All talk of Iran being a threat to the world, as is constantly being stated by Israeli leaders, is pure nonsense. And certainly Iran is not any sort of threat to the USA – as Michael Rozeff clearly shows in his fact-based article:
Well, it appears to be happening. Iran has announced it is opening its oil bourse on March 20 – which will trade oil in currencies other than the accepted petrodollar – the USD.
It has been hinted at many times that the real threat Iran poses is not the non-existent nuclear one, but rather the threat to the USA’s status as “printer” of the world’s reserve currency. Iran is challenging that.
Iran Presses Ahead With Dollar Attack
Ever since I read the book “The Sovereign Individual” I have been looking for signs to confirm the predictions in that book – that the nation state is in decline, but will not go quietly. And now, more than ever, it seems people are rising up in all forms and groupings to challenge the status quo – the rule by elites.
The evidence is everywhere – the Arab Spring, the increasing disparagement of both the political process and the mainstream media, the 99% protests, the increasing number of challenges to external authority – and the rising sense that “we the people” could do a much better job of managing life on earth than that delivered to us by those who believe they have the right to control and rule over us.
One such group is Anonymous, which is a loose collection of hackers who threaten to disrupt the goings on of various groups, corporations and nations they oppose by way of cyber-attacks. Their latest warning to Israel is a case in point.
Is this the shape of things to come?
Anonymous Message to The State of Israel
Amazing how turning conventional wisdom around can clarify one’s thinking:
Iran Worried US Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
This year is shaping up to be a big “decision” year – as to whether Iran will be attacked or not. Israel would appear to believe so, as it sees Iran as an existential threat. But is this really so?
Pat Buchanan asks the question and provides some answers in: Who Wants War With Iran?
When it comes to laying the blame for the continuing debt crisis, one could blame governments for living beyond their means. One could also blame the financial system itself, in the way that all money is created as debt. But if you look beyond the obvious culprits you find a culture that wants and even demands something for nothing.
Take your typical politicians. All they want to do is keep their jobs by being voted in again. And in order to keep their jobs they make promises to the voters – promises to hand out “goodies”. Trouble is, no government takes in enough money to actually provide all these goodies that ordinary people want to vote for. So they borrow the money to do it.
And there is the problem. Governments have for years being borrowing money in order to fund programmes which will win votes. And who demands these programmes? The socialists and welfare-statists of course!
They are constantly demanding that government do that, fix that, and support that, while having no idea or concern as to how everything is going to get paid for. The assumption has always been that such social welfare spending can be managed based on the government’s ability to tax – hence the desire to “tax the rich”. But the truth is, there is never enough tax money to provide all that the welfare-statists desire.
In other words, politicians have only been doing what has been expected of them – to make promises of social welfare largesse in order to win votes, and to fund such largesse using borrowed money.
And that is the root of the problem.
Until people wake up and face reality, that there is no way to create prosperity by simply borrowing money, then the financial crisis will continue.
This is interesting. Anonymous, the “anonymous” hacker group, are planning to launch ‘Tyler” by the end of the year – a peer-to-peer type of Wikileaks, where “whistleblowers” everywhere can upload evidence of lies and corruption at the highest levels of power. Great idea.
When is war justified?
This is a question that has vexed many people. And obviously there can be situations war is justified – as in legitimate defence of a country against an aggressor. However, in recent times we have seen wars waged where no overt aggression was present.
Just take one example – the war against Iraq. That was was preemptive. It was waged on the basis of “intelligence” that implied Saddam Hussein “could” wage a war. Of course this was all trumped up and Iraq never posed any threat to the USA.
The same justification is being used in the run-up to a possible war with Iran. The argument (including manipulated intelligence) that Iran is a potential threat, and should be “taken out” before this threat manifests itself in a literal attack on either Israeli or US soil.
The truth is, Iran has no plans to attack anyone.
To put this war philosophy into a more human context, imagine you have a neighbour. This neighbour is paranoid about what you are doing in your garage every night (you’re building some machinery perhaps). However, your neighbour is so paranoid that he believes you are plotting to kill him.
Now, if this neighbour takes the law into his own hands and preemptively attacks you, or even kills you, then it’s quite clear he will not get off scott free for such an act. No, under our laws any preemptive attack on another person (when that person has not actually done anything) would rightly be considered as the initiation of force, and result in some jail time.
Trouble is, our political leaders do not operate on the same moral or legal plane as the rest of us. They literally are above the law.
Now, when it comes to war, contrary to what most people think, there have been serious attempts to define when war is justified, and the “Just War” theory is exactly that – a set of principles by which to judge if a war should or should not be waged.
Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly explains the Just War theory in his essay: What is a Just War?
Glenn Greenwald says the word “terrorism” is a tool of political propaganda which is deliberately undefined and flexible. And I couldn’t agree more.
War talk is everywhere, and it’s always the same target – Iran. But what are the real motivations for wanting to start a war with Iran. Craig Paul Roberts has a pretty good idea:
The Next War on Washington’s Agenda
