for Eurasia Group, a consulting firm with Bilderberg ties.

During a March 4 reception in Washington, D.C., Bilderberg attendee Richard Perle was overheard by an AMERICAN FREE PRESS source pressing for war with the Persian country. Perle callously claimed that a war with Iran would only take “two or three days” and the U.S. military “would have low casualties.”

Perle is best known as one of the leading architects behind President George W. Bush’s war on Iraq, arguing that the U.S. military needed only 40K soldiers to take over the country. Ten years later, Perle has been proven wrong on Iraq. He is also wrong on Iran. A war against the Iranian people would be a disaster for America.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Obama Signals Iran Attack Ahead of Israel Visit
« Reply #207 on: March 15, 2013, 03:28:09 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-signals-iran-attack-ahead-of-israel-visit.html

Obama Signals Iran Attack Ahead of Israel Visit

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
March 15, 2013

Disregarding earlier statements made by U.S. and Israel intelligence, Obama told Israeli Channel 2 that it will take Iran a year to develop a nuclear weapon.

“Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” Obama said.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kduK_zajA0 (Obama-Iran more than a year from nuclear weapon)

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the Pentagon, leaders in the Israeli military and intelligence agencies in the United States and Israel have all concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, is not building a nuclear weapon, and has yet to decide if it will build one.

“The intelligence we have is they have not made the decision to proceed with the development a nuclear weapon,” outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in February. “I can’t tell you they are in fact pursuing a weapon, because that’s what not intelligence say they’re doing right now.”

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ-8ZuvdG78 (Panetta on Iran)

“They are not yet at the point I think where they’ve made a fundamental decision to get right with the international community,” Obama insisted, “but I do think that they’re recognizing that there’s a severe cost for them to continue on the path that they’re on and that there’s another door open.”

Obama is preparing to visit Israel next week where the building momentum to attack the Islamic Republic is expected to take center stage.

“When I’m consulting with Bibi, as I have over the last several years on this issue, my message to him will be the same as before: If we can resolve it diplomatically that is a more lasting solution,” Obama told the Israel television channel. “But if not, I continue to keep all options on the table.”

In early March, vice president Joe Biden issued a stern warning to Iran. “Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Period. End of discussion. Prevent — not contain – prevent,” Biden said during a speech delivered to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“Big nations can’t bluff. And presidents of the United States cannot and do not bluff. And President Barack Obama is not bluffing,” Biden said. “He is not bluffing.”

Obama said sanctions imposed on Iran are “having a significant effect” and will cause the Iranians to think twice about developing a nuclear weapon, according to ABC News.

In December, researcher Mehrnaz Shahabi wrote about the effect sanctions are having on the Iranian people. In addition to destroying the country’s economy and creating commodity shortages and unemployment, the sanctions have seriously effected the availability of drugs and the health of the population, Shahabi writes.

“The regime in power rarely feels the effects of sanctions,” adds Rich Rubino. “Instead, it is the average citizen who bears the burden of sanctions.”

Like the savage war waged on Iraq by George W. Bush and his father, the goal is not to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon the former Secretary of Defense and intelligence agencies in the United States and Israel say the country is not developing. It is designed to destroy the country and reduce it to failed state status in the same way Iraq was converted into a failed state riven by sectarian and political violence.

Like Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Chad, Iraq was considered on the edge to total collapse in 2008 following a 2003 invasion predicated on a weapons of mass destruction capability the country did not possess.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline eddy64

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
well Israel just apologised to turkey :-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/israel-apologises-gaza-flotilla-raid-150921217.html

Kurdish rebels want to make peace :-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/turkish-pm-says-kurdish-peace-moves-open-sabotage-151231319.html


those actions make me suspicious that an attack on iran is being planned soon.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous-crossroads-the-threat-of-a-pre-emptive-nuclear-war-directed-against-iran/5328466

Dangerous Crossroads: The Threat of a Pre-emptive Nuclear War directed against Iran

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, March 26, 2013
RT Op-Edge 25 March 2013

For more than a decade, Iran has been doggedly accused without evidence of developing nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic is relentlessly portrayed by the Western media as a threat to the security of Israel and of the Western World.



In a bitter irony, the assessment of America’s Intelligence Community concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities refutes the barrage of media disinformation as well as the bellicose statements emanating from the White House. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): “judges with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007, See also Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI))

    “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
     
    - We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
     
    - Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007)

In February 2011, The Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper (image right) – while presenting the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – intimated -with some hesitation – that the Islamic Republic was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons capabilities: “we do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”


 
The 2011 NIE largely confirms the findings undertaken by the US intelligence community in the 2007 NIE, which remains, according to The New York Times, “the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.”

Post 9/11 pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine
 
First formulated in the Bush administration’s 2002 ‘Nuclear Posture Review’, the pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine -integrated into the Global War on Terrorism – started to take shape in the immediate wake of the war on Iraq. A pre-emptive ‘defensive’ nuclear attack on Iran using tactical nuclear weapons was envisaged to annihilate the Islamic Republic’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/multibillion-dollar-war-budgets-proponents-of-first-strike-nuclear-war-against-iran-rob-billions-from-their-own-citizens/5334289

Multibillion Dollar War Budgets: Proponents of ‘First Strike’ Nuclear War against Iran Rob billions from their own Citizens

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 08, 2013
RT Op-Edge 10 April 2013



While the Pentagon’s modernization budget for the pre-emptive nuclear option is a modest ten billion dollars (excluding the outlay by NATO countries). the budget for upgrading the US arsenal of “strategic nuclear offensive forces” is a staggering $352 billion over ten years. (See Russell Rumbaugh and Nathan Cohn, “Resolving Ambiguity: Costing Nuclear Weapons,” Stimson Center Report, June 2012).

These multi-billion military outlays allocated to develop “bigger and better nuclear bombs” are financed by the massive economic austerity measures currently applied in US and NATO countries.

The war economy is largely funded by compressing all categories of civilian government expenditure. In the US, these refurbished state of the art nuclear bombs are largely funded by the dramatic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. America is a “Killer State”. The gamut of economic austerity measures impoverish the American people while generously funding the “Killer State” through multi-billion dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon et al.

War preparations to attack Iran are in “an advanced state of readiness”. Hi tech weapons systems including nuclear warheads are fully deployed.

At the height of an Economic Depression, “War is Good for Business”.

Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran, is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, the US-NATO military agenda also threatens Russia, China and North Korea.

The Western media, the Washington Think Tanks, the scientists and politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads threatens the future of humanity.

The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance.

The main actors in the Iran pre-emptive nuclear warfare

Thermo-nuclear weapons are deployed by the three “official” Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) of the Atlantic Alliance, namely the US, the UK and France. The official NWS status is established under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Five other NATO member countries (categorized under the NPT as “non-nuclear states”), namely Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, possess an arsenal of B61 tactical nuclear warheads or “mini-nukes” (Made in America) which are deployed under national military command and are targeted at Iran. The B61 can be delivered by a variety of different aircraft.

Are these five countries in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which they are signatories?

In relation to ongoing war plans, the US-NATO-Israel military alliance includes a total of nine countries which possess a nuclear weapons arsenal:

The three official NWS (US, UK, France) plus the five “Undeclared Nuclear States” (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey) plus the State of Israel (Undeclared Nuclear State). With the exception of Israel, these countries are signatories of the NPT.

Pre-emptive Nuclear Warfare

While reports tend to depict the tactical B61 bombs as a relic of the Cold war, the mini nukes are the preferred weapons system for pre-emptive nuclear war. Were an attack directed against Iran to be launched involving the deployment of B61 bunker buster nuclear bombs, these five countries, with Turkey and Italy in the forefront, would play a major strategic role.

The involvement of these five “non nuclear states” as major actors in a US sponsored pre-emptive nuclear war raises the issue of definition and categorization of nuclear weapons states. In the words of Time Magazine:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Can there be a moral high ground where weapons of mass destruction are concerned? Are we as men wise enough to foresee the repercussions caused by our actions, multi-generations into the future?

Man's heart is not pure as is evident by our everyday actions. Those who have the control of these weapons are men and as such are subject to all the sins and vices that befall everyone who is of flesh.

Lies upon lies throughout our history have clouded the collective conscience and by controlling knowledge have the masses been blinded.

Use of such weapons in any venue is monstrous, any such action should be ferreted out and if found the use was not the last resort, those responsible should be held accountable to the nth degree, lead that where it may.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline Dorrogeray

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
How about moral high ground on DU?

Of course, every such use is only a precedents in the making for a more massive use of such and even deadlier weapons in the future. Nobody would be talking nuking Iran if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not glassed back than. And back then they were glassed precisely so this class of weapons could be used more conveniently in the future.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Lindsey Graham Wants Attack on Iran by October
« Reply #213 on: July 25, 2013, 08:12:25 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lindsey-graham-wants-attack-on-iran-by-october.html

Lindsey Graham Wants Attack on Iran by October

Senator being blackmailed once again?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
July 25, 2013



Senator Lindsey Graham has vowed to introduce legislation in September or October to authorize a military attack on Iran.

“If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a resolution that will authorize the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb,” Graham told a “cheering” audience at a meeting of the Christians United for Israel organization.

“The only way to convince Iran to halt their nuclear program is to make it clear that we will take it out,” he added.

Graham made the threat despite the fact that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be replaced by Hasan Rouhani on August 4th, who is seen by many as a more moderate leader.

“The U.S. is no position to further extend its presence overseas, especially since Congress approved Obama’s initiative to support Syrian rebels by sending arms, ammunition, and perhaps anti-tank weaponry,” reports PolicyMic. “The U.S. is already indirectly dedicating resources to opposing Iran since they are supporting al-Assad’s forces, along with aid from Hezbollah. Potentially, if Graham’s initiative passes through Congress, both nations could end up preemptively clashing on Syria’s battleground. This would be a terrible outcome for the U.S., considering the significant amount of manpower and resources already allocated abroad and pressing economic issues at home.”

Political observers have often wondered why Lindsey Graham seems to side with the military-industrial complex and the political establishment on virtually every issue, from warmongering, to immigration, to eviscerating the bill of rights. He is accused by many of being a RINO, a Republican in name only, constantly siding with the Democratic Party on key issues despite being a Republican.

Many have alleged that Graham’s unrivaled capacity for being a water carrier for the establishment stems from him being blackmailed over his sexuality.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hiroshima-myth-unaccountable-war-crimes-and-the-lies-of-us-military-history/5344436

The Hiroshima Myth. Unaccountable War Crimes and the Lies of US Military History

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls
Global Research
July 31, 2013



This coming Tuesday, August 6, 2013, is the 68th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, the whole truth of which has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans celebrated V-J Day 10 days later.

In the pitiful history lessons that were taught by my uninspired/bored history teachers (which seemed to be mostly jocks) came from patriotic and highly censored books where everything the British and US military ever did in war time was honorable and self-sacrificing and everything their opponents did was barbaric. Everybody in my graduating class of 26 swallowed the post-war propaganda in our history books. It was from these books that we learned about the “glorious” end of the war against Japan.

Of course, I now know that I had been given false information, orchestrated by war-justifying militarists (and assorted uber-patiotic historians) starting with General Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur successfully imposed total censorship of what really happened at Ground Zero. One of his first acts after taking over as viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in 1995, the Smithsonian Institution was preparing to correct some the 50-year-old pseudo-patriotic myths by staging an honest, historically-accurate display dealing with the atomic bombings. Following the vehement, orchestrated, reactionary outrage emanating from right-wing veterans groups and other patriot groups (including Newt Gingrich’s GOP-dominated Congress that threatened to stop federal funding of the Institute), the Smithsonian was forced to censor-out all of the unwelcome but contextually important parts of the story. So again we had another example of politically-motivated groups heavily altering real history because they were afraid of revealing “unpatriotic” historical truths that might shake the confidence of average Americans in our leaders, sort of like the near-total media black-out about the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01 that killed thousands of innocent people and unleashed the dogs of war against innocents in Afghanistan (explore www.ae911truth.org for the  documentation of that assertion).


Nagasaki on August 9, 1945

The Smithsonian historians did have a gun to their heads, of course, but in the melee, the corporate-controlled mainstream media – and therefore the public – failed to learn an important historical point, and that is this: The war could have ended in the spring of 1945 without the summer atomic bombs, and therefore there might have been no Okinawa bloodbath for thousands of American Marines and soldiers. Also there would have been no need for an American land invasion of Japan – the basis of the subsequent propaganda campaign that justified the use of atomic weapons on defenseless civilian populations and meets the definition of an international war crime and a crime against humanity.

American intelligence, with the full knowledge of President Truman’s administration, was aware of Japan’s desperate search for ways to honorably surrender months before Truman gave the fateful order to incinerate Hiroshima.

Intelligence data, revealed in the 1980s, showed that the contingency plans for a large-scale US invasion (planned for no sooner than November 1, 1945) would have been unnecessary. Japan was working on peace negotiations through its Moscow ambassador as early as April of 1945. Truman knew of these developments because the US had broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty, especially deposing the Emperor) is the only obstacle to peace.”

Truman and his advisors knew about these efforts, and the war could have ended through diplomacy by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor Hirohito – who was regarded as a deity in Japan. That reasonable concession was – seemingly illogically – refused by the US in their demands for unconditional surrender, initially demanded at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill and reiterated at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill and Stalin. Still, the Japanese continued searching for an honorable peace through negotiations.

Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson felt that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.

After Japan did surrender, MacArthur allowed the emperor to remain in place as spiritual head of Japan, the very condition that coerced the Japanese leadership to refuse to accept the humiliating “unconditional surrender” terms.

So the two essential questions that need answering to comprehend what was going on behind the scenes are these:

    1) Why did the US refuse to accept Japan’s only demand concerning their surrender (the retention of the emperor) and

    2) why were the atomic bombs used when victory in the Pacific was already a certainty?

Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote:

    “The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam Declaration (insisting on Japan’s unconditional surrender) was made on July 26, 1945.”

Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There:

    “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombings, urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said:

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”

There are a number of factors that contributed to the Truman administration’s decision to use the bombs.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: American High School Textbooks Perpetuate The Big Lie
« Reply #215 on: August 02, 2013, 10:25:00 PM »
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-american-high-school-textbooks-perpetuate-the-big-lie/5344701

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: American High School Textbooks Perpetuate The Big Lie

By Pat Elder
Global Research, August 02, 2013
WarIsACrime.org



This summer the world will pause to commemorate the 68th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Most Americans are still supportive of Truman’s decision despite overwhelming historical evidence the bomb had “nothing to do with the end of the war,” in the words of Major General Curtis E. LeMay.

Americans suffer from a misinformation campaign initially perpetrated by the Truman administration and carried on to this day by high school textbooks that continue to tell the story as if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indispensible in ending the war and saving countless American lives. The historical record is clear, however.  As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

There is no hint of controversy regarding the decision to drop the bomb in the majority of texts in use in American classrooms and many textbooks contain blatant historical inaccuracies, but the greatest purveyor of historical mistruth is the U.S. Army’s  Leadership, Education and Training (LET 3) Custom Edition for Army JROTC. JROTC is the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. More than a half million American high school students are enrolled in JROTC classes nationwide.

JROTC students do more than march in uniform on the football field.  They study government (The unit on constitutional law is entitled “You the People”), and they study a “history” of sorts.    The JROTC treatment of Truman’s decision to drop the bomb is riddled with falsehoods and leaves students convinced that destroying those cities was the right thing to do.

Thanks to policymakers and military leaders of the era who have subsequently told their stories, we know today what transpired. We can also thank Professor Gar Alperovitz of the University of Maryland for a stellar academic career dedicated to analyzing American policy in this regard. Quite simply, President Truman dropped those bombs on a defeated Japan to tell the Russians and the world to back off. We had two bombs and we were going to use them.  In a typically cavalier fashion, Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander, U.S. Third Fleet remarked, “It was a mistake to ever drop [the bomb]. . .they had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. .”

Today we know:

·         The bombs weren’t needed to win the war. Every top U.S. military leader of the era has since stated that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily insignificant.

·         The idea that dropping the bombs saved a million American lives is completely fabricated.  The war against Japan could have been “won” without additional loss of life.

·         The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months.  They simply wanted to guarantee their emperor’s safety, a desire the Americans eventually allowed.

·         The Japanese would have unconditionally given up without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the Soviet Union entered the war.

·         The bombing was not so much the last military chapter of the Second World War as it was the first Chapter of the Cold War.

The authors of the JROTC course book grapple with the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan within the context of an ethical case study where students discuss ethical choices and consequences inherent in a series of historical events. Rather than presenting an unbiased version of events, the discussion is tainted by a strong preference toward bombing Japan, complete with falsehoods and inexcusable omissions.

The JROTC text packages all the most prevalent misperceptions regarding Truman’s decision into one outrageous historical account. The U.S. Army is teaching high school students that using atomic weaponry was necessary to forestall a costly invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have cost a million American lives. The text leaves the impression that the Japanese military in mid-1945 was extraordinarily powerful and that the Japanese were fanatical in their resolve to resist. The text also perpetrates the falsehood that the top brass supported the bombing when in fact all of the top brass subsequently came out to object to its use. Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the Army’s version of events distorts the complex geostrategic mix involving the Soviets.

The Army text leaves out Japanese attempts to surrender. The book makes no mention of the prior agreements to bring the Soviets into the war against Japan or the Soviet declaration of war on August 8th. The JROTC text fails to recognize that Japanese power quickly disintegrated during the first 6 months of 1945, especially after the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killing more than 300,000 people, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The book doesn’t describe absolute American control of Japanese skies in the summer of 1945.

Consider the following selections from Leadership, Education and Training 3:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
CIA Admits It Hired People to Impersonate Enemies and Commit Terrorism in Iran
« Reply #216 on: August 21, 2013, 09:34:08 AM »
http://www.globalresearch.ca/state-of-israel-charged-for-crime-of-genocide-and-war-crimes-kuala-lumpur-tribunal/5346375

CIA Admits It Hired People to Impersonate Enemies and Commit Terrorism in Iran

By Washington's Blog
Global Research
August 19, 2013



he news that the CIA has admitted that it helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected president in 1953 has gone viral.

In reality, the CIA admitted that a long time ago.  Indeed, the bigger story is that the CIA admitted that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

Indeed, governments from around the world admit they carry out this sort of subterfuge:

*  A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

*  Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

*  The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special

*  As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order
« Reply #217 on: October 15, 2013, 12:02:51 PM »
http://www.globalresearch.ca/missing-nukes-treason-of-the-highest-order/7158

Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
October 29, 2007

Missing Nukes on August 29-30, 2007

According to a wide range of reports, several nuclear bombs were “lost” for 36 hours after taking off August 29/30, 2007 on a “cross-country journey” across the U.S., from U.S.A.F Base Minot in North Dakota to U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale in Louisiana. Reportedly, in total there were six W80-1 nuclear warheads armed on AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs) that were “lost.” The story was first reported by the Military Times, after military servicemen leaked the story.



It is also worth noting that on August 27, 2007, just days before the "lost" nukes incident, three B-52 Bombers were performing special missions under the direct authorization of General Moseley, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. The exercise was reported as being an aerial information and image gathering mission. The base at Minot is also home of the 91st Space Wings, a unit under the command of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC).

According to official reports, the U.S. Air Force pilots did not know that they were carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Once in Louisiana, they also left the nuclear weapons unsecured on the runway for several hours.

U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Requirements, Major-General Richard Y. Newton III commented on the incident, saying there was an “unprecedented” series of procedural errors, which revealed “an erosion of adherence to weapons-handling standards.”

These statements are misleading. The lax security was not the result of procedural negligence within the U.S. Air Force, but rather the consequence of a deliberate tampering of these procedures.

If a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor were even to be issued a rifle and rifle magazine — weaponry of a far lesser significance, danger, and cost — there is a strict signing and accountability process that involves a chain of command and paperwork. This is part of the set of military checks and balances used by all the services within the U.S. Armed Forces.

Military servicemen qualified to speak on the subject will confirm that there is a stringent nuclear weapons handling procedure. There is a rigorous, almost inflexible, chain of command in regards to the handling of nuclear weapons and not just any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is allowed to handle nuclear weapons. Only servicemen specialized in specific handling and loading procedures, are perm certified to handle, access and load nuclear warheads.

Every service personnel that moves or even touches these weapons must sign a tracking paper and has total accountability for their movement. There is good reason for the paperwork behind moving these weapons. The military officers that order the movement of nuclear weapons, including base commanders, must also fill out paper forms.

In other words, unauthorized removal of nuclear weapons would be virtually impossible to accomplish unless the chain of command were bypassed, involving, in this case, the deliberate tampering of the paperwork and tracking procedures.

The strategic bombers that carried the nuclear weapons also could not fly with their loaded nuclear weaponry without the authorization of senior military officials and the base commander. The go-ahead authorization of senior military officials must be transmitted to the servicemen that upload the nuclear weapons. Without this authorization no flights can take place.

In the case of the missing nukes, orders were given and flight permission was granted. Once again, any competent and eligible U.S. Air Force member can certify that this is the standard procedure.

There are two important questions to be answered in relation to the "lost" nukes incident:

1. Who gave the order to arm the W80-1 thermonuclear warheads on the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs)? At what level in the military hierarchy did this order originate? How was the order transmitted down the command chain?

2. If this was not a procedural error, what was the underlying military-political objective sought by those who gave the orders?

The Impossibility of "Losing" Nuclear Weapons

As Robert Stormer, a former U.S. lieutenant-commander in the U.S. Navy, has commented: “Press reports initially cited the Air Force mistake of flying nuclear weapons over the United States in violation of Air Force standing orders and international treaties, while completely missing the more important major issues, such as how six nuclear cruise missiles got loose to begin with.”

Stormer also makes a key point, which is not exactly a secret: “There is a strict chain of custody for all such weapons. Nuclear weapons handling is spelled out in great detail in Air Force regulations, to the credit of that service. Every person who orders the movement of these weapons, handles them, breaks seals or moves any nuclear weapon must sign off for tracking purposes.”

Stormer continues:

“Two armed munitions specialists are required to work as a team with all nuclear weapons. All individuals working with nuclear weapons must meet very strict security standards and be tested for loyalty — this is known as a ‘[Nuclear Weapons] Personnel Reliability Program [DoDD 5210 42].’ They work in restricted areas within eyeshot of one another and are reviewed constantly.”

Stormer unwraps the whole Pentagon cover-up by pointing out some logical facts and military procedures. First he reveals that: “All security forces assigned [to handle and protect nuclear weapons] are authorized to use deadly force to protect the weapons from any threat [including would-be thieves].”

He then points out a physical reality that can not be shrugged aside: “Nor does anyone quickly move a 1-ton cruise missile — or forget about six of them, as reported by some news outlets, especially cruise missiles loaded with high explosives.”

He further explains another physical and procedural reality about nuclear weapons assembly:

“The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft. The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository — not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations.”

This last point raises the question of what were the nuclear weapons meant for? In this context, Stomrer puts forth the following list of important questions to which he demands an answer:

1. Why, and for what ostensible purpose, were these nuclear weapons taken to Barksdale?
2. How long was it before the error was discovered?
3. How many mistakes and errors were made, and how many needed to be made, for this to happen?
4. How many and which security protocols were overlooked?
5. How many and which safety procedures were bypassed or ignored?
6. How many other nuclear command and control non-observations of procedure have there been?
7. What is Congress going to do to better oversee U.S. nuclear command and control?
8. How does this incident relate to concern for reliability of control over nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia, Pakistan and elsewhere?
9. Does the Bush administration, as some news reports suggest, have plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons?

It is a matter of perception, whether it is “clear” or “unclear”, as to why the nuclear warheads had not been removed beforehand from the missiles.

For those who have been observing these series of “unclear” events it is becoming “clear” that a criminal government is at the helm of the United States. There was no way that the six nuclear missiles could have been “mistakenly” loaded, especially when their separate warheads had to be affixed to the missiles by individuals specialized in such a momentous task.

It is also being claimed that military teams in both U.S.A.F. Base Minot and U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale made major "procedural errors". What are the probabilities of this occurring simultaneously in two locations?

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
The Hypocrisy Behind the Iran Nuclear Agreement
« Reply #218 on: April 03, 2015, 11:30:02 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-hypocrisy-behind-the-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

The Hypocrisy Behind the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Few mention U.S. use of nukes on civilians and Israel’s stockpile of bombs

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
April 3, 2015

Following the nuclear deal reached in Switzerland, The New York Times editorial board said the “preliminary agreement between Iran and the major powers is a significant achievement that makes it more likely Iran will never be a nuclear threat.”

The Times is the crown jewel of establishment propaganda, so it stands to reason it would mangle the truth to fit the agenda. Its editorial board continues:
    There is good reason for skepticism about Iran’s intentions. Although it pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons when it ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, it pursued a secret uranium enrichment program for two decades. By November 2013, when serious negotiations with the major powers began, Iran was enriching uranium at a level close to bomb-grade.
Iran has thus far enriched uranium at 20 percent. It takes 90 percent highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.

Obama Administration Admits Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapon

Following the success of the Joint Plan of Action to curb Iran’s nuclear program last year, Secretary of State John Kerry said:
    Since its implementation, Iran has complied with its obligations to neutralize its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium; cap its stockpile of 5 percent enriched uranium; not install advanced centrifuges; not install or test new components at its Arak reactor; and submit to far more frequent inspections of its facilities.
“Iran will further reduce the capacity of that enriched uranium to be used by turning it into fuel for the research reactor, which makes it almost impossible to be used in a weapon,” Kerry told Fox News. “In addition, we have inspectors in their facilities every single day. In addition to that, they have not been able to move forward on the Arak plutonium heavy water reactor.”

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline jerryweaver

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,430
Iran’s Been Two Years Away From a Nuclear Weapon for Three Decades
« Reply #219 on: April 03, 2015, 01:22:15 PM »
Iran’s Been Two Years Away From a Nuclear Weapon for Three Decades

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=113331

Offline Dude447

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,143
Iran this Iran that. The BS and hypocracy is staggering .

Offline Dude447

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,143
IMHO apart from being on the over throw hit list . Iran still has to pay for Prez Carter's failed hostage rescue debacle. Its Iraq all over again in a slightly different form

Offline jerryweaver

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,430
This has changed with the rise of NEO CONS in DC and London Televiv etc. 

The shift in US policies hasn't gone unnoticed by the rest of the world.

The Most Realistic Cold War Game Is a Boredom Simulator

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-most-realistic-cold-war-game-is-a-boredom-simulator



ICBM is an historically accurate Cold War simulator, and we're all still here, and therein lies the joke in a game released on April 1.

It's November 1, 1983, and with tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States running high as ever, it's a bad day to be 1st Lt. Evans, a deputy missile combat crew commander (missileer) stationed at the Ellsworth Air Force Base in North Dakota. When humanity finally decides to burn this mother down, Evans and three of his comrades will be the ones who simultaneously turn the keys that launch the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with W78 thermonuclear warheads that will end the world.

For now, though, nothing is happening. Evans has a cold cup of coffee and orders to stand by. He watches the digital clock tick away in front of him while he waits for his eight hour shift to end.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Iran deal averts war; neocons furious
« Reply #223 on: July 17, 2015, 03:50:02 PM »
On the one hand we have Webster Tarpley -- a long-time advocate of New Deal economics, and one of the most vocal critics of Austrian School libertarianism in the country. On the other hand we have Justin Raimondo -- a long-time supporter of Ron Paul, and one of the most vocal supporters of Austrian School libertarianism (particularly from the point of view of Murray Rothbard) in the country.

Despite their obvious ideological differences, very few people in the alternative media have as much "street creds" as those two gentlemen when it comes to being both anti-Bush and anti-Obama.

Thus, when Tarpley and Raimondo find themselves united in disagreement with every single Republican presidential candidate on an issue as important as Iran, it would be wise for those who pride themselves in being intellectually free from "false paradigms" to question just whose interests those Republican candidates are truly serving.

"This [warmonger rhetoric] is what you're going to hear. The opponents of peace and normal commercial economic development are scraping the bottom of the barrel for bankrupt arguments to bring out -- ad hominem, crazy, wild charges flailing in every direction. Get used to it. You'll be hearing that from the Republican presidential candidates here in the United States."



http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/07/14/victory-in-vienna/

Victory in Vienna

Iran deal averts war – and opens up an new era in US foreign policy

by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
July 15, 2015

The historic agreement signed by the P5+1 and the government of Iran marks a turning point in America’s relations with the world. It reverses the momentum of nearly fifteen years of constant warfare and puts us on a path to peace.

In terms of our relations in the Middle East, the agreement means the United States government has finally decided to pursue an independent foreign policy: Washington is no longer taking its marching orders from Tel Aviv. The Vienna accord is, in effect, our declaration of independence – and it came not a moment too soon.

As the Obama administration packs up shop in Washington, and the reform regime of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani weathers attacks from Iranian hardliners, the window of opportunity was beginning to close: this was the last chance for peace in the Middle East.

The more than one hundred pages of the agreement outline an accord rich in technical complexity – which none of its critics have had time or inclination to examine. That hasn’t stopped them from denouncing it as a “bad deal,” and a “sell out,” echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost word for word. Practically frothing at the mouth, presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said the deal is “akin to declaring war on Israel.”

Graham is right that war has been declared, but he has the aggressor all wrong: it is Israel that has declared war on the United States. This conflict has been ongoing for many months: we have seen it played out in the headlines, from Joe Biden’s ambush in Jerusalem to Bibi’s and John Boehner’s ambush of the President in going behind the White House’s back to arrange the Prime Minister’s speech to a joint session of Congress. Now, finally, an American President has said “Enough!” – and fired back. From all indications, he’s scored a direct hit.

So what’s in the Vienna accord?

The key provisions are the verification procedures described in the agreement, and these are virtually foolproof. The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” calls for:

“[A] long-term IAEA presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced by Iran from all uranium ore concentrate plants for 25 years; containment and surveillance of centrifuge rotors and bellows for 20 years; use of IAEA approved and certified modern technologies including on-line enrichment measurement and electronic seals; and a reliable mechanism to ensure speedy resolution of IAEA access concerns for 15 years.”

What’s not to like? IAEA inspectors will be on the scene: if the Iranians try to cheat, they’ll be caught in no time at all.

What about the sanctions issue? All sanctions are being lifted – but only after the IAEA verifies that Iran has held to its side of the bargain (See points 18 and 19 of the Plan of Action).

The two essential elements of any Iranian nuclear weapons program have been effectively nullified by this agreement.

First, in order to create a nuclear weapon Tehran would require highly enriched uranium. In signing the deal, the Iranians have agreed to reduce their stockpile of uranium by 98 percent. In addition, they’ve agreed to not go over an enrichment of 3.67 percent, far below the level required to produce a workable weapon.

Secondly, the Iranians would need a large number of sophisticated centrifuges in order to produce that highly enriched uranium. Under the terms of the deal, Tehran has agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges from almost 20,000 to 6,104 of the most outmoded models, a restriction put in place for a decade.

IAEA inspectors will have access to all Iranian nuclear facilities and any Iranian military base where there is reason to suspect illicit activities: in case of a disagreement between the parties on access, a mediation board has been set up, and its decisions are final.

The Arak nuclear reactor is being dismantled and rebuilt in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Plan of Action: once this process is completed under international supervision it will be impossible for that reactor to produce weapons-grade material.

As for the Fordow nuclear facility, Iran will “refrain from any uranium enrichment and uranium enrichment R&D and from keeping any nuclear material” at this site.

In short, all possible paths to an Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked. Since any violation will be quickly detected, and given that the alternative is almost certainly the rapid development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal, there is no reason for any rational person to oppose this agreement.

The problem, however, is that its opponents aren’t rational people – they’re Israeli sock-puppets who, for reasons of their own, are determined to sabotage the deal no matter what. They oppose it precisely because it is practically foolproof, and we can see this in the text of the Plan of Action itself:

“Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons…

“Successful implementation of this JCPOA will enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in line with its obligations therein, and the Iranian nuclear programme will be treated in the same manner as that of any other non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT…

“The E3/EU+3 and Iran acknowledge that the NPT remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”


Note the legal framework upon which the agreement rests: the Nonproliferation Treaty, signed by 191 nations. Only four United Nations member states have refrained from becoming a party to this foundational treaty: Pakistan, India, Sudan – and Israel. The Vienna agreement underscores Israel’s outlaw status in the nuclear realm: Tel Aviv’s defiance stands in stark contrast to Tehran’s willingness to come in from the cold and join the community of nations in opposing the spread of nuclear weapons. From this point on, tremendous pressure will be brought to bear on the Israelis to come clean and agree to a similarly foolproof regime – which they will never do.

This is the real reason for Israel’s adamant opposition to the deal: their desire to maintain nuclear hegemony in the region. Now that Iran’s nuclear program has been brought to heel by international pressure, the Israelis are afraid that international pressure on them to do the same will commence. They are right to be afraid, just as the rest of the world is right to be afraid of the fact that Netanyahu’s finger is on the nuclear button: he could vaporize Tehran with a single command.

This is where the real danger of war – nuclear war – is situated: in Tel Aviv, not Tehran. And that horrific fact was brought home in Netanyahu’s furious response to the news out of Vienna: “Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran, because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves.” Buttressing this thinly-disguised threat, the Washington Post reported Bibi’s hard-line coalition partner Naftali Bennett’s response: “‘Israel will defend itself,’ Bennett warned, vowing that military action is still an option for the Jewish State.”

And Israel’s war against America has a nonmilitary aspect, as well, with Israel’s deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely declaring: “The State of Israel will employ all diplomatic means to prevent confirmation of the agreement.”

Yet the Israel lobby, weakened after a series of defeats, hasn’t got the votes in Congress to overturn the Vienna deal. Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, and you can bet they’ll be making a lot of noise in those two deafening months, but this time Israel’s American fifth column has been checkmated – and that marks another seismic shift.

Years ago, when Patrick J. Buchanan described Congress as “Israeli-occupied territory,” he was right on the mark: these days, however, it’s quite a different story. The Israel lobby’s unreasonableness, its dogmatic shrillness, and the viciousness with which it pursues its perceived enemies has created a backlash that has ultimately proved to be their undoing. Their hubris has undermined their legendary power – along with the objective fact that US and Israeli interests have diverged. All their tantrums and threats will come to naught, because in the end the American people don’t want to go to war with Iran – and certainly not in order to please Israel’s partisans.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Iran deal averts war; neocons furious
« Reply #224 on: July 17, 2015, 04:11:35 PM »
http://theantimedia.org/rand-paul-is-not-a-libertarian-hes-a-liar/

Rand Paul is Not a Libertarian. He’s a Liar.

The Anti Media
Naji Dahi
July 16, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) A core value of libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression. As explained by economist Walter Block,

“The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.”

When applied to foreign policy, the non-aggression principle means one state may not commit an act of aggression against another state unless the first state was attacked. Why? Because an unprovoked attack destroys the property of others. Moreover, state aggression expands state power, which is the opposite of small and minimal government that libertarians cherish. As Murray Rothbard noted,

“The libertarian position, generally, is to minimize State power as much as possible, down to zero, and isolationism is the full expression in foreign affairs of the domestic objective of whittling down State power. In other words, interventionism is the opposite of isolationism, and of course it goes on up to war, as the aggrandizement of State power crosses national boundaries into other States, pushing other people around.”

No one carried the standard of non-aggression in foreign policy more forcefully than former Representative Ron Paul from Texas, a libertarian icon. When he was in office, he consistently voted against almost every unprovoked foreign intervention the U.S. waged. He even called the U.S. sanctions on Iran for its alleged building of a nuclear bomb an act of war, doing so in the midst of the 2011 Republican presidential primary elections in Iowa. He was a fearless statesman and not just another politician.

The big news of this week has been the agreement between the P5+1 countries (the permanent five U.N. security council members plus Germany) and Iran to radically scale back Iran’s nuclear research program in exchange for the removal of crippling economic sanctions against Iran.

As expected, all of the Republican candidates lined up against the agreement. Even libertarian Republican candidate Senator Rand Paul perplexingly opposed the agreement, thereby violating the main libertarian principle of non-aggression. Not only that—he flat out lied about the content of the agreement. As Politico reported,

…”the Kentucky senator said his three concerns were: 1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran…I will, therefore, vote against the agreement,”

First, sanctions relief does not precede evidence of compliance. Sanctions relief comes after the IAEA inspectors verify Iran’s implementation of the agreement. It should take until mid-December to verify compliance by IAEA inspectors. As the text of the agreement states,

“The EU will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation, as subsequently amended, implementing all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions, including related designations, simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran as specified in Annex V, which cover all sanctions and restrictive measures in the following areas, as described in Annex II.”[emphasis added]

Second, Iran is not left with significant nuclear capacity. The agreement reduces the number of centrifuges Iran is permitted to have from the current 20,000 to 6,100. That is a 69.5% reduction in the number of centrifuges, making the country’s capabilities insignificant. Furthermore, Iran must use first generation centrifuges (IR1), which will further reduce its capacity to enrich uranium. According to NPR,

“The agreement also calls for Iran to give up most of its centrifuges. Under the deal, Iran would go from having 20,000 centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, to having 6,104 for the next 10 years. Under the deal, Iran also agrees to give up its most advanced centrifuges and use only their oldest models.”

Third, the agreement does not immediately lift the ban on the sale of advanced weapons to Iran. It will take between five to eight years to lift the ban. As the Washington Post reported,

“On conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, negotiators split the difference between lifting current U.N. prohibitions and keeping them indefinitely in place. The new U.N. resolution will include an ongoing eight-year missile ban and continuing prohibitions on most conventional weapons sales for five years.” [emphasis added]

One would expect a libertarian to adhere to the non-aggression principle by supporting an agreement that would lessen the likelihood of a war (which would inevitably damage private property) between the U.S. and Iran. One would expect the son of principled statesman Ron Paul to walk in his father’s footsteps. One would expect a statesman not to lie about the contents of an agreement that is now public record. Alas, Rand Paul is not a statesman and he is not his father. He is simply another lying politician.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Iran deal averts war; neocons furious
« Reply #225 on: July 17, 2015, 05:05:28 PM »
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/aipac-anti-iranian-propaganda-at-congress.html

AIPAC: Anti-Iranian Propaganda at Congress

by DavidSwanson
Washington's Blog
July 15, 2015

AIPAC’s statement on Iran inspires me to make a graphic:



Here’s AIPAC’s statement:

“AIPAC Statement on Proposed Iran Nuclear Agreement

“AIPAC has consistently supported diplomatic efforts to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program,”


Except when lobbying for ever greater sanctions that would have blocked the negotiations, and even for a US commitment to jump into any Israeli-Iranian war. Here’s a brief history in the form of activist opposition to AIPAC.

“and we appreciate the commitment and dedication of President Obama and his administration throughout these negotiations. Unfortunately, this proposed agreement fails to halt Iran’s nuclear quest.”

There is no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon. Gareth Porter makes this clear in his book Manufactured Crisis.

“Instead, it would facilitate rather than prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and would further entrench and empower the leading state sponsor of terror.”

There is no evidence re the leading state sponsor slur, but let’s not get distracted by it. How do tougher inspections than ever faced by any country FACILITATE anything other than Iran’s ability to refute slander and libel? The inspections worked in Iraq. Inspections work very well. The only reason anything is missing from these inspections is past US resistance to universal standards that would have required the US to face surprise inspections itself, and U.S. abuse of inspections in Iraq to spy on and seek to overthrow the Iraqi government.

“During these negotiations, we outlined criteria for a good deal that Congress itself had set in five critical areas: inspections, possible military dimensions, sanctions, duration, and dismantlement. In each of these areas, the proposed agreement has significant flaws:

“-The proposed deal does not ensure “anytime, anywhere” short-notice inspections;”


After you, sir. Let Israel and/or the United States submit. Make it standard. Make a public commitment not to overthrow the Iranian government. Again. Then tell Iran to submit to this.

“-The proposed deal does not clearly condition sanctions relief on full Iranian cooperation in satisfying International Atomic Energy Agency concerns over the possible military dimensions of Tehran’s program;

“-The proposed deal lifts sanctions as soon as the agreement commences, rather than gradually as Iran demonstrates sustained adherence to the agreement;

“-The proposed deal lifts key restrictions in as few as eight years;”


Some things take more time, but they all begin right away.

“-The proposed deal would disconnect and store centrifuges in an easily reversible manner, but it requires no dismantlement of centrifuges or any Iranian nuclear facility.”

This is a problem in every state with nuclear energy.

“In return for this flawed agreement, Iran will receive over $100 billion in sanctions relief. Tehran will use these funds to fuel its hegemonic ambitions, support the killing of civilians in Syria, fund the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, and spur deadly conflicts throughout the region.”

Prove it. Never mind that Israel is murder people in Syria on a retail and wholesale basis, and the U.S. the same. These things are illegal. They haven’t proven a sufficient basis to stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia or giving them to Israel. They need to be handled but shouldn’t be used to wreck this deal.

“This agreement not only fails to achieve its objectives in the nuclear arena, but it releases Tehran in a matter of years—regardless of Iranian behavior—from ballistic missile sanctions and an arms embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This late, unexpected concession will provide additional arms for terrorism and proxy wars, while strengthening Iran’s capabilities against our regional allies.”

If Israel and/or the United States were to propose a WMD-free Middle East and/or impose a region-wide arms embargo, I guarantee you Iran would go for it. In the meantime, the kettle may not listen to the pot.

“This accord threatens the future of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. By leaving Iran on the threshold of a nuclear weapon—despite its history of violating international obligations—other countries in the region will have a dangerous incentive to initiate their own nuclear programs. The resulting nuclear arms race would severely destabilize the region.”

For godsake, Israel is in blatant violation of the NPT except that it’s never even joined it. The US joined it and blatantly violates it. Iran is in compliance, and the inspections regime was intended to accomplish just what this deal accomplishes. Resulting nuclear arms race?! That’s the work of the U.S. and Israel and of all the Gulf dictatorships now building nuclear energy.

“Proponents of the proposed agreement will argue that the only alternative to this agreement is military conflict. In fact, the reverse is true. A bad agreement such as this will invite instability and nuclear proliferation. It will embolden Iran and may encourage regional conflict.

“We strongly believe that the alternative to this bad deal is a better deal. Congress should reject this agreement, and urge the administration to work with our allies to maintain economic pressure on Iran while offering to negotiate a better deal that will truly close off all Iranian paths to a nuclear weapon.

“Congress should insist on a better deal.”


Demanding a deal you’ll never get is how wars have been started through history, including in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, not to mention the demand that Iraq hand over the WMD it didn’t have. We’re not falling for it again, guys.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
 They wanted Iran, among other ME nations. This was their delay mechanism, did we do this with Israel, NO_even JFK couldn't get a strait answer in the 60's..
   They are worried about Iran, they have hundreds of nukes, Iran can now use nuclear facility's for energy, they can be scrutinized, inspected, etc.
    I'm not in favor of Nuclear anything, weaponry! Any free energy ha proven concepts, and physicists have all but come out and stated this, however they are in fear of revealing it,.
    Tesla did, though he didn't end up doing well and was crushed after his patterns were stolen and decalred classified, ask yourself how many other brains are well aware OIL  makes money, the meter is running, free energy is heresy- no meter , no energy. Real simple.
  Proift, monopolys, control.   Are we controled, you bet.
 

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
US presidential hopefuls to attend conference in Israel
« Reply #227 on: November 01, 2015, 05:37:40 AM »
Perhaps while there (will Rand Paul be among the attendees?) these presidential hopefuls can explain why they believe it's perfectly okay for Israel to have over a hundred nuclear weapons, but the end of the world if there's even a remote possibility of Iran acquiring one such weapon in the future:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-presidential-hopefuls-to-come-to-israel-for-conference/

US presidential hopefuls to attend conference in Israel

Unspecified list of candidates to gather in Jerusalem early next month to discuss ‘economic, foreign, defense and cultural policy’

By Times of Israel Staff
The Times of Israel
October 13, 2015

A number of American presidential hopefuls are expected to visit Israel next month for a conference on foreign and defense policy.

Organizers say that several candidates have already confirmed their participation, while others are currently considering coming to Israel in person or participating via videoconference, but refused to provide any specifics.

The First Presidential Candidates’ Forum Abroad, to be held in Jerusalem on November 3-4, will focus on “economic, foreign, defense and cultural policy,” according to a press release.

All candidates from both sides of the aisle have been invited, but since the event is organized by politically conservative groups it is expected that mostly Republicans will appear.

The conference aims to provide the presidential candidates with an international platform to discuss the future of US foreign policy, US-Israel relations, threats to religious freedom and the “common civilization” based on the rule of law and economic freedom, according to organizers.

“US presidential candidates will have an historic first opportunity to communicate their views on issues facing this region of the world directly to concerned American citizens visiting the state of Israel and to friends of the US in Israel,” they said in a press release.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: US presidential hopefuls to attend conference in Israel
« Reply #228 on: November 01, 2015, 05:43:55 AM »
https://www.thenation.com/article/its-official-pentagon-finally-admitted-israel-has-nuclear-weapons-too/

It’s Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too

After five decades of pretending otherwise, the Pentagon has reluctantly confirmed that Israel does indeed possess nuclear bombs, as well as awesome weapons technology similar to America’s.

By William Greider
The Nation
March 20, 2015

While the Washington press corps obsessed over Hillary Clinton’s e-mails at the State Department, reporters were missing a far more important story about government secrets. After five decades of pretending otherwise, the Pentagon has reluctantly confirmed that Israel does indeed possess nuclear bombs, as well as awesome weapons technology similar to America’s.

Early last month the Department of Defense released a secret report done in 1987 by the Pentagon-funded Institute for Defense Analysis that essentially confirms the existence of Israel’s nukes. DOD was responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by Grant Smith, an investigative reporter and author who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy. Smith said he thinks this is the first time the US government has ever provided official recognition of the long-standing reality.

It’s not exactly news. Policy elites and every president from LBJ to Obama have known that Israel has the bomb. But American authorities have cooperated in the secrecy and prohibited federal employees from sharing the truth with the people. When the White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the question of Barack Obama back in 2009, the president ducked. “With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate,” Obama said. That was an awkward fib. Obama certainly knows better, and so do nearly two-thirds of the American people, according to opinion polls.

In my previous blog, “What about Israel’s Nuclear Bomb?” I observed that the news media focused solely on Iran’s nuclear ambitions but generally failed to note that Israel already had nukes. That produced a tip about the Pentagon release in early February.

Yet the confirmation of this poorly kept secret opens a troublesome can of worms for both the US government and our closest ally in the Middle East. Official acknowledgement poses questions and contradictions that cry out for closer inspection. For many years, the United States collaborated with Israel’s development of critical technology needed for advanced armaments. Yet Washington pushed other nations to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires international inspections to discourage the spread of nuclear arms. Israel has never signed the NPT and therefore does not have to submit to inspections.

Washington knew all along what the inspectors would find in Israel. Furthermore, as far back as the 1960s, the US Foreign Assistance Act was amended by concerned senators to prohibit any foreign aid for countries developing their own nukes. Smith asserts that the exception made for Israel was a violation of the US law but it was shrouded by the official secrecy. Since Israel is a major recipient of US aid, American presidents had good reason not to reveal the truth.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: US presidential hopefuls to attend conference in Israel
« Reply #229 on: November 01, 2015, 05:48:36 AM »
Perhaps these U.S. presidential hopefuls can discuss this issue as well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

Lost in translation

Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

by Jonathan Steele
guardian.co.uk
June 14, 2006

My recent comment piece explaining how Iran's president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government's intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.

I took my translation - "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole's website where it has been for several weeks.

But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter's original "wiped off the map" translation. (By the way, for Farsi speakers the original version is available here.)

Joining the "off the map" crowd is David Aaronovitch, a columnist on the Times (of London), who attacked my analysis yesterday. I won't waste time on him since his knowledge of Farsi is as minimal as that of his Latin. The poor man thinks the plural of casus belli is casi belli, unaware that casus is fourth declension with the plural casus (long u).

The New York Times's Ethan Bronner and Nazila Fathi, one of the paper's Tehran staff, make a more serious case. They consulted several sources in Tehran. "Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say 'wipe off' or 'wipe away' is more accurate than 'vanish' because the Persian verb is active and transitive," Bronner writes.

The New York Times goes on: "The second translation issue concerns the word 'map'. Khomeini's words were abstract: 'Sahneh roozgar.' Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as 'map', and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not 'Sahneh roozgar' but 'Safheh roozgar', meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word 'map' again."

This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".)

If the Iranian president made a mistake and used "safheh" rather than "sahneh", that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse "stage of history" with "page of history". The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.

[Continued...]


http://www.globalresearch.ca/wiped-off-the-map-the-rumor-of-the-century/4527

"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century

by Arash Norouzi
Global Research
January 20, 2007

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.

BACKGROUND:

On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

       "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

[Continued...]


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax

What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war

by Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
January 26, 2007

Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran's President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.

Today it's the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the "wipe Israel off he map" fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
The Coming Clash With Iran
« Reply #230 on: February 05, 2017, 01:55:02 PM »
Here we go again!  ::)

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2017/02/02/the-coming-clash-with-iran/

The Coming Clash With Iran

by Patrick J. Buchanan
AntiWar.com
February 03, 2017

When Gen. Michael Flynn marched into the White House Briefing Room to declare that "we are officially putting Iran on notice," he drew a red line for President Trump. In tweeting the threat, Trump agreed.

His credibility is now on the line.

And what triggered this virtual ultimatum?

Iran-backed Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship and Tehran tested a missile, undermining "security, prosperity, and stability throughout the Middle East," placing "American lives at risk."

But how so?

The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars that they start?

Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?

As for the Iranian missile test, a 2015 U.N. resolution "called upon" Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. It did not forbid Iran from testing conventional missiles, which Tehran insists this was.

Is the United States making new demands on Iran not written into the nuclear treaty or international law – to provoke a confrontation?

Did Flynn coordinate with our allies about this warning of possible military action against Iran? Is NATO obligated to join any action we might take?

Or are we going to carry out any retaliation alone, as our NATO allies observe, while the Israelis, Gulf Arabs, Saudis and the Beltway War Party, which wishes to be rid of Trump, cheer him on?

Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, "Iranian aggression must not go unanswered." By whom, besides us?

The Saudi king spoke with Trump Sunday. Did he persuade the president to get America more engaged against Iran?

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker is among those delighted with the White House warning:

"No longer will Iran be given a pass for its repeated ballistic missile violations, continued support of terrorism, human rights abuses and other hostile activities that threaten international peace and security."

The problem with making a threat public – Iran is "on notice" – is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.

Tehran seems almost obliged to defy it, especially the demand that it cease testing conventional missiles for its own defense.

This U.S. threat will surely strengthen those Iranians opposed to the nuclear deal and who wish to see its architects, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, thrown out in this year’s elections.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Since Trump has gone completely neocon, I thought I'd bump this thread.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Five Reasons Why George W. Trump Is Moving Towards War with Iran
« Reply #232 on: October 14, 2017, 04:35:06 PM »
https://www.globalresearch.ca/five-reasons-why-trump-is-moving-towards-war-with-iran/5613251

Five Reasons Why Trump Is Moving Towards War with Iran

By Dr. Trita Parsi
Global Research
October 13, 2017

Make no mistake: We do not have a crisis over the Iran nuclear deal. It is working and everyone from Secretary Mattis and Tillerson to the US and Israeli intelligence services to the International Atomic Energy Agency agree: Iran is adhering to the deal. But Trump is about to take a working deal and turn it into a crisis–an international crisis that very likely can lead to war. While the decertification of the Iran deal that Trump is scheduled to announce on Friday in and of itself doesn’t collapse the deal, it does trigger a process that increases the risk of war in the following five ways.

1. If the deal collapses, so does the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program

The nuclear deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) took two very bad scenarios off the table: It blocked all of Iran’s paths to a nuclear bomb and it prevented war with Iran. By killing the deal, Trump is putting both of those bad scenarios back on the table.

As I describe in my book Losing an Enemy – Obama, Iran and the triumph of Diplomacy, it was the very real danger of a military conflict that drove the Barack Obama administration to become so dedicated to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. In January 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated publicly that Iran’s breakout – the time it would take from making the decision to build the bomb to having the material for a bomb – was twelve months. In spite of massive sanctions on Iran aimed at both retarding the nuclear program and convincing the Iranians that the nuclear program was too costly to continue, the Iranians aggressively expanded their nuclear activities.

By January 2013, exactly a year later, a new sense of urgency dawned on the White House. Iran’s breakout time had shrunk from twelve months to a mere 8-12 weeks. If Iran decided to dash for a bomb, the United States might not have enough time to stop Tehran militarily. According to former CIA deputy director Michael Morell, Iran’s shrinking breakout time caused the U.S. to be “closer to war with the Islamic Republic than at any time since 1979.” Other countries realized the danger as well.
    “The actual threat of military action was almost felt as electricity in the air before a thunderstorm,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told me.
If nothing changed, President Obama concluded, the U.S. would soon face a binary option: Either go to war with Iran (due to pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia and some elements inside the US) to stop its nuclear program or acquiesce to Iran’s nuclear fait accompli. The only way out of this lose-lose situation was a diplomatic solution. Three months later, the US and Iran held a pivotal secret meeting in Oman where the Obama administration managed to secure a diplomatic breakthrough that paved the way for the JCPOA.

The deal prevented war. Killing the deal prevents the peace. If Trump collapses the deal and the Iranians restart their program, the US will soon find itself facing the same dilemma that Obama did in 2013. The difference is that the President is now Donald Trump, a man who doesn’t even know how to spell diplomacy, let alone conduct it.

2. Trump is planning to take on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps

Decertification is only half the story. Trump also plans to significantly escalate tensions with Iran in the region, including taking a measure that both the Bush and Obama administrations rejected: Designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. Make no mistake, the IRGC is far from an army of saints. It is responsible for much of the repression against the population inside of Iran and it fought the U.S. military indirectly in Iraq through Shia militias. But it has also been one of the most critical fighting forces against ISIS.

In real terms, the designation does not add much to the pressure the U.S. already is or can impose on the IRGC. But it ratchets things up in a very dangerous way without any clear benefits to the United States. The drawbacks, however, are crystal clear. IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jafari issued a stern warning last week:
    “If the news is correct about the stupidity of the American government in considering the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group, then the Revolutionary Guards will consider the American army to be like Islamic State (ISIS) all around the world.”
If the IRGC acts on its warning and targets U.S. troops – and there are 10,000 such targets in Iraq – we will only be a few steps away from war.

3. Trump is escalating without having any exit ramps

Escalation is under all circumstances a dangerous game. But it is particularly dangerous when you do not have diplomatic channels that ensure that the other side reads your signals correctly and that provides mechanisms for de-escalation. Not having such exit-ramps is like driving a car without a brake. You can accelerate, you can crash, but you can’t brake.

Military commanders understand this. That’s what former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warned about prior to the Obama administration investing in diplomacy.
    “We’ve not had a direct link of communication with Iran since 1979,” Mullen said. “And I think that has planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate, you can escalate and misunderstand… We are not talking to Iran, so we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right — that there will be miscalculation which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world.”
Mullen issued this warning when Obama was president, a man often criticized for being too restrained and too unwilling to use military power. Imagine how nervous and worried Mullen must be today with Trump calling the shots in the situation room.

4. Some US allies want the US to fight their war with Iran

There is no secret that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been pushing the US for years to go to war with Iran. Israel in particular was not only making threats of preemptive military action itself, its ultimate aim was to convince the United States to conduct the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities for Israel.

“The intention,” former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak admitted to the Israeli paper Ynet in July of this year, “was both to make the Americans increase sanctions and to carry out the operation.” While the Israeli security establishment today opposes killing the nuclear deal (Barak himself said as much in an interview with the New York Times this week), there are no indications that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has changed his mind on this matter. He has called on Trump to “fix or nix” the deal, though his criteria for how to fix the deal is so unrealistic it virtually ensures the deal will collapse – which in turn would put the US on a path to war with Iran.

The only person who arguably has a worse sense of judgement than Trump is Netanyahu. After all, this is what he told US lawmakers in 2002 as he lobbied them to invade Iraq:
    ”If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”
5. Trump’s donors are obsessed with starting war with Iran

Some have suggested that Trump is pursuing the decertification of the Iran deal — in spite of the near consensus advice of his top advisors to not go down this path – as a result of pressure from his base. But there is no evidence that his base cares much about this issue. Rather, as Eli Clifton meticulously had documented, the most dedicated force behind Trump’s obsession with killing the Iran deal is not his base, but a tiny group of top Republican donors.
    “A small number of his biggest campaign and legal defense donors have made extreme comments about Iran and, in at least one case, advocated for the use of a nuclear weapon against the Islamic Republic,” Clifton wrote last month.
The billionaire Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus, for instance, has given Trump $101,700 to help pay Trump and Donald Trump Jr.’s legal fees following the probe into Russian election interference. Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer is another major donor to pro-war groups in Washington who Trump has relied upon for financial support. The most famous billionaire donor, of course, is Sheldon Adelson who has contributed $35 million to pro-Trump Super PAC Future 45. All of these donors have pushed for war with Iran, though only Adelson has gone as far as to suggest the US should strike Iran with nuclear weapons as a negotiating tactic.

Thus far, Trump has gone with the advice of these billionaires on Iran over that of his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. None of the above five scenarios were realistic a few months ago. They have become plausible — even likely – because Trump has decided to make them so. Just like with George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Trump’s confrontation with Iran is a war of choice, not a war of necessity.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,129
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
The Deep State’s Bogus ‘Iranian Threat’
« Reply #233 on: October 14, 2017, 05:22:54 PM »
http://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2017/10/13/deep-states-bogus-iranian-threat/

The Deep State’s Bogus ‘Iranian Threat’

by David Stockman
Antiwar.com
October 14, 2017

Thursday we identified a permanent fiscal crisis as one of the quadruple witching forces arising in October 2017 which will shatter the global financial bubble. Today the Donald is on the cusp of making the crisis dramatically worse by decertifying the Iranian nuke deal, thereby reinforcing another false narrative that enables the $1 trillion Warfare State to continue bleeding the nation’s fiscal solvency.

In a word, the whole notion that Iran is a national security threat and state sponsor of terrorism is just as bogus as the Russian meddling story or the claim that the chain of events resulting from the coup d’ etat fostered by Washington on the streets of Kiev in February 2014 is evidence of Russian expansionism and aggression.

Likewise, it’s part of the same tissue of lies which led to Washington’s massive, destructive and counterproductive interventions in Syria and Libya – when neither regime posed an iota of threat to the safety and security of the American homeland.

To the contrary, all of these false narratives are the cover stories which justify the Warfare State’s massive draw on the nation’s broken finances. We will get to the Big Lie about Iran momentarily, but first it is useful to demonstrate just how enormously excessive the nation’s defense budget actually is, and why the denizens of the Imperial City – especially the neocon ideologues – find it necessary to peddle such threadbare untruths.

Spoiler alert: Iran has actually never attacked a single foreign nation in modern history whereas Washington has chosen to unilaterally intervene in or arm virtually every surrounding country in the region.

Here’s some historical context that dramatizes our point about Washington’s hideously excessive spending on defense. Back in 1962 on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US defense budget was $52 billion, which would amount to $340 billion in today’s (2017$) purchasing power.

Needless to say, the world came to the brink of nuclear Armageddon at a time when the Soviet Union was at the peak of its power and was armed to the teeth. In addition to thousands of nuclear warheads deliverable by missiles and bombers, it had 50,000 tanks facing NATO and nearly 4 million men under arms.

The now open Soviet archives, of course, show that the Soviets had far more bark than bite and never conceived of attacking the US or even western Europe; they didn’t remotely have the wherewithal or the strategic nerve.

Nevertheless, by 1962 false moves and provocations by both sides had created a state of “cold war” that was real. Yet even then, the $340 billion military budget was more than adequate to deter the Soviet threat. Nor is that our view as an armchair historian.

The 1962 defense budget was essentially President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s budget, and it is one that he had drastically slashed from the $500 billion (in today’s dollars) he had inherited from Truman at the end of the Korean War.

That is to say, the greatest general who ever led American forces had concluded that $340 billion was enough. And that came as he left office warning about just the opposite – the danger that the military/industrial complex would gain inordinate political power and pursue foreign policies which required ever larger military spending.

Unlike standard cold warriors, Ike believed that the ultimate national security resource of America was a healthy capitalist economy and that excessive government debt was deeply inimical to that outcome.

That’s why he balanced the Federal budget three times during his tenure and presided over a fiscal consolidation – thanks to sharply reduced defense spending – that generated an average deficit of hardly 1 percent of GDP. That’s an outcome scarcely imaginable at all in the present world.

Even then, the Soviet empire with all the captive republics that have become independent nations since 1991 (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc.) had a GDP in 1960 that was estimated to be 50 percent the size of the US. So Ike’s bet was that capitalist growth over time was the ultimate source of national strength; that a healthy domestic economy would eventually leave the centralized command-and-control Soviet economy in the dust; and that ultimately the Kremlin’s brand of statist socialism and militarism would fail.

He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6 trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.

Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its vastly shrunken GDP.

So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the $700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia’s – that he just signed into law?

What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.

The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of “threats” that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We’d actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0