welcome
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
But if Bush the decider in chief is determined to multiply his war
crimes by attacking Iran, or giving Israel a green light (or not issuing a red light) to do so with the promise of
U.S. military backup, what can be done to prevent such a war from taking place? I see only one solution: the troops. The
troops? But they are the ones who will be doing the fighting. Exactly. Bush, Cheney, Gates,
Petraeus, the secretaries, under secretaries, and assistant secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the
members of the Joints Chiefs of Staff won’t be lifting a finger against Iran. Only U.S. troops — the ones who will suffer and bleed and die for a lie —
will be fighting an illegal, immoral war against Iran. But because it is only the troops that will be doing the
dirty work, and because the troops greatly outnumber their commanders in the field and the bureaucrats in the
Pentagon, and because it’s impossible for the American people to support the troops in their war effort if the
troops themselves refuse to prosecute the war — the troops refusing to fight is the only sure-fire way to prevent a
war with Iran. Now, for this to happen, it is apparent that the hearts and minds of the
troops must be changed. The troops need to see that Iran is not a threat to the United States, that Iran is not a
threat to Israel, that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, that Iran is perfectly justified if it obtained a
nuclear weapon, that the U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point, that the president has no constitutional
authority to begin a war with Iran, and that the American people will support them in their decision. The troops
need to see that an attack on Iran would be unnecessary, unwise, unjust, illegal, immoral, and in violation of the
Constitution they swore to uphold. It would be anything but fighting to defend our freedoms. The troops need to see
that attacking Iran perverts the purpose of the military. Defending the United States against attack or invasion is
admirable; attacking and invading foreign countries is not. In defense of the United States, the U.S. military
should guard U.S. borders, patrol U.S. coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over U.S. skies. It should not do these
things in other countries, and should certainly not induce other countries to do these things because of a threat
by the United States. The troops need to see that American foreign policy is responsible for much evil throughout
the world. It is contrary to the wise, noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. So contrary in
fact that the Founders wouldn’t recognize what their constitutional, federated republic has become. Fighting an
offensive, foreign war perpetuates an evil U.S. foreign policy. The troops need to see that they are the ones who
will be responsible for waging an unjust war. They are the ones who will be dropping the bombs and firing the
bullets. They are the ones who will be doing the wounding and killing. They are the ones who will be destroying
property and infrastructure. The troops need to see that there are some orders that they just shouldn’t obey — even
if they come directly from their commander in chief. Why is it that Americans insist that German soldiers should
have disobeyed any commands to kill Jews, but that American soldiers should always obey their superiors? In
reality, however, Americans really don’t believe that all orders should be obeyed. If an American soldier were
ordered to kill the president or to kill his mother, we would condemn him if he obeyed. What we really expect of
our soldiers is to unconditionally obey any order that involves the killing of any foreigner in any country. But
this is something that no soldier with an ounce of morality should do. If the troops don’t see these things, then
war with Iran will come should the president be dumb enough, and evil enough, to order an attack, an invasion, a
regime change, or a preemptive strike. But if the troops do see these things, war with Iran will be impossible.
Bush, or any future president, can try to lie the country into war as much as he wants, but the troops refusing to
fight an unjust war will prevent any conflict from occurring. If a U.S. soldier really wants to be a hero, he
should refuse to fight in any foreign war. “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person”
(Deuteronomy 27:25). -- HOW TO PREVENT A WAR WITH
IRAN by Laurence M. Vance 7/14/08 ** Please Give Page Time To Load **
---------------------------------------------
No War With
Iran! AdamKokesh https://www.change.org/p/us-military-... ADAM VS THE MAN is back with videos
M-F. Live on Facebook Mondays at 6pmPT. facebook.com/adamcharleskokesh
Things the Marine Corps Forgot to
Mention (Excerpt) U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1881—1940) — a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who could never be accused of being a pacifist and the author of : War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. Butler also recognized the mental effect of military service: Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
The Corbett Report First published at 13:16 UTC on January 22nd, 2020 SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=34783 Have you heard of Major General Smedley Butler? If not, you might want to ask yourself why that is. As one of the most highly decorated Marines in the history of the US Marine Corps and as a passionate and eloquent speaker about the racket that is war, Smedley Butler deserves to be a household name. Find out more in today's edition of Questions For Corbett.
Waging Peace in Vietnam: Columbia SIPA | Oct 25, 2019 The Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies presents the panel "Waging Peace in Vietnam: U.S. Soldiers and Veterans who Opposed the War" on Friday, October 18, 2019. Learn more: https://events.columbia.edu/cal/event...
SIR! NO SIR!
In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement against the war in Vietnam. http://www.sirnosir.com/the_film/synopsis.html
LINKS: [ AL-QAEDA EXPOSED!! ] , SYRIA , YEMEN , RAND Corporation , Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing
No war on Iran: The Grayzone | Jan 7, 2020 Red Lines host Anya Parampil speaks with Ben Becker, an organizer with the ANSWER coalition, to discuss the growing anti-war movement in the US. Over the weekend, thousands of US citizens took to the streets in up to 90 cities in order to voice their opposition to the Trump Administration's push to war with Iran. Ben and Anya talk about the struggles faced by the anti-war movement over the years what makes organizing massive resistance to war policy possible.
-----------------------------------------
...Or, They Can Continue To Be Pawns.
"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger -
“If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would
remain in the army.” August 31, 2011 “Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.” ~ Major General Smedley Butler “If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.” ~ Frederick the Great “I find in existence a . . . dangerous concept that the members of the armed forces owe their primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the Government, rather than to the country and its Constitution they are sworn to defend. No proposition could be more dangerous.” ~ General Douglas MacArthur “There is one thing in the world more wicked than the desire to command, and that is the will to obey.” ~ W. K. Clifford, mathematician and philosopher After almost ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, the deadliest day for U.S. forces was just a few weeks ago on Saturday, August 6. On that day thirty U.S. military personnel were killed when their helicopter was shot down. The majority of those killed were said to be elite Navy Seals from the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden. The question that was never asked about this event by any major news media outlet is a question that I (and a few others) have been asking since the war in Afghanistan began: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan? The ones who bear the most responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are the pilots who flew the planes, none of whom were from Afghanistan. No American was ever harmed by anyone in Afghanistan until the U.S. military invaded and occupied that country. The United States even supported the Muslim insurgents and Afghan militants when they were freedom-fighting Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghans are now dead who had never threatened America and had nothing to do with 9/11. Over 1,700 American soldiers are also dead, and many thousands more have life-altering injuries. So, what is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan? The purpose of the U.S. military should be limited to defending the United States, securing its borders, guarding its shores, patrolling its coasts, and enforcing a no-fly zone over its skies. Period. To do otherwise is to pervert the purpose of the military. This means the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to defend other countries, secure their borders, guard their shores, patrol their coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over their skies. This also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to provide disaster relief, dispense humanitarian aid, supply peacekeepers, enforce UN resolutions, spread goodwill, rebuild infrastructure, establish democracy, nation build, change regimes, eradicate drugs, contain communism, open markets, keep oil pipelines flowing, revive public services, build schools, or train armies in any foreign country. This also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to remedy oppression, human rights violations, sectarian violence, ill treatment of women, forced labor, child labor, religious or political persecution, poverty, genocide, famine, or injustice in any foreign country. And it certainly also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to launch preemptive strikes in foreign countries, fight wars in foreign countries, drop bombs on foreign countries, assassinate people in foreign countries, torture people in foreign countries, takes sides in a civil war in foreign countries, station troops in foreign countries, maintain bases in foreign countries, attack foreign countries, invade foreign countries, occupy foreign countries, or unleash civil unrest in foreign countries. Clearly, no U.S. soldier, sailor, or marine had any business stepping foot in Afghanistan in 2001 or flying a helicopter there in 2011. Those who returned in a coffin (if enough of their body parts could be found) died unnecessarily, duped, in vain, and for a lie. So again I ask: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan? The only answer is unconditional obedience. Although some U.S. soldiers, because of misguided zeal, may have wanted to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, few would choose to go now if it were their decision to make. But soldiers were told to go and they went, and soldiers are still being told to go. They didn’t consider the history of Afghanistan. They didn’t consider the purpose of the military. They didn’t consider U.S. foreign policy. They didn’t consider Chalmers Johnson. They didn’t consider the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t consider the Constitution. They didn’t consider the Soviet Union’s failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan. They didn’t consider their families. They didn’t consider the cost to U.S. taxpayers. They didn’t consider their own mental and physical health. They didn’t consider the thousands of dead or maimed Afghan civilians. Even worse, those that did consider some or all of these things went to Afghanistan anyway. They may not have even bought in the baloney about fighting for our freedoms or fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here,” but they went anyway. Unconditional obedience. If you want to see a perfect example of unconditional obedience on display, then just look at the recent interview on the Diane Rehm show about “Navy Seals and U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan.” After announcing that U.S. forces were continuing their investigation into the shooting down of the helicopter in Afghanistan, Diane introduced her guests in the studio, Thom Shanker, the Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times and Paul Pillar of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, and by phone from Plymouth, Massachusetts, former Navy SEAL lieutenant commander Anthony O’Brien. Joining the panel later by phone was Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. The second caller to the show was someone named Don, who made this comment: I just wanted to comment real quick. Any time you have generals on the air and they’re pressured to give some reasons why we’re in this war in Afghanistan, they always fall back to a main reason being women’s rights, so girls can go to school, you know, for all the Taliban oppression. And I was just wondering if your panelists thought that that was really a legitimate reason, that we should have our military spending billions of dollars a year in this country to fight for women’s rights. Diane referred the caller to Anthony O’Brien, who gave this reply: I agree with the caller’s premise. The primary reason why you engage the military at the strategic level is for the national security interest of the United States of America. And as much as I’m a fighter for the rights of women, it is – it’s not our duty in the military, primarily, to protect the women or stop drug trades, et cetera. However, the president is the boss, and he calls the shots. And if – whether it be President Bush or President Obama, when they tell us where to go and when, we give a snappy salute, and we do what we’re told. Diane then sought a comment from Thom Shanker. Well, I just want to give Anthony a snappy salute ’cause his answer is perfect. I mean, we hear so often these conversations among civilians: why are we there, I don’t want us there or the opposite, we should be there. The military does not assign itself these missions. They follow the orders of the elected civilian leadership who are representing, Diane, your caller and everybody else. So that is where the responsibility for these decisions resides at the end of the day. My only comment is simply this: Only God deserves unconditional obedience. Unconditional obedience is why Nazis killed Jews in concentration camps, Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor, East German border guards killed their fellow citizens fleeing over the Berlin Wall to the West, and Soviet soldiers invaded Afghanistan before U.S. soldiers did. Cursed be unconditional obedience.
February 20, 2006 They should know better. Supporters of this war, apologists for this war, defenders of this war, participants in
this war — they should all know better. The evidence is there, but is anyone listening? Democrats, Republicans,
Libertarians, Objectivists — they should know better. Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Jews —
they should know better. Ministers, teachers, doctors, managers, fast food workers, housewives should know better.
Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen, and reservists — they should know better. Flag wavers, patriots,
veterans, yellow ribbon wearers, “God and country” and “God bless America” Christians — they should know better.
All Americans should know better. The evidence is there, but is anyone listening? They have the word of Pentagon
insiders. They have the word of Bush administration insiders. They have the word of the Army War College. They have
the word of army generals. They have the word of members of Congress. They have the word of the Founding Fathers.
They have the word of war veterans. They have the word of Iraq war veterans. They have the word of the vice
president. They even have the word of the president himself. The evidence is there, but is anyone listening?
Karen Kwiatkowski retired as a USAF
lieutenant colonel after spending her final four and a half years working at the Pentagon. She accelerated her
retirement “because of the ethical difficulties brought on by witnessing the misuse of intelligence in order to
support an agenda for an unnecessary, unwarranted war of choice against Iraq.” She describes the current U.S.
military and civilian leadership as “politicized, emasculated, obedient to the bureaucracy and ignorant of the
Constitution.” Is anyone listening to Colonel Kwiatkowski? Lawrence Wilkerson, a former colonel in the U.S.
Army, a decorated Vietnam vet, and a life-long Republican who served as chief of staff to former Secretary of State
Colin Powell, has recently stated that Powell’s February 2003 speech before the United Nations that sought to
justify the impending war against Iraq was “a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the
United Nations Security Council.” He further stated that “there were major doubts inside the intelligence community
about everything that was being said about the Iraq threat, even as Powell’s speech was being planned and
delivered.” Jeffrey Record,
a professor in the Department of Strategy and International Security at the U.S. Air Force’s Air War College in
Montgomery, Alabama, and former professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, writes in
Bounding the Global War on
Terrorism, published by the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, that the war in Iraq “has
created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from
securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda.” The nature and parameters
of the global war on terror (GWOT) “remain frustratingly unclear.” The declared objectives of the GWOT are
“unrealistic.” The goals of the GWOT are “politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable.” The GWOT is
“strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate scarce U.S.
military and other means over too many ends.” Is anyone listening to Professor Record? Lieutenant General
William Odom (Ret.) calls the
war in Iraq “the greatest strategic disaster in our history, not in terms of its present body count, but rather
because of its radiating consequences for the region and the world.” Invading Iraq “was never in the U.S.’
interests and has not become so.” Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis (Ret.), who was awarded
numerous medals for bravery during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, says about the war: We never should have gone in
there in the first place since we weren’t immediately threatened. There were no weapons of mass destruction;
Saddam Hussein’s regime had no connection to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and wasn’t responsible for the
attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center; and there wasn’t any evidence to back up the claim that Iraq
was building nuclear weapons capability. All the reasons given by the administration to justify this war have
been shown to be false. We invaded a country that posed no threat to us. What’s different about what we have
done in Iraq and what Hitler did when he sent his forces into Czechoslovakia in 1939? This war in Iraq has
already cost the lives of 2,200 Americans, wounded over 15,000 more, and left at least 30,000 Iraqis dead, most
of whom were non-combatants caught in crossfires or victimized by Islamist terrorists. And look at the billions
of dollars being poured into this flawed effort. It saddens me to see all of this happen to our troops — and all
for an unjust cause. Is anyone listening to these generals? Representative John Murtha (D-PA), a decorated
Marine combat veteran and the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, has recently called for the withdrawal
of American forces from Iraq, concluding that the war has increased both terrorism and instability in the Middle
East. He now terms the
war “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.” On the Republican side of the aisle, there is the heroic
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), an Air Force veteran who has opposed the war from the beginning. Is anyone listening to these congressmen?
The Founding Fathers of this country issued numerous warnings about the dangers of wars. We know that Thomas
Jefferson said: “Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to
persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war.” But let’s hear the “father of the Constitution,”
James Madison, on how the state
uses war to strip its citizens of their liberties: If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in
the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the
instruments of tyranny at home. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded
because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts
and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination
of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined,
from abroad. Is anyone listening to the Founding Fathers? Veterans
for Peace, which includes veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and other conflicts, as
well as peacetime veterans, is calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In a
letter sent to each member of Congress, Veterans for Peace stated that “this administration’s war on Iraq, in
addition to being increasingly unpopular among Americans, is an unmistakable violation of our Constitution and
federal law which you have sworn to uphold. In our system, the remedy for such high crimes is clear: this
administration must be impeached.” The president of the group further says that “we believe that when our
government conducts a war of aggression on Iraq and commits a growing and appalling series of what must legally
be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity in the execution of that war, it violates Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441), and numerous international treaties which are
legally binding on our nation.” Tim Goodrich, one of the founders of Iraq
Veterans Against the War, charges the president with “deceit, lack of planning, and arrogance.” He says that for
a real victory plan, the best course of action would be an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Our
continued presence only serves to fuel terrorism, not defeat it. Not only would an immediate withdrawal prevent
the unnecessary deaths of more of our country’s honorable military personnel, but it would also increase the
security of our nation by allowing our troops to do what they signed up for; defending the country. Is anyone
listening to Iraq war veterans? After the First Gulf War, then secretary of defense and now vice president,
Dick Cheney, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in April
of 1991, said about Saddam Hussein and Iraq: I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also
fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we
would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to
arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein
and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should
it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to
bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that
government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should
the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently
unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also
very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got
it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
Cheney also made a speech in
Seattle at the Discovery Institute in 1992, and said: And the
question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very
damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to
MORE HERE: War Empire and the Military
"They should know better. Supporters of this war, apologists for this war, defenders of this war, participants in this war — they should all know better. The evidence is there, but is anyone listening?"
Daniel Davis, Matthew Hoh, and Danny Sjursen reflect on America’s war in Afghanistan in light of the Washington Post’s publishing of a trove of formerly confidential documents on the war. The report, which is being hailed as this generations Pentagon Papers, details the ways officials in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have lied about the progress being made in Afghanistan and the need to keep troops there. Even though lots of people like Davis, Hoh, and Sjursen have been speaking out for years about America’s forever wars, they say that it’s embarrassing for top brass to admit that lower level officers could see strategic failures that the war planners could not—and so voices like theirs mostly just don’t get heard. At some point all three guests had moments that convinced them they couldn’t keep contributing to this lost cause in good conscience, and have since striven to show the world what’s really going on. We need to bring back a healthy skepticism, they say, of the idea that America’s military is a wise force for good in the world. (bold emphasis added) SHOW NOTES: https://scotthorton.org/interviews/12-10-19-davis-hoh-and-sjursen-reflect-on-the-war-in-afghanistan/
LINK: Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing
h
(Continued) Kay Griggs - Sleeping With The Enemy [UNEDITED] ...Katharine ‘Kay’ Griggs knows what it’s like to have a gun pointed in her face. She knows what it’s like to have her face slapped, her bones broken and her nose bloodied by her former bully of a husband, an active Marine Colonel and a man who she claims is “above the law and literally gets away with murder.”
Virginia court documents and photos of her battered arms and legs tell the sad and brutal physical story of her failed marriage, a tumultuous 11 year roller coaster ride ending in 1999. But the real story for public consumption isn’t the private divorce court details. It is the secret military information about drug running, weapon sales, sexual perversion and assassination squads she learned firsthand from her husband, U.S. Marine Corps Col. George Raymond Griggs, now remarried and living in Mirror Lake, NH. This isn’t the first time Griggs is going public with her story about government mob-like hit squads and the sexually perverted secret “cap and gown and skull and bone society” her husband belonged to along with other high-ranking Marine officers and pubic officials. She first went public in 1996 after receiving death threats, being rescued by Sarah McClendon, former senior member of the White House press corps, who believed her story and took Griggs under her wing, giving her a place to stay and important advice about how to stay alive when dealing with military operatives. “I became a whistle blower and received death threats,” said Griggs this week in an extended telephone conversation from her Tidewater, VA. home. “I finally wound up living for safety reasons with Sarah, the dean of the White House Press Corps, who had been with every president since FDR and was in Army intelligence and also an attorney's daughter from Texas.” Advised by McClendon to go public without being able to get the mainstream media to listen, she traveled to Adrian, MI on the advice of a friend to do a long extended taped interview with Pastor Rick Strawcutter, a preacher and owner of a 500 watt pirate FM station at 99.3 on the dial in Lenawee County. Strawcutter, who believed in free speech radio and empowering the public with the truth, produced two extended interviews finally released in 2000, one being a two hour version called “Sleeping With The Enemy” and the other an unedited eight hour version available at www.kaygriggstalks.com. Since then Griggs said she went back to her Virginia home, tried to piece her life together and essentially talked to private groups or anybody who would take the time to listen. Now this week Griggs decided to tell her story again, saying “I will keep repeating it to anyone” and adding after 9/11, the war in Iraq, the London bombings and the fear of terrorism, the “American people are at a point were they are ready and willing to hear the truth.” Although they may be shocked, Griggs said the “truth will set you free,” even if it means facing up to the highest form of corruption, including sexual perversion and government sponsored mob-like hits orchestrated by high-ranking military and government officials.
LINKS: INFAMOUS 9/11 | THE WAR ON TERROR IS A HOAX
Audio Excerpt: Trump's plan to seize Iraq's oil: 'It's not stealing, we're
reimbursing ourselves'
Hakes pointed out that Gen Douglas MacArthur, who Trump professes to admire, did the opposite when he oversaw the occupation of Japan: MacArthur brought resources in to help fend off starvation of the population.“By giving up the spoils of war, MacArthur and the United States earned the respect of the Japanese and the world, helping legitimise America’s status as leader of the free world,” he argued. ------------------------ How the US Occupied the 30 Percent of Syria Containing Most
of its Oil, Water and Gas Aiming at Iran
LINK: THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
“America Exists Today to Make War”: Jan 13, 2020 | Democracy Now! Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2002 to 2005, says the escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran today is a continuation of two decades of U.S. policy disasters in the Middle East, starting with the 2003 run-up to war with Iraq under the Bush administration. “America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It’s part of who we are. It’s part of what the American Empire is,” says Wilkerson. “We are going to cheat and steal to
do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That’s the truth of it.
----------------------------------------------------
By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky Introduction The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by Global Research on April 29, 2013).
President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). In recent developments, the Trump administration has expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is supportive of the “Greater Israel” project. It consists in the derogation of Palestinian’s “the right of return” by “naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside”. Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region. According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
First published at 20:28 UTC on January 11th, 2020. Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours. Get a TLAV "Question Everything" T-Shirt or Sticker at:
Know More News 2 | Jan 12, 2020 | Know More News with Adam Green https://www.KnowMoreNews.org/ | Support Know More News! | Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/AdamGreen Venmo - @Know-More-News
Link: C.I.A.
ONLINE PDF: www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf
-- Aaron Dykes, journalist, Truthstream Media, video : While Everyone Was Busy Being Distracted by Texas… --
Watch: Pompeo admits CIA lies, cheats, plans Iran attack RT America Is the US government preparing to lie its way into another war? State Sec. Mike Pompeo has
admitted to “lying, cheating and stealing” as CIA director. Rick Sanchez reminds us that as citizens, it’s our
responsibility to be aware of what’s going on in our government and to hold officials to account.
...Don't Get The Aggressor
Twisted RT America While Americans are celebrating Independence day this weekend, Iranians all over the world will be morning the death of nearly 300 hundred Iranian citizens at the hands of the US navy. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iranian airliner 655 en route to Dubai. The incident sparked controversy and it was later revealed the Navy tried to cover-up the incident. The event also came at the end of the Iran - Iraq war, marking a dark chapter in US history in the region. Iranians all over the world will be morning the death of nearly 300 hundred Iranian citizens at the hands of the US navy
-----------------------------------------------------------
TEHRAN – Tehran Urban and Suburban Railway Company (TUSRC), which runs the capital city’s subway network,
announced that nearly three million people used its trains for commuting to east-to-west streets in the central
part of the city to attend the mass funeral held for late Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani on Monday. Tehran Urban and Suburban Railway Company (TUSRC), generally known as the Tehran Metro, said in a statement on Tuesday that a total of 2.95 million people had taken train services in seven lines to reach stations on Enqelab and Azadi streets, the two main roads stretching from west to east of Tehran where the funeral was held a day earlier. The figure, recorded on a holiday when all of government offices and shops located in downtown Tehran were closed, is an all-time high for the TUSRC. Various reports, as well as government figures, suggested that more than seven million people had attended the funeral of General Soleimani, the former commander of Iran’s Quds force who was assassinated along with Iranian and Iraqi companions in the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad. A calculation was provided based on satellite pictures that said more than 8.5 million people had turned up for the ceremony, the likes of which has never been seen in Iran at least in the past three decades. The 11-kilometer path hosting the procession was so packed in some places that it led to incidents for the mourners. It is said that more than 500 people had been referred to clinics and hospitals for slight injuries while a total of 63 people had to be hospitalized for relatively serious conditions. A similar mass march held in General Soleimani’s hometown of Kerman on Tuesday also drew more than a million people. Reports said the huge crowd that turned out in Kerman, a city of nearly 600,000 people located in southeast Iran, caused multiple deaths during a stampede that broke out just before the burial.
B_L_O_W_B_A_C_K: IS AN INTENDED CONSEQUENCE TO KEEP THE FAKE WAR ON TERROR
ALIVE
Ron Paul - BLOWBACK
In the 2007 elections Ron Paul used the term
"Blow Back", often used by the CIA to describe the unintended consequences of foreign operations that are
deliberately kept secret from the American public. Paul described the United States foreign policies and
interventionism against sovereign nations created the hostility towards the United States, eventually leading to
the 911 attacks. Paul was Booed by the crowd.
The War of Terror is A CIA-Sponsored PsyOp corbettreport While people on both sides of the phoney left/right divide squabble over terrorist boogeymen and
Trump's CIA chief gives Saudi Arabia an award for "counter"terrorism, everyone has lost sight of the bigger
picture: The blithering morons who are the face of international terror are aided, funded, controlled and handled
by the intelligence agencies. It is all part of the con to get you scared of your own shadow so the
terror-industrial complex can laugh all the way to the bank. Today James
War on Terror: Greatest Covert Op http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/083110b.html
Alternate Current Radio Presents: SUNDAY WIRE This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with host Patrick Henningsen covering the top stories in the US, Europe and Internationally. This week past week has been historic to say the least, with the United States and Iran locked into a dangerous military standoff amounting to the sum of all fear - an escalation towards a multinational or world war. In the end, Trump stood down in the face of retaliatory threats from Iran and its allies, but the story is far from over. Events later took another turn when it was revealed that Iranian air defenses accidentally shot down Ukrainian Airways Flight 572 after take off from Tehran International Airport. In the first hour, we'll talk with special guest, Iranian political and global affairs analyst from the University of Tehran, Dr. Mohammad Marandi, to discuss what happened and how these events will affect East-West international relations and diplomacy going forward. We'll also connect with Press TV correspondent Robert Inlakesh to talk about how all of this is shaping regional strategy between the US, its allies, and the Axis of Resistance, and also how Israel is reacting to recent events. In the final segment of overdrive, we'll connected with the SUNDAY WIRE's Roving Correspondent for Culture & Sport, Basil Valentine for his take on this week's incredible events, and also for an inside track on the apparent 'break-up' of the British Royal Family. How did this happen, and how will it effect UK politics? All this and much more. Enjoy the show…
-------------------------------
This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with host Patrick Henningsen covering the top stories in the US, Europe and internationally. This week we’ll break down the latest from the #Impeachment debacle, how the Democrat 2020 Primary race just got dirty, as well as the new escalation from Europe against Iran over the crumbling JCPOA Nuclear Deal. Later in the first hour, we welcome a very special guest, Iraqi author, lecturer and prominent antiwar activist, Sami Ramadani, to discuss the current deadlock in the Middle East – as a reaction to Trump’s double-assassination, and Iran’s surprise missile retaliation, with the US now refusing to withdraw its military forces from Iraq. Does this signal a major power shift in the region, and the world? In the final segment of overdrive, we’ll talk with SUNDAY WIRE Roving Correspondent for Culture & Sport, Basil Valentine, for discussion on a taboo subject in the British mainstream – the latest “10-point pledge” issued by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) to the Labour Party, allegedly “to tackle the anti-semitism crisis,” but in reality it is being used to purge the Labour Party of left-wing, anti-apartheid, antiwar members. All this and much more. Enjoy the show…
Is the US Trying to Hijack the Iraq Protests Going Underground on RT | Dec 4, 2019 We speak to Sami Ramadani, a member of the Steering Committee of the Stop the War Coalition. He discusses the recent unrest and protests in Iraq in which has seen over 400 killed. He alleges a conspiracy of the United States forming an alliance with Saddam Hussein’s former Ba’ath Party to bring them back to power to counter Iran and also discusses Trump’s ambitions on Middle Eastern oil, the US’ role in destroying Iraq’s infrastructure and public services, why the US was angered by the Iraqi government’s actions and more!
TyrannyUnmasked | First published at 10:20 UTC on January 21st, 2020.
2. Top 15 Crude Oil Suppliers to China: http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-15-crude-oil-suppliers-to-china/ 3. https://syria.liveuamap.com/ 4. Why "Take the oil" is Illegal!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTSnbyG3kzc
Iraqis Hold
"Million-Man March"
Iraqis march in 'millions' to call for expulsion of US troops
-------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/iranfal... The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don't let a war based on false pretenses happen again. Please share this video.
Debunking corbettreport In the modern age of democracy and volunteer armies, a pretense for war is required to rally the nation around the flag and motivate the public to fight. That is why every major conflict is now accompanied by its own particular bodyguard of lies. From false flag attacks to dehumanization of the "enemy," here are all the examples you'll need to help debunk a century of war lies.
5 LIES ABOUT IRAN'S STRIKES - DEBUNKED partisan Girl | First published at 13:27 UTC on January 14th, 2020.
Gen. Soleimani The Grayzone | Jan 6, 2020
||| The Grayzone ||| Find more reporting at https://thegrayzone.com Support our original journalism at Patreon: https://patreon.com/grayzone Twitter: https://twitter.com/thegrayzonenews
-----Notes Why "Take the oil" is Illegal! 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 3. War Powers: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp 4. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm 5. 2001 9/11 law: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf 6. U.N charter: https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html 8. Hague Treaty: loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000001-0631.pdf
Does Iran Chant Death To America? Bitcoin: 15dZuhXmXQnAcd3AdyZJ6BKf9jFzUueoZ9 Follow our other channel's before they take us down! Steemit/D.tube - https://steemit.com/@tyrannyunmasked Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/accounts/referral/tyrannyunmasked/ use code: tyrannyunmasked Dlive - https://dlive.tv?streamref=tyrannyunmasked Minds - https://www.minds.com/TyrannyUnmasked BitTube - https://bit.tube/TyrannyUnmasked Earn Crypto while browsing using this link! https://bittubeapp.com/?ref?2JXLK3F58 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Tyranny-Unmasked-1549455548698692/?ref=hl Twitter - https://twitter.com/TyrannyUnmasked 1. How "Marg bar" is mistranslated: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116
--------------------------------
--
Americans have become so accustomed to the concept of sanctions that the policy has become hum-drum and commonplace. Since the violence associated with sanctions is indirect and difficult to see, people don’t put them in the same category as bombs. But the reality is that sanctions, by virtue of their targeting foreign citizens for death, are every bit an act of war as dropping bombs on them. North Korea is quite possibly the most impoverished nation on earth. Suffering for decades under a brutal socialist economic system (one in which the government takes care of everyone with guaranteed retirement pensions, healthcare, education, employment, housing, and food), the populace is always starving or on the verge of starvation.
The idea is twofold: (1) If the North Koreans are dying or watching their children die, they will do what is necessary to oust the North Korean regime and replace it with a regime that is pro-U.S. or (2) the North Korean regime, faced with a rising death toll among the North Korean people from starvation of illness, will abdicate in favor of a pro-U.S. regime or simply agree to do the bidding of U.S. officials. Either way, the North Korean people are the pawns in all this. They are the ones who are targeted for death by U.S. officials and their sanctions. Of course, this is not the only time that U.S. officials have targeted the civilian populace of a nation as a way to achieve a political goal. Sanctions have become a popular foreign-policy tool of U.S. officials, especially against Third World nations, which lack the ability to retaliate. Recall the U.S. regime-change operation in Chile from 1970 to 1973. Somehow concluding that the Chilean people’s election of a self-avowed Marxist as president was a threat to U.S. “national security,” U.S. officials targeted Chile for a U.S. regime-change operation. As part of the regime-change plan, the CIA did everything it could to make the Chilean economy “scream.” What that meant was that the CIA secretly engaged in actions designed to bring maximum economic suffering to the Chilean people, including starvation, as reflected by a scheme by which the CIA secretly bribed the nation’s truckers into going on strike, thereby preventing the delivery of food to people all across the country. The idea was that by killing the Chilean people or their children, that would make them more amenable to a military coup, which ultimately came in 1973. Recall the 11 years of brutal U.S. sanctions on Iraq. They targeted and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Yes, children, not one of whom ever initiated any violence against the United States. The goal? Again, regime change. The idea was that if the Iraqi people wanted to avoid the ever-increasing death toll of their children, they could oust Saddam Hussein from power and install a regime that was acceptable to U.S. officials. Alternatively, the idea was that Saddam Hussein, if he cared about the Iraqi children, would abdicate in favor of a pro-U.S. regime or simply agree to comply with U.S. dictates. One of the fascinating aspects of the Iraqi sanctions was the indifference among U.S. officials to the death toll among children. It just didn’t matter to them that they were killing children. In their minds, they were just enforcing sanctions — i.e., rules and regulations. Their mindsets were a perfect demonstration of what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil.” When U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were worth it, she responded that while the matter was a difficult one, yes, the deaths were in fact “worth it.” No U.S. official, including her boss Bill Clinton, who some perceived as a great humanitarian, condemned Albright’s position. For that matter, neither did very many editorial or op-ed writers in the U.S. mainstream press. In fact, the position of U.S. officials was that the deaths of those Iraqi children were actually the fault of Iraqi parents and Saddam Hussein. Their reasoning was that since the Iraqi people could revolt at any time and since Saddam Hussein could comply with U.S. dictates at any time, their failure to do so placed responsibility for the children’s deaths in their hands, not the hands of the U.S. bureaucrats who were enforcing their sanctions. Consider the decades-long U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. It is targeted against the Cuban people, with the aim of achieving regime change on the island. U.S. officials sometimes point out that the suffering of the Cuban people is a direct result of their government’s socialist economic policies, as if that somehow negates the fact that U.S. officials are trying to make their suffering even worse with their embargo. If any Third World nations targeted by U.S. sanctions or embargoes were First World nations, there is little doubt that they would respond with a military counterattack against the United States. Few nations are going to permit another nation to intentionally target and kill their citizenry, either by bombs or sanctions. But poor, impoverished Third World nations know that they don’t stand a chance in a war with the United States. That’s why they inevitably fail to respond militarily to the U.S. sanctions attacks on their citizenry. But even Third World nations, if squeezed hard enough with an ever-increasing death toll among its citizenry, can potentially get to a point of such desperation that they finally decide to go for broke and retaliate. They might well figure that since they’re going down anyway because of the sanctions, they might as well take a lot of people down with them. [all bold & highlight added]
MORE HERE: Morality and Politics
United States War With Iran Simulated
If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru, http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9 Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1... Visit us: http://southfront.org/
IRAN 'RISK
ASSESSMENT' 21stCenturyWireTV What will a war with Iran look like? What will be the results of a unilateral attack on Iran by
Israel and the US? Will it trigger multi-regional military conflict? 21st Century Wire geopolitical analyst,
Patrick Henningsen, outlines possible outcomes, including the Hegelian outcome of a One World Order aka 'New World
Order', in an exclusive, previously unreleased interview with domestic Russian television, filmed in London in Sept
2012.
MORE "WORLD ORDER" INFORMATION HERE: General Summary/Crash Course
"And when you look at the key
people in The Order "...Out of conflict you've got profit, you've got political power, and you can direct history.
And if you look at the writings for example of the Trilateral Commission, they talk openly in the Trilateral
Commission -- Antony C. Sutton --
"...What is really going on today is all based on deception. There is a small group of people who are of course financing our so called enemies to rally the people behind government, and that is intent on plunging the world into World War III. And the whole idea is to get the Muslims, and the Jews, and the Christians to destroy one another. And of course that's covered in my February 2007 newsletter where we simply quote the writings of Alice Bailey who was a mystic who actually channeled some twenty-five books from a demonic spirit named Djwal Khul. And in several of her books she talks about the necessity of precipitating this great final battle of mankind where the Jews, and the Christians, and the Muslims destroy one another. And after that will come The New World Order."
MORE "WORLD ORDER" INFORMATION HERE: General Summary/Crash Course
-----------------------
I R A Q
[By Chuck Baldwin] Published: Thursday, January 9, 2020 Just as many of us have been warning, Donald Trump is joining his fellow PNAC puppets G.W. Bush and Barack Obama in taking the United States into yet another quagmire of a Middle Eastern war for the benefit of the military industrial complex—and Israel, of course. Here is General Wesley Clark exposing the U.S. (PNAC) plan to topple the governments in seven Middle Eastern and North African countries back in 2007. I expressed my deep concern that Trump would do exactly what he’s now doing from the time he was elected. All of Trump’s talk about ending America’s endless wars in the Middle East was just so much hot air. I’ve said that from the beginning. Now, here we are: ramping up another stupid, unjustified and totally unnecessary war predicated upon nothing but lies, deception and joint U.S./Israeli provocations. Writing for The Freedom Articles, Caitlin Johnstone writes: What has been made abundantly clear . . . is that those who have bought into the Trump administration’s completely unsubstantiated claims about Soleimani are sincerely unaware that they have unquestioningly bought into unsubstantiated US government narratives. People tend to get their information from tightly insulated echo chambers, and if you inhabit an echo chamber that supports the current president all you’ll get is a bunch of officials, pundits and reporters saying in a confident-sounding tone of voice that Soleimani needed to be taken out. Since they’re surrounded by chatter affirming that Soleimani had attacked America and/or posed an imminent threat in the near future, they assume that chatter must be based on some actual facts in evidence. It is not. When I speak out online against Trump’s act of war on Iran and interact one-on-one with those who object to what I’m saying, the disparity between what they think they know and what they actually know gets very quickly highlighted. Simply by my challenging people to prove the claims that they are making about Soleimani planning to attack Americans, attacking a US embassy, directing a strike that allegedly killed a mysteriously unnamed US contractor in Iraq, killing hundreds of US soldiers in Iraq, that he’s a “terrorist”, etc, they quickly realize that they have literally no evidence for their claims beyond the unsubstantiated assertions of US government officials and people who unquestioningly repeated those assertions. And from there I just ask them, “How well has uncritically swallowing US government narratives about the need for military action worked out for you in the past?” Nobody wants to admit that they are doing such a thing, least of all a Trump supporter who’s poured plenty of mental energy into distancing this administration from the previous Republican occupant of the White House. But that is indeed exactly what they are doing: uncritically swallowing baseless claims by US government officials about the need to advance a pre-existing military agenda, in a way that is indistinguishable from the cult-like behavior of Bush supporters in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. In reality there’s no evidence for any of the reasons we’ve been offered for why Iran needed to be provoked into an almost inevitable retaliation that Trump is currently tweeting will result in all-out war: The claim that Soleimani posed an “imminent threat” is completely without evidence, rumored to be “razor thin,” and entirely debunked in this excellent essay by Craig Murray. Mike Pence’s claim that Soleimani assisted 9/11 terrorists is so ridiculous that even the war-loving Washington Post dismissed it. There’s no proof that Soleimani directed the strike that allegedly killed a US contractor, or that that contractor even existed. There’s no proof that Soleimani was involved in any “attack” on any US embassy, leaving aside the obvious fact that a little graffiti on the walls wouldn’t justify his assassination if he did. The “hundreds of American deaths” line you hear regurgitated by everyone from Trump to Elizabeth Warren actually refers to Iraqis defending themselves from an illegal US invasion with some training from Iran. The claim that Iran was behind Iraqi bombs is without evidence and wouldn’t matter if it were true; claiming the inhabitants of an invaded nation don’t have the right to defend themselves is absurd, regardless of where they got their weaponry. The claim that Soleimani was “a terrorist” is only made because the branch of the Iranian military he commanded was arbitrarily designated a terrorist organization by the US government last year, a designation that any foreign government could just as easily make for any branch of the US military. He was actually a fearsome enemy of ISIS and al-Qaeda and played a massive role in halting the spread of ISIS. We are being lied to, yet again, about yet another war on yet another geostrategically crucial Middle Eastern nation. And a huge percentage of the population is marching right along with it. When Iran retaliates for Soleimani’s assassination, these propagandized sheep will be herded by the political/media class into believing that the attack was completely unprovoked. And if their credulity thus far is any indication, they’ll swallow the whole load without so much as a twinge of gag reflex. Former Congressman Ron Paul states: President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. I don’t believe them. Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran. And before Trump’s obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on. At some point, when we’ve been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a “threat” that we must “take out” with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don’t believe them. See also Dr. Paul’s excellent video analysis. In his speech yesterday (Wednesday) in which he attempted to deceive the American people into believing that he was stepping away from a bigger war with Iran, Donald Trump couldn’t help but reiterate his plans to expand and increase economic sanctions against Iran, which Dr. Paul rightly notes in the video above are nothing more than an act of war. Plus, as Trump was again lying to the American people, he was pouring thousands of U.S. troops and deploying six B-52 strategic bombers into the Middle East in preparation for war. That is in addition to the thousands of troops and immense amounts of military firepower that are already there. Ralph Nader nailed it when he wrote: Both Trump and Netanyahu paint Iran as the most dangerous terrorist state in the world. Really? It wasn’t the Iranian regime that illegally cost over one million Iraqi civilian lives and blew that country apart. It was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney becoming major war criminals whose actions cost the lives of over 5,000 American soldiers, injured or made sick well over 100,000 more, and wasted trillions of dollars continuing to this day. Iran wants its sphere of influence. The country has memories. For example, in 1953, the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister and reinstalled the dictatorial Shah who ruled despotically for the next 26 years. In 2002, George W. Bush targeted Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, referring to them as the “axis of evil.” Iran saw what he did to Iraq and didn’t want to take chances by surrendering its security perimeter. The U.S. has Iran militarily surrounded on its eastern, western, and southern borders. Israel has working spies in Iran, creating secret sabotage and mayhem. Israel, which has illegally bombed civil war-wracked Syria (no threat to Israel) dozens of times, has recently hit locations known to have Iranian advisors to Bashar Assad, Syria’s ruler, while fighting ISIS, along with U.S. forces there. Iranians have been killed in these raids. So who is the aggressor here? Unlike Israel’s many invasions and military incursions, Iran, a poor country, has not invaded any country for over 250 years. Iraq’s dictator invaded Iran in 1980, with U.S. backing, costing Iran an estimated 500,000 lives. No country, save the U.S. Empire, has the chutzpah that Netanyahu possesses because he knows the U.S. government and the mass media will embrace his expanding push for U.S. militarism in the Middle East. Steven Ben-Nun of Israeli News Live is reporting that General Soleimani was actually in Iraq to meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister who had agreed to negotiate a peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course, peace in the Middle East does NOT serve the expansionist goals of either the United States or Israel. Think of it: If Soleimani was in Iraq for the purpose of organizing terror attacks against the United States, would he have flown into Baghdad on a commercial jet? You have to be absolutely brainless to believe such a fairy tale. Make no mistake about it, folks: This is another war for Zionist Israel—and U.S. war profiteers, of course. Max Blumenthal corroborates Ben-Nun’s report: When Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi addressed his country’s parliament, Trump’s justification for killing Soleimani was exposed as a cynical lie. According to Abdul-Mahdi, he had planned to meet Soleimani on the morning the general was killed to discuss a diplomatic rapproachment that Iraq was brokering between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Abdul-Mahdi said that Trump personally thanked him for the efforts, even as he was planning the hit on Soleimani – thus creating the impression that the Iranian general was safe to travel to Baghdad. Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad not to plan attacks on American targets, but to coordinate de-escalation with Saudi Arabia. Indeed, he was killed while on an actual peace mission that could have created political distance between the Gulf monarchy and members of the US-led anti-Iran axis like Israel. As Blumenthal reported, Donald Trump was the one who actually planned and set up the assassination of General Soleimani. Trump is the first president to openly claim credit for the assassination of a foreign chief of state. Historically, heads of state are assassinated by the CIA as black budget operations, giving a president plausible deniability in the press. Trump in this case both admits responsibility for the strike and is actively taunting the Iranians with the death of their #2 on social media. What president in their right mind would get on a public platform and brag about assassinating a head of state like Trump has done this last week? It seems obvious, too, that Benjamin Netanyahu was also involved in the plan to murder Soleimani. No one in the Middle East would benefit more from a joint U.S./Israeli war with Iran than Israel’s corrupt, criminal Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. A war with Iran could literally be Bibi’s political salvation. Beyond that, Iraq’s Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi has revealed Donald Trump’s threat to use Marine Corps snipers in false flag shootings of protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, throw Iraq in chaos and force Abdul-Mahdi from office. Abdul-Mahdi testified that: Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me. Is Trump’s unholy war with Iran an attempt to make himself a “wartime” president the way G.W. Bush did in 2003 for the purpose of helping him win re-election? Is it an attempt to distract the American people from Trump’s Senate impeachment trial? I’m sure both of those potentialities are part of this godless and grotesque gaslight. Or is it an attempt to mask the showdown that is taking place in Virginia between a tyrannical State government that is attempting to confiscate the arms of the people of Virginia and the liberty-loving people of that State who are vowing all-out resistance? Notice that this so-called pro-Second Amendment president has said absolutely NOTHING in support of the brave souls in Virginia who are fighting for all of our rights to keep and bear arms RIGHT NOW. I’ll have more to say about this in a future column. Would Donald Trump really risk the lives of Americans, another prolonged Middle Eastern war and maybe World War III for the sake of Netanyahu and his nest of Zionist vipers in Israel? You bet he would! For one thing, Donald Trump is himself a hardcore Zionist cultist. His first loyalty is NOT to the United States; it is to Israel. He brags about being Israel’s Prime Minister. Mark Levin called him America’s “first Jewish president.” He issued an executive order giving all things Judaic official protected status, making it off limits for criticism and elevating it to America’s de facto state religion. The other thing is, Donald Trump doubtless suffers from extreme narcissistic rage. He has no moral filter. He is utterly and completely devoid of conscience. He has no feelings of personal consequences for his actions. He is immune to emotions such as grief, remorse, sorrow and empathy. Trump’s threat to attack and destroy Iran’s cultural (religious, historical, sacred, etc.) sites that have no military value whatsoever and that would intentionally take the lives of untold numbers of innocent civilians is a glaring indicator of his narcissistic and pathological rage. For such a man to control the mightiest military force in the world is a nightmare of ghoulish proportions. Do not be fooled: War with Iran will be costly—and I mean for the United States. It will make the U.S. war in Iraq look like a Boy Scout camping trip by comparison. We’ve been waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost twenty years—with no end in sight and nothing to show for it, except thousands of American deaths, trillions of American dollars wasted and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani deaths. And now Donald Trump is leading America into yet another Middle Eastern war. For what? To enrich the military industrial complex and the politicians they bankroll? To enrich the oil companies? To save Benjamin Netanyahu’s job and keep him out of jail? To spoil the peace efforts between Iran and Saudi Arabia? To assist Israel’s Naziesque expansionism? To save Trump’s 2020 election? To distract the American people from Trump’s impeachment trial? To cover up the tyrannical effort to disarm the people of Virginia? For what? We can soon expect a false flag attack that can be blamed on Iran to justify Trump’s bloodlust. Are our memories really that dulled? America has absolutely NO BUSINESS being in the Middle East whatsoever. WE are the aggressor. WE are in violation of God’s Natural Law. WE are in violation of International Law. WE are the ones fomenting dissension and war in the region. WE are the ones killing untold numbers of innocent people who have never harmed, never tried to harm or never even thought about harming the United States. Is this what all you folks voted for when you voted for Donald Trump? Will you now continue to praise and support him as he leads us into another unconstitutional war? Will you send your sons and daughters to fight Trump’s War—Trump’s unholy war? Will you continue to call him “God’s man” and “the chosen one” when you go to church? Will you say “amen” when the con man, thief, convicted felon and overall moral reprobate, televangelist Jim Bakker, hypocritically pontificates, “Trump is a test whether you’re even saved. Only saved people can love Trump”? What rubbish! Trump is a test, alright, but NOT in the way Bakker thinks. Quoting Jason Charles again: Trump-supporting Christian Zionists have come out in force defending the actions of the president and voicing their support for any and all war the U.S. and Israel directs us into. You simply cannot defend Trump at this point without looking compromised yourself. He is a moral reprobate, liar, and the active party in the murder of a foreign head of state. Christians Zionists are . . . completely without discernment or principle and absent of any Christian charity and efforts toward peace. Christians are under a blindness and delusion that can only be attributed to the judgement of God on this country. They worship a wicked man and deserve every bit of the judgement of Heaven we will undoubtedly continue to receive. Mr. Charles is absolutely right. Christian Zionists are truly under a supernatural delusion—about Donald Trump and the Rothschild State of Israel. When you look at the cause of divine judgment on America, look FIRST at the house of God. (I Peter 4:17) If America’s Christians continue to follow the Pied Pipers of Christian Zionism in blind support of the murderous psychopaths Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, I fear that the judgment of Heaven upon this country will be recorded as one of the greatest national catastrophes in the annals of human history. P.S. I strongly urge readers to order the phenomenal book by Christopher Bollyn entitled The War On Terror. From the book’s back cover: Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to understanding the deception that has changed our world. By going to war with Iran, Trump is proving that he is just another bought-and-paid-for neocon warmonger—a puppet for the CFR, Zionist Israel and the military industrial complex. This is NOT a spontaneous event. This is a cold, calculated strategy that has been taking place since before 9/11/2001. Trump is “the chosen one” alright; he has been chosen by the globalists to finish what G.W. Bush started—not that it will EVER be finished. But they intend to clear the way for the Zionists to realize their long-anticipated Greater Israel Project. GET THIS BOOK: The War On Terror by Christopher Bollyn. © Chuck Baldwin
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: Chuck Baldwin Live Donate Form I also have many books and DVDs available for purchase online. Go here: To subscribe to my weekly columns, click here:
How to Prevent
a War With Iran https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/laurence-m-vance/how-to-prevent-a-war-on-iran/ 
July 14, 2008
The saber rattling and drum beating for war with Iran are getting louder and louder every day. Unfortunately, some Evangelicals are
among the loudest voices crying for war with Iran. President Ahmadinejad is worse than Hitler, according to the
Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry. In the March/April 2007 issue of Israel My
Glory, published by this ministry, Elwood McQuaid, the executive editor, maintains that “annihilating the
Jewish state is merely a warm-up. Although the lynchpin of Ahmadinejad’s crusade is a first-strike success
against his near neighbor Israel, the next move is westward to Europe and then on to finish off the hated
United States.” Another piece in the same issue of Israel My Glory quotes Benjamin Netanyahu as saying that
“unless the United States stops Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, America has only two to five years left.”
In the recent May/June 2008 issue, we see more of the same: “Replace the name Hitler with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
who rants against his selected scapegoats, Israel and the Jewish people, blaming them for every iniquity and
offering the only u2018acceptable’ solution: genocide and annihilation of the Jewish state. His desire is not
for a 1,000-year Reich but for a global, Islamic caliphate.” The American people cannot just stop their ears
and expect that all the saber rattling, drum beating, and war crying will go away after the election of a new
U.S. president. We already know that John McCain — who had no problem bombing Vietnam back to the Stone Age —
is a crazed warmonger. But the election of Barack Obama instead of John McCain will not mean anything different
when it comes to Iran. Obama considers the danger posed by Iran to be grave and real — so much so that his goal
“will be to eliminate this
threat.” But regardless of who occupies the U.S. presidency, there is really only one sure-fire way to
prevent a war with Iran. The fact that Iran is not a threat to the United States will not stop us from going to
war. Was Iraq a threat to the United States? Was Afghanistan? Was Vietnam? Germany couldn’t cross the English
Channel to invade Great Britain. How was Germany a real threat to the United States? Japan was goaded
into/allowed to bomb Pearl Harbor, but was Japan really a threat to the United States? Were the Central powers
a threat to the United States in 1917? Was Spain a threat to the United States in 1898? None of the many
incursions of U.S. troops into other countries was because of a credible threat to the United States. To say
that war with Iran is justifiable because Iran might someday possibly become a threat to the United States is
ludicrous. Should we go into the ghettos of U.S. cities and jail or kill young boys because they might grow up
and become a thug and possibly carjack someone? The fact that Iran is not a threat to Israel will not prevent a
war with Iran. Now, whether country A is or is not a threat to country B should have no bearing on U.S.
military activities. Following the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson, the United States should not have
entangling alliances with any country. Unfortunately, the United States has many entangling alliances, and we
have intractably entangled ourselves in the Middle East. The fruit of years of an aggressive, interventionist,
and imperialistic U.S. foreign policy is increased hatred of both the United States and Israel. The fact that
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and, according to the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate, has not been
working on a nuclear weapon since 2003 will not stop the Bush administration from foolishly and immorally
launching a preventive strike against yet another country. Bush has even said that the NIE “in no way lessens” the threat of Iran. It
doesn’t matter if Iran’s nuclear program is entirely for civilian use. The United States, or Israel, or both
countries, could still try to destroy anything in Iran that could possibly be used in any kind of a nuclear
program. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed that Iran “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” But the fact that Iran’s
civilian nuclear program may really be for military use or might in the future be converted to military use is
immaterial. Three of Iran’s neighbors — Israel, Pakistan, and India — have such weapons. Plus nearby China and
Russia. And of course, the great Satan, the United States, not only has more nukes than any other country, it
is the only country that has used them and is now currently threatening Iran. The fact that the U.S. military
is already stretched to the breaking point — “dangerously thin,” according
to a recent survey of military officers — is of no consequence to Bush the decider in chief, who maintains that
“all options are on the
table.” No one in his family will ever suffer the horrors of war. The price of gas, which is certain to
rise much higher in the advent of war with Iran, is inconsequential to anyone in the Bush family. The failure
of the anti-Iran resolutions introduced in the Senate (S. Res. 580) and the House (H. Con. Res. 362) to pass will not prevent
a war with Iran. Congress long ago abrogated its constitutional war-making authority to the president. If Bush
announced today that he ordered U.S. forces to bomb, invade, and occupy Iran, the Congress — Democrats and
Republicans — would begin allocating billions of dollars for the war effort to support the troops. Public
opinion against war with Iran is not enough to prevent such a war from taking place. We know this because of
the Iraq war. When Vice President Cheney was recently told that polls showed that about two-thirds of the
American people believed that the Iraq war was not worth fighting, Cheney arrogantly replied: “So?” And furthermore, U.S. presidents may be evil,
but they are not stupid (okay, with one exception). Every president knows that Americans are in love with the
U.S. military. Americans will support the troops no matter who they are fighting against, even if they can’t
locate the country of our “enemy” on a map. The
repercussions of a war with Iran would be devastating, for as Tom Engelhardt recently explained, Iran
has “a remarkable capacity to inflict grievous harm locally, regionally, and globally.” Since most Americans
are relatively unconcerned about the number of innocent Iranians that might be wounded or killed in any U.S.
military action against Iran (all Muslims are terrorists; and besides, their skin is darker than ours) or even
the number of U.S. soldiers who might be wounded or killed (they enlisted of their own free will; and besides,
they are defending our freedoms), I will just mention one area in which grievous harm will occur: the price of
oil. A war with Iran, as Engelhardt also noted, “would result in a global oil shock of almost inconceivable
proportions.” And this time, it would be clear to all from the beginning that the price of oil was directly
related to the war. Engelhardt doesn’t think war with Iran is likely, and I hope he is right. But when it comes
to this evil administration, nothing is out of the question, nothing is off limits, nothing is too far-fetched.
But if Bush the decider in chief is determined to multiply his war crimes by attacking Iran, or giving
Israel a green light (or not issuing a red
light) to do so with the promise of U.S. military backup, what can be done to prevent such a war from taking
place? I see only one solution: the troops. The troops? But they are the ones who will be doing the fighting.
Exactly. Bush, Cheney, Gates, Petraeus, the secretaries, under secretaries, and assistant secretaries of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the members of the Joints Chiefs of Staff won’t be lifting a finger against
Iran. Only U.S. troops — the ones who will suffer and bleed and die for a lie — will be fighting an illegal,
immoral war against Iran. But because it is only the troops that will be doing the dirty work, and because the
troops greatly outnumber their commanders in the field and the bureaucrats in the Pentagon, and because it’s
impossible for the American people to support the troops in their war effort if the troops themselves refuse to
prosecute the war — the troops refusing to fight is the only sure-fire way to prevent a war with Iran. Now, for
this to happen, it is apparent that the hearts and minds of the troops must be changed. The troops need to see
that Iran is not a threat to the United States, that Iran is not a threat to Israel, that Iran doesn’t have a
nuclear weapon, that Iran is perfectly justified if it obtained a nuclear weapon, that the U.S. military is
stretched to the breaking point, that the president has no constitutional authority to begin a war with Iran,
and that the American people will support them in their decision. The troops need to see that an attack on Iran
would be unnecessary, unwise, unjust, illegal, immoral, and in violation of the Constitution they swore to
uphold. It would be anything but fighting to defend our freedoms. The troops need to see that attacking Iran
perverts the purpose of the military. Defending the United States against attack or invasion is admirable;
attacking and invading foreign countries is not. In defense of the United States, the U.S. military should
guard U.S. borders, patrol U.S. coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over U.S. skies. It should not do these things
in other countries, and should certainly not induce other countries to do these things because of a threat by
th
 e United States. The troops need to see that American foreign policy is responsible for
much evil throughout the world. It is contrary to the wise, noninterventionist foreign policy of the
Founding Fathers. So contrary in fact that the Founders wouldn’t recognize what their constitutional,
federated republic has become. Fighting an offensive, foreign war perpetuates an evil U.S. foreign policy.
The troops need to see that they are the ones who will be responsible for waging an unjust war. They are
the ones who will be dropping the bombs and firing the bullets. They are the ones who will be doing the
wounding and killing. They are the ones who will be destroying property and infrastructure. The troops
need to see that there are some orders that they just shouldn’t obey — even if they come directly from
their commander in chief. Why is it that Americans insist that German soldiers should have disobeyed any
commands to kill Jews, but that American soldiers should always obey their superiors? In reality, however,
Americans really don’t believe that all orders should be obeyed. If an American soldier were ordered to
kill the president or to kill his mother, we would condemn him if he obeyed. What we really expect of our
soldiers is to unconditionally obey any order that involves the killing of any foreigner in any country.
But this is something that no soldier with an ounce of morality should do. If the troops don’t see these
things, then war with Iran will come should the president be dumb enough, and evil enough, to order an
attack, an invasion, a regime change, or a preemptive strike. But if the troops do see these things, war
with Iran will be impossible. Bush, or any future president, can try to lie the country into war as much
as he wants, but the troops refusing to fight an unjust war will prevent any conflict from occurring. If a
U.S. soldier really wants to be a hero, he
should refuse to fight in any foreign war. “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person”
(Deuteronomy 27:25).
REACH OUT TO OTHERS [Help Educate Family And Friends With This Page]
Subversion | Pawns On The Chessboard | Asleep at the
Switch
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arleigh Burke chair in strategy at the Centre for Strategic and International
Studies. “Oil exports were almost the only Iraqi source of money. So you would have to pay for government
salaries, maintain the army, and you have triggered a level of national animosity far worse than we did. It
would be the worst kind of neo-colonialism. Not even Britain did that.” 
What do U.S. sanctions do? They make the economic suffering of the North
Korean people even worse. And that’s what they are designed to do — to inflict maximum harm on North Koreans
in the hopes of starving them and their children to death.
