[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Are You Ready For Nuclear War?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/?p=4036
Published: Aug 19, 2008
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2008-08-20 11:55:19 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 788
Comments: 64

Pervez Musharraf, the puppet installed by the US to rule Pakistan in the interest of US hegemony, resigned August 18 to avoid impeachment. Karl Rove and the Diebold electronic voting machines were unable to control the result of the last election in Pakistan, the result of which gave Pakistanis a bigger voice in their government than America’s.

It was obvious to anyone with any sense—which excludes the entire Bush Regime and almost all of the "foreign policy community"—that the illegal and gratuitous US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon civilians with US blessing, would result in the overthrow of America’s Pakistani puppet.

The imbecilic Bush Regime ensured Musharraf’s overthrow by pressuring their puppet to conduct military operations against tribesmen in Pakistani border areas, whose loyalties were to fellow Muslims and not to American hegemony. When Musharraf’s military operations didn’t produce the desired result, the idiotic Americans began conducting their own military operations within Pakistan with bombs and missiles. This finished off Musharraf.

When the Bush Regime began its wars in the Middle East, I predicted, correctly, that Musharraf would be one victim. The American puppets in Egypt and Jordan may be the next to go.

Back during the Nixon years, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, Warren Nutter, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. One day in his Pentagon office I asked him how the US government got foreign governments to do what the US wanted. "Money," he replied.

"You mean foreign aid?" I asked.

"No," he replied, "we just buy the leaders with money."

It wasn’t a policy he had implemented. He inherited it and, although the policy rankled with him, he could do nothing about it. Nutter believed in persuasion and that if you could not persuade people, you did not have a policy.

Nutter did not mean merely third world potentates were bought. He meant the leaders of England, France, Germany, Italy, all the allies everywhere were bought and paid for.

They were allies because they were paid. Consider Tony Blair. Blair’s own head of British intelligence told him that the Americans were fabricating the evidence to justify their already planned attack on Iraq. This was fine with Blair, and you can see why with his multi- million dollar payoff once he was out of office.

The American-educated thug, Saakashkvili the War Criminal, who is president of Georgia, was installed by the US taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy, a neocon operation whose purpose is to ring Russia with US military bases, so that America can exert hegemony over Russia.

Every agreement that President Reagan made with Mikhail Gorbachev has been broken by Reagan’s successors. Reagan’s was the last American government whose foreign policy was not made by the Israeli-allied neoconservatives. During the Reagan years, the neocons made several runs at it, but each ended in disaster for Reagan, and he eventually drove the modern day French Jacobins from his government.

Even the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as dangerous lunatics. I remember the meeting when a member tried to bring the neocons into the committee, and old line American establishment representatives, such as former Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, hit the roof.

The Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as crazy people who would get America into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The neocons hated President Reagan, because he ended the cold war with diplomacy, when they desired a military victory over the Soviet Union.

Deprived of this, the neocons now want victory over Russia.

Today, Reagan is gone. The Republican Establishment is gone. There are no conservative power centers, only neoconservative power centers closely allied with Israel, which uses the billions of dollars funneled into Israeli coffers by US taxpayers to influence US elections and foreign policy.

The Republican candidate for president is a warmonger. There are no checks remaining in the Republican Party on the neocons’ proclivity for war. What Republican constituencies oppose war? Can anyone name one?

The Democrats are not much better, but they have some constituencies that are not enamored of war in order to establish US world hegemony. The Rapture Evangelicals, who fervently desire Armageddon, are not Democrats; nor are the brainwashed Brownshirts desperate to vent their frustrations by striking at someone, somewhere, anywhere.

I get emails from these Brownshirts and attest that their hate-filled ignorance is extraordinary. They are all Republicans, and yet they think they are conservatives. They have no idea who I am, but since I criticize the Bush Regime and America’s belligerent foreign policy, they think I am a "liberal commie pinko."

The only literate sentence this legion of imbeciles has ever managed is: "If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to Cuba!"

Such is the current state of a Reagan political appointee in today’s Republican Party. He is a "liberal commie pinko" who should move to Cuba.

The Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war. McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to attack countries, what’s wrong with that? "If we don’t kill them over there, they will kill us over here."

The mindlessness is total.

Nothing real issues from the American media. The media is about demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too many points.

The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the government, for which it is a spokesperson.

The American media does not serve American democracy or American interests. It serves the few people who exercise power.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.

Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics of the US military.

When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.

The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.

It is obvious that American foreign policy, with is goal of ringing Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government’s insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.

Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.

In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, "our" leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.

If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.


Poster Comment:

PCR continues to ignore the democrat's complicity in the current war(s) and wars of the past.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

#1. To: christine (#0) (Edited)

I don't think he is in favor of the Democrats, but it is harder for the Democrats to get away with warmongering. I think PCR is only looking for a way to avert nuclear war, just as he said.

I recall Republicans, en masse and for the first time ever in my memory, being "anti-war" when Clinton proposed to bomb Serbia nearly 10 years ago.

Democrats on the other hand can only wring their hands and offer "support the troops and bombs" mantras whenever Republicans start wars. They can't risk as being seen as "weak" on "national (i.e., imperial) security."

Sam Houston  posted on  2008-08-20   12:12:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Sam Houston (#1)

QUICK REVIEW OF HISTORY Democrats are the war party

The accepted wisdom is that Republicans are more likely to use force early on to protect our country, while Democrats are disposed to prefer to stick with diplomacy as long as possible. The inference, reflected in public opinion polls, is that Republicans are more to be trusted in matters of national security because they will aggressively and quickly respond to threats, real or perceived. As often happens, the accepted wisdom has it absolutely backward.

A quick review of history shows that Democrats are the war party and, not infrequently, Republicans have used diplomacy to end fighting on not always glorious terms.

Start with the War of 1812, a war which, arguably, was unnecessary and surely unpopular in many parts of the country, especially in New England. The president was James Madison, who, with Thomas Jefferson, was a founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, which evolved into the Democratic Party. Madison was an enthusiastic proponent of the war.

Gen. Andrew Jackson became a national hero as the American commander at the battle of New Orleans, which was fought some weeks after the peace treaty had been signed but before word reached the United States.

Jackson, a Democrat, was not a wartime president, but he was the most influential figure in securing the nomination and election of Democrat James Polk, whom he favored because Polk was the candidate most vocal in support of going to war with Mexico.

Polk did not disappoint. With the nation in an expansionist mood, and a rapidly Anglicizing Texas anxious to break free of Mexican rule, Polk was in step with public opinion when he led us into the Mexican-American war.

Ulysses Grant, who fought heroically as a junior officer, wrote in his memoirs that the war with Mexico was "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

Abraham Lincoln, then a representative from Illinois, voted against the declaration of war. Later he became our first Republican president and led us through the Civil War, which saved the republic and freed the slaves, and which was (counting casualties on both sides) the bloodiest in our history.

Grant became our top general in that war and defeated the rebel armies in a series of some of the bloodiest battles ever fought on this continent. He was elected president and served for eight years when we were at peace with everybody except our native Indians.

On to 1898. Cubans were revolting against Spain. With the country in an expansionist mood, there was a lot of support for going to war with Spain. Republican President William McKinley was opposed. But after the battleship Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst stirred the public into such a froth that McKinley felt obliged to ask Congress for authority to send American troops to Cuba and soon thereafter Congress declared war on Spain.

It was a short war, resolved in our favor by two decisive naval battles, one in the Atlantic, one in the Pacific. We picked up Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and Theodore Roosevelt picked up enough publicity to set him on the road to the presidency.

Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected president 100 years ago, ran for re- election, promising not to get involved in the deadly war raging in Europe -- a pointless war into which Europe sort of stumbled.

But, by 1916 Germany had managed by unremitting attacks on American ships to push Wilson into a position where he felt it was necessary to strike back, so we went to war, sending hundreds of thousands of Americans overseas to fight in a "war to end all wars." It didn't.

In 1941, after Pearl Harbor, another Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, quickly called for a declaration of war and sent American forces literally around the globe as we led the free world to victory in World War II.

And, in 1950, Democratic President Harry Truman responded to North Korea's invasion of South Korea by sending American land, sea and air forces into combat. Truman's successor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower, inherited the Korean War but soon ended the active fighting -- by successful diplomacy.

Democratic President John F. Kennedy faced down the Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis, averting a nuclear exchange, and then sent "token" forces into Vietnam, starting us down the slippery slope which took us, under Democrat Lyndon Johnson, into a long and costly and eventually extremely unpopular war. It fell to Republican President Richard Nixon to negotiate a cease-fire.

That brings us to the first Iraq war in which the first President Bush rightly and successfully responded, with the backing of most of the rest of the world, to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And the second Iraq war in which the second President Bush, Republican, wrongly and disastrously responded to his gut feeling and started a five-year war he will bequeath to his successor.

After the Civil War, Republican presidents took us into no wars absolutely essential to protect the nation. Democrats took us, arguably, into two that were necessary and two that were questionable.

So, which party is most likely to quickly resort to force in matters of national security? It's not necessarily a reputation to be desired.

christine  posted on  2008-08-20   12:32:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: christine (#3)

The trouble with this example is that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had much in common with the Democrats and Republicans today. They either espoused opposite views or were debating issues that are not relevant, or at least not talked much about, today.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-08-20   12:45:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Rupert_Pupkin, christine (#6)

Imagine, in the early 1900's, the Democrats were the sound money party, and were against the establishment of the Federal Reserve!

The way I see it, we have, as a whole, become more belligerent and war loving since the end of the Vietnam War. It's been a completely bi-partisan effort, with party being irrelevant. The only consistent thing seems to be that the other party supports wars by its president more than by the other party's, but McInsane was loudly supportive of the Kosovo war (though, like the situation with his advisor and Georgia, I think there was a lobbying effort that might have colored his perceptions a bit), and some Democrats have supported Bush's wars.

I don't see this trend decreasing until:

1.We run out of money to embark upon stupid wars of choice,

2.Congress finds its collective will that they've checked at the door of the Capitol for years,

3.Some foreign power or collection of foreign powers makes us stop.

Of the three scenarios, I think #2 is the best, and therefore least likely. Whether we get #1 or #3 is probably a toss up, though I would expect #3 if we get McCain is more likely, and #1 is more likely under Obama. When you hear someone say that even though prices are rising so fast, they're printing money as fast as they can to keep up, we can all know that #1 has arrived.

historian1944  posted on  2008-08-20   13:25:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 9.

#10. To: historian1944 (#9)

The way I see it, we have, as a whole, become more belligerent and war loving since the end of the Vietnam War. It's been a completely bi-partisan effort, with party being irrelevant. The only consistent thing seems to be that the other party supports wars by its president more than by the other party's

yes, i agree. both parties know and adhere to the 'War is the Health of the State' philosophy.

christine  posted on  2008-08-20 13:45:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]