The "War President" v.2 ???

[GRG55]

Certifiably insane advice. No wonder more and more of the rest of the world is coming around to the view that the USA is the most dangerous country on the planet.

What next? Somebody digs out the clip of Rumsfeld talking about the "humanity" of USA JDAMs [so-called smart bombs] raining down on the civilians in Baghdad during the opening days of Gulf War II?

The war recovery?


David S. Broder
Sunday, October 31, 2010

When the midterm election cycle began, the prevailing opinion was that Barack Obama was cleverer and more inspirational than anyone else on the scene. As it ends, nothing appears to have changed.

OH, YES, I know that Democrats have fallen into a peck of trouble and may lose control of Congress. But even if they do, Obama can still storm back to win a second term in 2012...

...Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve...

[Fiat Currency]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

The "War President" v.2

I think you meant v.26 (see US Presidents & War)

[llanlad2]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

Some info about the journalist David Broder taken from Wikipedia.

Speaking fee controversy

During an interview in 1996, David Broder said that "It’s clear that some journalists now are in a market category where the amount of money that they can make on extracurricular activities raises, in my mind, exactly, and, clearly, in the public’s mind, exactly the same kind of conflict-of-interest questions that we are constantly raising with people in public life. . . ." [19] In June, 2008, however, Ken Silverstein, a columnist at Harper's magazine alleged that David Broder had accepted free accommodations and thousands of dollars in speaking fees from various business and healthcare groups, in one instance penning an opinion column supporting positions favored by one of the groups.[20] The Washington Post's ombudsman, wrote that Broder's acceptance of speaking fees was an apparent violation of the paper's policy on outside speeches, as was the fact that some of the groups that paid Broder also lobby Congress.[21] Howell continued that "He (Broder) also said he had cleared his speeches with Milton Coleman, deputy managing editor, or Tom Wilkinson, an assistant managing editor, but neither remembered him mentioning them."

I wonder who sponsored him to write that pro-war piece for the Washington Post.

[flintlock]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

I'm not buying anything that guy said in that article. Obama swept to victory on a war platform? Ha. Americans are sick of the war, sick of the deficits they run up, and no way his liberal base is going to go along with that.

[Raz]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

The only thing Obama has done that I agree with was the vote he cast
as a U.S. Senator opposing the War In Iraq.

I have little doubt that McCain might have performed better on the economy had he been elected,
however, there were other equally serious considerations about John McCain:

[GRG55]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

As someone who has a brother currently serving with our forces in Kandahar, I can confirm that there is little appetite in this country [Canada] for continued participation in either the current conflicts or, gawd forbid, starting yet another dust-up with someone else...

'Neuter' Iran, U.S. senator tells N.S. security summit

The Canadian Press
Date: Saturday Nov. 6, 2010 6:15 PM ET

HALIFAX — A U.S. lawmaker sent ripples through an international audience Saturday saying his country should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran that would "neuter" the hard line regime...

...Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Saturday his party would support military action against Iran that would destroy its ability to fight back while allowing its people to rise up.

Graham surprised attendees at the Halifax International Security Forum with his hawkish rhetoric, saying an attack could cripple Iran's nuclear program as well as its armed forces...

...Graham noted that international sanctions are beginning to work on Iran, but says U.S. President Barack Obama should make it "abundantly clear" that all options are on the table.

"So my view of military force would be not to just neutralize their nuclear program, which are probably dispersed and hardened, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard," Graham told a panel.

"In other words, neuter that regime."...

[jk]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

i have come to the conclusion that there will be a [hopefully cold] war with china, with the possibility of small hot proxy wars. i will write up my thoughts sometime this week if i can find the time - i'm just back from a trip- but i think it will flow from competition for resources and is a necessity for both the u.s and for china in dealing with their own domestic economic and demographic problems.

[WildspitzE]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

i have come to the conclusion that there will be a [hopefully cold] war with china, with the possibility of small hot proxy wars. i will write up my thoughts sometime this week if i can find the time - i'm just back from a trip- but i think it will flow from competition for resources and is a necessity for both the u.s and for china in dealing with their own domestic economic and demographic problems.

i agree... and let's not forget the fx proxy fight going on now, which only further ignites the resource one.

[Slimprofits]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

'Neuter' Iran over nukes, U.S. senator tells Halifax security conference

By: Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
Posted: 6/11/2010 3:00 PM

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Saturday his party would support military action against Iran that would destroy its ability to fight back while allowing its people to rise up.

Graham surprised attendees at the Halifax International Security Forum with his hawkish rhetoric, saying an attack could cripple Iran's nuclear program as well as its armed forces.

The U.S. and its Western allies, including Canada, believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran maintains it is peacefully pursuing nuclear power to meet its energy needs.

Graham noted that international sanctions are beginning to work on Iran, but says U.S. President Barack Obama should make it "abundantly clear" that all options are on the table.

"So my view of military force would be not to just neutralize their nuclear program, which are probably dispersed and hardened, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard," Graham told a panel.

"In other words, neuter that regime."

Graham said the last thing his country needs is another war, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran.

[Slimprofits]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

[Slimprofits]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

Boehner: Raise retirement age to 70 to pay for the war

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_688102.htmlEnsuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said. He said he'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.


"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people."

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

i agree... and let's not forget the fx proxy fight going on now, which only further ignites the resource one.

My guess (following my readings or misinterpretations of Damon Vrabel) is that war proceeds in two phases.

In the first phase, which we have been in for a while now, the U.S. military, along with whomever, brings non-cooperating nations into the global financial fold. Ordinary folks know this war by the name of "The War on Terror." The fundamental driving force of this present war is not national competition for precious natural resources, but rather the global financial elite gaining control over the remaining (formerly known as and once sovereign) nations not already in their control.

In the second phase, if indeed as some predict, China is going to be the Big Dog of the 21st century, with the global financial and power centers moved from the east coast of North America to the east coast of Asia, then the new Big Dog is going to have to show the old Big Dog who the new boss is. History knows such transitions as major wars, measured on a scale of how many millions of people die. It is not clear how or whether such a war can be fought in a nuclear age, short of destroying human civilization, however I suspect some very intelligent, albeit morally challenged, people are looking into this quandary.

Looked at this way, an American or Israel or NATO led attack on Iran would be part of the first phase that we are now in. It would likely be the last big chapter in that series of conquests, being as Iran is the biggest remaining holdout to the global financial system sought by the elite.

The contest between the U.S. and China presently is about China gaining strength in various ways as the U.S. loses it. It is not yet time for these two to go head-to-head in a dramatic way. China is patient. They are playing a long term game of Go, building strength on the board.

The role of Russia in this is not clear. In terms of geography (a long shared border) and natural resources (Russia has more of some, China more of others, and the various other Central Asian nations that they might dominate yet more of others), a strong Russian-Chinese alliance could become quite powerful. Whether this comes to be or not ... my crystal ball is far too weak to see that far out.

[jpetr48]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

Cow

Your crystal ball is not that weak. Russia and China will form an alliance. Guess who they will attack? The dominos will then fall after attack on Israel with flow of oil being cut off by our friend in Iran and Russia.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

In the first phase, which we have been in for a while now, the U.S. military, along with whomever, brings non-cooperating nations into the global financial fold. Ordinary folks know this war by the name of "The War on Terror." The fundamental driving force of this present war is not national competition for precious natural resources, but rather the global financial elite gaining control over the remaining (formerly known as and once sovereign) nations not already in their control.

I should elaborate on this.

Between 1839 and 1860, Britain fought the Opium Wars with China. The British wanted to sell addictive opium to the Chinese people, the better to control them and make money. I'd make a snarky remark about the Brits at this point, but ... I'm an American.

Anyhow, what we have now, in the so-called War on Terror, could better be called "The Debt Wars." The primary means by which the financial elite control nations and people is via debt. They get people and their businesses and polities indebted. More specifically, they capture control of the money supply. The only money allowed in their system is money they lend into existence, at a time and place, under terms and conditions, and to a debtor, all of their choosing. Given the central and powerful role that money plays in our economy, this is a powerful mechanism.

The primary purpose of the various wars in the Middle East and Central Asia is to force some holdouts to "join" the world monetary system, to allow their monetary system to be captured by the world financial elites. It has been decreed that the only money shall be debt based money, lent by the world's financial elites. It seems that a few parties haven't gotten the message yet. Fortunately, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies are working overtime to remedy this little problem.

As Mayer Amschel Rothschild noted a while back:

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.

On a related subject, let me provide a better definition of usury:

Usury is abusive lending.

Many attempts have been made to define usury, with the general understanding being that usury is bad lending, whatever that means. The usual attempts consider such attributes as:

• the rate of interest charged,
• the reserve ratio of assets to outstanding loans held by the lender or
• whether the loan is productive (funds the means of its own repayment.)

But the proper definition, I claim, lies in the moral realm, not the accounting realm. When the lender (typically it is the lender) uses the indebtedness to abuse, steal from, harm, enslave or control the debtor, typically without the debtors full awareness and freely granted consent, that is abusive.

Like many acts of impact on others, whether or those acts are good is a moral question. I can stick a knife in your abdomen ... if I am a surgeon you hired to operate on your appendicitis. I can provide you with opiate drugs ... if I am the pharmacist you hired to fill a lawful prescription. I can imprison you ... if I am the local constable and a court having jurisdiction has properly convicted you of some crime and sentenced you to prison in my jail.

I can lend you ten dollars today to put gas in your car, with the agreement that you will pay me back twenty dollars tomorrow. If we both engage in this matter with full understanding and freely granted consent, then I see no problem with this. If you needed the gas to drive to the state capital to cash in the million dollar lottery ticket you had just won, I would think that an interest rate of only 100% for one day was too low a rate.

But when a bank offers me an unsecured loan of $10,000, with no interest and no repayments required for the first year, if they do so knowing that I won't likely be able to understand the fine print and won't likely be able to honor the terms, thus subjecting myself to exorbitant penalties and interest rates, then that is abusive.

Drugs are still widely used immorally, to control and abuse others.

However the drug of choice for the world's financial elite is abusive debt, aka usury.

We are now engaged in a Great Debt War, to determine whether this financial oligarchy, or any financial oligarchy so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure (apologies to Abe Lincoln.) The U.S. military, and various other associated mercenaries and intelligence operatives have been tasked with prosecuting this war. They have been given this task by the financial elite; remember it is they who control most nations, including the U.S.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The "War President" v.2 ???

Russia and China will form an alliance. Guess who they will attack?

Lichtenstein? (grin)