Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘Saddam Hussein’

Richard Holbrooke Would Lead Obama Administration Into War With Iran Just Like McCain!

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Iran: And the Beat Goes On The beating of war drums, that is

 

In a last-ditch, all-out effort to pave the way for war with Iran,Israel’s lobby in the U.S. has inaugurated a new front group: United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). What, “another” neocon front group – why is this important? With Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s most prominent foreign policy advisor – and a likely Secretary of State or National Security Advisor in the Obama administration – joining neocon nutcase James R. Woolsey in the top leadership of this new group, the signal is clear: UANI represents a bipartisan call for war.

In an op ed piece for what else but the War Street Journal, the four horsemen of the apocalypse – Holbrooke, Woolsey, Dennis Ross, the Israel Lobby’s ace-in-the-hole in the Obama camp (please note: Ross is a former George H. W. Bush official who also served in the same capacity under Bill Clinton and trained Condi Rice), and Mark D. Wallace, formerly U.S. representative to the U.N. for management and reform – mirror the joint statement of Obama and McCain on the economic crisis. This is “not a partisan matter” – the War Party is the only party that really matters. “We may have different political allegiances and worldviews, ” they aver,

“Yet we share a common concern – Iran’s drive to be a nuclear state. We believe that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon.

“A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America’s national security,” etc., etc., etc…

I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the list of threatened countries starts with Israel and ends with the United States, but I wonder…

Leaving the realm of speculation, and entering the region of hard facts: our own National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program shows that the Iranians had a weapons program that they abandoned: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” While keeping the option open, the Iranian regime has not restarted its nuclear program, according to our spooks, and probably could not iron out all the technical problems and hoarding of nuclear materials until at least 2015 – and even then there is no evidence Tehran has any such intention.

The NIE was issued last year around this time, and afterward Robert Gates spoke to the New York Times Magazine:

“One afternoon in late November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was flying back to Washington from the Army base at Fort Hood, Tex., where he had spoken with soldiers and spouses about the future of Iraq. Sitting across from him at his desk in the back of the Pentagon’s jet, I asked him about the possibility of another military conflict: U.S. air strikes on Iran. ‘The last thing the Middle East needs now is another war,’ he said quietly. ‘We have to keep all options on the table,’ he went on, reciting the standard caveat. ‘But if Iraq has shown us anything, it’s the unpredictability of war. Once a conflict starts, the statesmen lose control.'”

This was supposed to signal that the much-anticipated U.S. strike on Iran – the imminence of which was predicted with near certainty by a number of commentators, including this one – has been successfully aborted. There was a collective and well-nigh audible sigh of relief, from Tehran to Terre Haute, but some of us were not convinced by this display of official caution. After all, the statesmen have lost control before….

If the NIE was supposed to blast the neocon war campaign out of the water, then its authors did not take into account the persistence – indeed, fanaticism – of the United for War With Iran crowd. The sheer relentlessness of the effort suggests its essential character as a lobbying campaign on behalf of a special interest – in this case, a very special interest. Corporate and professional lobbyists are notably impervious to facts, and tend to cherry-pick according to the interests of their clients, and foreign lobbyists certainly fall into this category. Yet the latter have a certain edge to them, lacking in the others – and Israel’s lobby has the sharpest edge of all.

No one even pretends anymore that the Israel lobby isn’t behind the effort to drag us into another Middle Eastern war. You don’t have to be me, or Mearsheimer and Walt, to make this case: you have only to listen to the public pronouncements of Israel’s leaders, who areopenly demanding that either we strike, or else they will – perhaps, as has been suggested by Benny Morris, with nuclear weapons.

In the U.S., AIPAC, the scandal-rocked central command of Israel’s amen corner, has come out of the shadows, where they remainedduring the run-up to the Iraq war, and taken the lead in calling for harsh sanctions and a military blockade of Iranian ports. Now we have this bipartisan ad hoc committee taking out full page newspaper ads and speaking in the implied names of both major party presidential candidates.

I had to laugh when I read, in the Journal op ed piece, that “Tehran’s development of a nuclear bomb could serve as the ‘starter’s gun’ in a new and potentially deadly arms race in the most volatile region of the world. Many believe that Iran’s neighbors would feel forced to pursue the bomb if it goes nuclear.” Methinks the starter gun went off long off – sometime in the early 1960s, Israel having earlier procured the technology to make the Bomb from the French.

“Iran,” say the four horsemen, “is a deadly and irresponsible world actor, employing terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas to undermine existing regimes and to foment conflict. Emboldened by the bomb, Iran will become more inclined to sponsor terror, threaten our allies, and support the most deadly elements of the Iraqi insurgency.” One has only to insert “Israel” where Iran sits in those sentences, and the pot-kettle-black aspect of this whole issue is underscored, as is the ridiculous double standard. After all, Israel has surely been emboldened by its possession of nukes, lo these many years, and acted in a manner that could reasonably called irresponsible – and even deadly, now that you mention it. Yet Israel is not only given a pass, but the defining factor of the Middle Eastern strategic environment – Israel’s nuclear arsenal – goes unmentioned by these worthies.

They are full of laughable pronouncements imbued with the solemnity that usually accompanies the argument from authority:

“The world rightfully doubts Tehran’s assertion that it needs nuclear energy and is enriching nuclear materials for strictly peaceful purposes. Iran has vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas, and its construction of nuclear reactors and attempts to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle are exceedingly costly. There is no legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy.”

Aside from the propriety of assuming to speak for “the world,” one has to ask where the war propagandists have been hiding out lately: haven’t they read about those gas lines in Iran? Sanctions and official corruption have contributed to the country’s shortage, while rationing ensured it would continue. Indeed, the more tireless Iran-ophobes were at one point speculating that the resulting riots might well spell the end for the mullahs.

And I’m surprised they raised the following accusation, considering the context in which it is hurled:

“By continuing to act in open defiance of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran rejects the inspections mandated by the IAEA and flouts multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.”

Iran is fully within its rights, under the terms of the treaty, to develop a nuclear energy program, which is what they say they are doing – and, as those gas lines attest, they have a real need for it. At any rate, at least Iran has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, unlike a certain country whose interests seem to be at the heart of the signers’ argument:

At the same time, Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be ‘wiped off from the map,’ while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.”

That old canard about wiping Israel off the map has been debunked so many times as a mis-translation of what Ahmadinejad really said – which was something more akin to predicting that Israel would be washed away by the tides of history and demography – yet it keeps bouncing right back. Just like all the other lies spread far and wide by the War Party’s propagandists. Remember that one aboutMohammed Atta meeting a top Iraqi intelligence official at the Prague airport? That one didn’t die until well after the invasion. I wonder how many people still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A lie, repeated relentlessly, becomes enmeshed in the public consciousness, and rooting it out is a major operation, with a problematic success rate.

That’s what we do, here at Antiwar.com – root out the lies, and set the record straight. We did it in the run-up to the last war, and we’redoing the same thing when it comes to the Iranian issue. The chances that we’ll succeed, this time, in stopping the rush to war are better now, perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. The forces pushing for war, led by the Israel lobby, are marshalling their supporters for a final push. Even if they don’t pull it off before the election, the Holbrooke-Woolsey Pact will go down in history as the turning point, politically, the crucial juncture when the American elite made the decision to go to war because the Lobby demanded it.

Our political elites speak in unison: accept the bailout, pay trillions to the plutocrats – accept the coming war with Iran – and pay with the lives of your children. Our leaders, their system in crisis, have closed ranks around the slogan of Big Government at home, and progressively bigger wars abroad. If it were one crisis, or the other, Americans might remain impassive. In this case, however, with the economy imploding and the threat of war looming simultaneously, the Washington crowd that thought it could ride out the turbulence is finding it’s a bit more of a bumpy ride than they or anyone else imagined. The people are awakening, but there is a danger in this: without leaders of their own, their rebellion is bound to be inchoate, undirected, and perhaps even violent. As Garet Garrett put it, anticipating this moment some sixty odd years ago:

“No doubt the people know they can have their Republic back if they want it enough to fight for it and to pay the price. The only point is that no leader has yet appeared with the courage to make them choose.”

~ Justin Raimondo

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Oil Prices Being Used As Excuse To Impose Global Economic Regulation

Posted by Job on June 21, 2008

Saudi summit aims at oil prices

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Saudi Arabia this weekend will convene a special summit on oil prices that could lead to cheaper crude on the world market. But a Saudi decision to produce more crude likely won’t come without a demand: The Kingdom is expected to press the U.S. government to impose greater controls on oil trading and take steps to strengthen the dollar.

The world’s largest oil producer, stepping out of its usual role as de facto leader of OPEC, will host representatives of big oil producing nations, consumer countries and companies. The Saudis are widely believed to be concerned that escalating oil prices – crude hovered around $134 a barrel Thursday, nearly double what it cost a year ago – will cause a permanent drop in demand as consumers get more efficient or, worse, the global economy slows.

One sign of the Saudi anxiety: The country’s oil production decisions, usually left to its oil minister, appear to have been put back in the hands the Royal Family, according to Antoine Halff, deputy head of research at brokerage firm Newedge.

Fuzzy numbers

As a group, OPEC has been reluctant to raise production. Several states, enjoying the record prices, maintain there is no shortage of crude. It’s a line the Saudis also touted – until recently. Saudi Arabia now says it will pump more. The Kingdom, during a recent visit by President Bush, pledged to increase production by 300,000. Last week, they said they would boost it by another 200,000 barrels. Those numbers are not set in stone, and Sunday’s meeting may produce more details on the planned increases.

The Saudis will also seek to convince refineries and others to keep buying. Recently, refiners worldwide have cut back in light of record prices. But that has only led to a drop in crude inventories – further pushing up the price of oil. (Almost as if it was PLANNED.) To inject more oil into the market, Halff said the Saudis may use the meeting to arrange for special deals with refiners and others that could bring crude to market at below-market prices. The exact nature of the deals, he noted, will probably never be disclosed. At the very least, traders will be watching the Sunday meeting to see if those announced production increases fall closer to the 500,000 or 800,000 barrel a day mark.

Sunday showdown

The meeting holds high stakes for both Saudi Arabia and the United States. If prices don’t respond, the country’s credibility will suffer, and with it any notion that someone has control over these record oil prices. “Riyadh is seen as running out of options to regain control of the market,” said Halff. “Failure to do so, it is assumed, could cause prices to leap even higher.”

The Saudis will also expect something from consumer nations in return. The Kingdom has long held that oil markets are well supplied, and that speculative investing is the real culprit behind high prices. (What happened to the booming economies in China and India? By the way … most electricity in China is generated by coal.) To that end, the Saudis will likely seek more oversight of oil markets, and perhaps even limits on the amount of contracts speculators can hold. (This will lead to increased government regulation of mutual funds, major banks, stock and commodities trading, etc. and furthermore it will have to be regulation by unelected international nongovernmental bodies accountable to no one, instead of by the leaders of sovereign states or even of corporations. I can imagine some United Nations “oil trading oversight board” or similar. More on that later.

That’s something consuming counties may give them. Several proposals along those lines have bipartisan support in Congress. (More evidence still that both parties are working for the anti-Christ.) More difficult to deliver, and probably more important to the Saudis, is a stronger dollar. (No it isn’t. Going back to the gold standard would fix all of these problems, and also force our nation to go back to sound economic – and foreign/military – policy because we would no longer have the illusion of unlimited financial resources, pretending that, for instance, grotesque sums of money like 100 trillion dollars have any basis for existing in reality. Of course, that is precisely why it will never happen.)

Like the currencies of many countries in the Middle East, the Saudi riyal is pegged to the U.S. dollar – it rises and falls with the greenback. (Which makes me think that these guys are in on it too. Which basically is why no major political group, either in America or outside of it, has ever taken a line against the Saudi royal family despite their being extremely wealthy, powerful, corrupt, and a major exporter of terror. As a matter of fact, the only two that I can think of that has ever opposed the Saudis were Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden. Not only is the former dead, but he is also dead on account of what the latter did. It begs the question: what does the Saudi royal family have to gain from a global anti – Christ economic system? By the way, as the current version of events go, the reason for the FIRST Gulf War was that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in order to institute a puppet regime. Why? To get more votes on OPEC. Saddam wanted to reduce production to increase prices, Saudi Arabia wanted to keep production high and prices low – the position of the George H. W. Bush family which has extensive financial and political ties and interests with the Saudi regime. And why did Saddam want the price of oil to go up? Because the Iran – Iraq War left his regime bankrupt, and he feared domestic political instability because of it. And who put Saddam in power to wage war against Iran, and supplied him with arms and money only to cut off the aid when the Berlin wall fell and Iran’s backer the Soviet Union fell apart? The United States.)

But while lower interest rates – and hence a lower dollar – may be what the U.S. economy needs to snap out of its slump, they have been disastrous for the red-hot Saudi economy. Inflation in Saudi Arabia has doubled in the last year and is projected to surge even higher. (This is the first article of the many that I have read in years on the weak dollar that claims that the weak dollar was in any way a good thing for the United States economy.) “I think [Saudi Arabia] wants something from the West, particularly the U.S. … a stronger monetary policy,” Nauman Barakat, an energy trader at Macquarie Futures, wrote in a research note. (No, what America is getting from the Saudis is political and economic cover to consent for international economic regulation.)

That will be hard to get. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise interest rates anytime soon. And any other move by the U.S. government is likely to have little effect on the free-trading dollar. More info (This is the “more information later” section. What if the Saudis and other oil producing countries state that we need international economic regulation to guarantee stability in the currency markets … that there is never a “weak dollar” or “strong euro” because of the effect that it would have on OPEC’s oil output? Pretty soon, they would also link this monetary exchange oversight to debt relief for third world countries and the economic reform in these countries required to lift them out of poverty and attract foreign investment from – of course – globalist corporations. And since the motivating force is to control oil prices, how long would the idea develop that in order to really have an effect on oil prices, the world needs to agree to cut down on oil consumption? And that easily ties into – you guessed it – global warming regulation!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: