This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Green Light For Empire: Ron Paul's Short History Of Washington's Wars Since 1990
Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,
The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in 1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current 25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.
Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner. Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate. The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for the people to tolerate that system.
Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives, that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many enemies were created.
The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources, river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development of an empire. An attitude of “Manifest Destiny” was something most Americans had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling others what to do has never worked.
Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries, but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America’s way between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout the world.
Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff calls it the “Great War II” implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as “The Long War.” I hope that someday we can refer to this war as the “The Last War” in that by the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example of how a free society should operate.
There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts to assume the role of the world’s sole superpower.
On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with 15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party’s leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost and Perestroika—policies that permitted more political openness as well as significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto “surrender” to the West.
The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the “green light” message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical. What he didn’t realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power. The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.
When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult. Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began, few Americans supported President Bush’s plans to go to war against an ally that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.
US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam Hussein: “we have no opinion on Arab – Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” It’s not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding the Middle East – a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.
On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle for America’s efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of the world and to secure the American Empire.
President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane. A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990 entitled, “Toward a New World Order.” This was a clear definition of internationalism with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy—something that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech, the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.
This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day. The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure of that country. As a consequence it’s been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many Americans who continue to be mystified as to why “they – Arabs and Muslims – hate us.” By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped that there would be “a peace dividend” for us since the Cold War was officially ended. There’s no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country. The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather than resorting to constant wars.
It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current war and there’s no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.
During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward America for our involvement in the entire region.
Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism, the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging radical Islam has come back to haunt us.
It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States. Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies, and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn’t send enough troops and we didn’t stay long enough. And now it’s argued that it’s time to send ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years of folly.
And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious. Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine — all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.
Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS members.
Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against “terrorism,” which is a tactic, it won’t work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against “communism.” Islamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries, must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style “democracy.” People who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.
The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the “conspiracy theorists” who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order. Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading American goodness and making the ”world safe for democracy” – none of which can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives, led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on America’s foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with “moral clarity.” “Clarity” it was, but “moral” is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and resolve, “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest.”
It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to challenge any regime hostile to America’s interests. They argued that America had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international order as long as it served America’s interests. Although neoconservatives are thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. First on PNAC’s agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq – once they had an event that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans. Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his first run for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a position of influence in directing America’s foreign policy. Though we hear some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike, our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those who believe in promoting the empire.
The American Empire has arrived, but there’s no indication that smooth sailing is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It’s only a matter of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won’t be achieved gracefully.
Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda. The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing that it’s in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult struggle, but it’s something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.
Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire, the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous. Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless it’s an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.
If it’s conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it’s easier to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it’s not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding of what radical Islam is all about —since it is not much about Islam itself — our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.
This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals, and how we’re viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home – the sooner the better.
Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it’s difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won’t work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States — as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.
How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.
- 35187 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Bullish
We're going to have to start starting a lot of wars before they become totally automated affairs so we can reduce ours and other nation's populations:
70 Million Americans Could Lose their Jobs in the Next 10 yearsEither that or a one big war....
It is all a matter of perspective.
That's really the question, isn't it, DW? If they're rational, it'll be a lot of little wars (mostly by proxy, but some with direct involvement). If they're NOT rational, it'll go nuclear. You just have to ask if they've so completely lost their minds that they actually think they can win a nuclear war. Jury is out on that one, in my opinion.
Russia's military doctrine, revised late last year, expresses they think they can.
Their concept is called "Escalate to De-Escalate" and involves the use of nukes early in
a conventional war so as to bring an end to hostilities on terms favorable to them.
Further, most Russian military exercises held over the last 10 years have all ended with
simulated nuclear strikes. Their forces train with this in mind. It is expected.
My personal take on the matter is that Barry et al would NOT retaliate if Russia used tactical
nukes on the battlefield. I believe he would rather see America humiliated and hobbled
as opposed to victorious.
To have America victorious on the battlefield would lump him into the same category as
those his Father despised so very much.
Victory on the battlefield through the use of nukes would also be a massive, permanent
stain on his Nobel Peace Prize winning legacy.
Naaaahhh. Barry is set. If there was a big conflict and we lost, he has SS protection, a fat
bank account and a ticket within the inner circle of untouchables.
Nukes are just so nasty. That said, Tokyo is having the Olympics so they must not be that bad (for business). If the Russians used nukes first, I am thinking that would be so incredibly surprising that there would be no retaliation. If everyone were dead, then who could they boss around? "Escalate to De-Escalate" sounds like a workable strategy.
they gave olympics to japan-tokyo only to make all those critisims off definitivly about radioactivity of the ground and the water. fact is, fukushima is poison spreading non stop for 4 years radioactiv materias that continusly kill tons of fish here and there all around the world because of the golfstream water system.
earth is dying by our fault. we have nothing to get us from the crash, we are falling without parachut, the problem is world elites cannot say a word officially, if they do so, this is instant global revolution.
ppl want a goal in life, a reason to live, if truth is displayed, no more reason to pay taxe, no reason to not finally shoot the noisy neighbour, no reason to go to work, it would be chaos.
the world is this state now, but only very few persons are conscious about the situation.
some ppl have fantasm to get the 1 day instant collaspe of the society, hollywood vision...
the system IS collapsing, every day is a little worst until we reach the void.
there is no solution.
and no, i'm not agree, usa is so arrogant that any nuke strike againt usa from anyone ( preventive or not ) will result in a retaliation leading total destruction of the world as we know it.
Well put by Paul but when it comes to the sheeple, fat fukn chance, fat fukn chance.
Right? A good percentage of the sheeple in his own party think he's a nut.
None of that matters anymore, the TV people tell everyone what they support. It just does not matter what anybody thinks.
When Russia/China finally get around to nuking the U.S. "Homeland" I wonder if they'll use Submarine launched systems, or Silo/Mobile ICBMs? Also, just so I don't miss the coverage (at least before the EMP's cause a blackout), does anyone know if it'll be aired on CNN or FOX News?
Fear-mongering blather.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31899510
Obama must be jealous.
"Obama must be jealous."
Indeed.
common sense, that's why DC never gets it. we are all free to reject this system of corruption called .gov..but it has a cost.
In other "news," when I go to Yahoo!'s website, I'm informed that Taylor Swift's cat scratched her leg really bad and Justin Beiber didn't like one of the jokes made about him and Selena Gomez at his celebrity roast last night.
Come on, there are MANY jokes about the Beibs.
How about a word about 9/11? Is it so hard to say that the government lied about it?
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossadhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/ex-italian-president-intel-agencies-know-9-...
How about a word about that other government agency that promotes mass murder, the Food and Drug Administration. From suppressing the toxic attributes of fluoride in water to Monsanto's poisoning the American food supply with glyphosate (Round Up herbicide) to allowing contaminated drugs to kill Americans (e.g. Sanofi-Aventis' OSCS contaminated Lovenox in 2008), the FDA has proven itself a corrupt agency that should be eliminated in its present form.
Even Ron Paul won't touch that third rail.
It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare
Let's not mince words here - it was millions of Iraqis
US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Childrenhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-201...
On May 12, 1996, Madeline Albright admitted on 60 minutes that 500,000 Iraqi children had died but it was worth it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE
And how about admitting for once the truth that everyone knows by now - that 9/11 was false flag to enable more wars.
The great Ron Paul, telling it as it is. His son could be truly great if he would follow his father's honest libertarianism instead of playing the politician.
1) Honest libertarian my ass. If you doubt that Ron Paul is controlled opposition, then take note of his constant push to audit the fed. Either he's dumb enough to believe that an impartial audit is possible, or he's got another agenda. I think it's the latter: basically squawk a lot about something that won't happen and wouldn't provide trustworthy information even if it did, thus distracting attention away from shit that actually matters.
2) Libertarianism is dumb anyway. Unless you can suggest a realistic way to prevent wealth from being leveraged into power.
"Unless you can suggest a realistic way to prevent wealth from being leveraged into power."
It's called a free market. In a free market the only way to earn wealth is to provide goods and services which other individuals desire. Such services could include protection from those who would try to profit from involuntary means. Problem solved.
And the only people who could afford such services would be those with large concentrations of wealth.
I've given this a lot of thought and come to the reluctant conclusion that industrialism is ALWAYS going to result in these sorts of scenarios. Industrialism demands that the means of production are owned by the few, and the rest are dispossessed. Why? Simple: nobody works in a factory if they have a choice. Nobody. Capitalism, socialism, all the other isms... they've all failed, if the goal is really to empower the masses to live freely.
And the only people who could afford such services would be those with large concentrations of wealth
Actually deep local pockets (employers and business establishments) would likely subsidize service for the underprivileged. You just haven't thought things through. And you really can't think them through because what happens in a free market is dependent on the voluntary interaction of numerous individuals rather than the imposed edicts of central planners.
nobody works in a factory if they have a choice.
One must be truly pampered to suggest that it is those individuals who can feed their families because they have work who have no choice as opposed to those who have no means of support for themselves and their loved ones.
if the goal is really to empower the masses to live freely.
Only individuals can live freely. Just try to be part of an independent mass.
Actually deep local pockets (employers and business establishments) would likely subsidize service for the underprivileged.
Wow... you seriously think it would happen that way? I suggest that this line of thinking is INCREDIBLY naive. Study the 19th century and get back to me.
One must be truly pampered to suggest that it is those individuals who can feed their families because they have work who have no choice as opposed to those who have no means of support for themselves and their loved ones.
You know exactly what I mean. Ever worked in a factory? I've worked in several. They're horrible, soul-crushing places and pretty much everybody who works in them is miserable. Nobody subjects themselves to that if there are options.
Look, I don't give a flying fuck if people are rich. I care that they leverage their wealth into political power. Show me a REALISTIC method for preventing that. The libertoonian ethos would just translate into direct corporate ownership of everybody instead of it being done through a proxy government. Honestly, I've simply come to believe that large complex societies are inherently evil and freedom cannot exist within them. Since we're not getting away from large complex societies I think we're just fucked.
I care that they leverage their wealth into political power. Show me a REALISTIC method for preventing that.
If there is no political power to be gained there is no problem.
Government is the organization of society through violence and threats of violence. That is the law of the jungle. Civilized individuals can organize themselves voluntarily for the betterment of all only by recognizing the individual as the essential societal element.
This is not merely a matter of principle. Voluntary interaction unhindered by incompetent overseers increases productivity which increases wealth and satisfaction leading to greater stability and peace.
Case in point: The Too Big to Fail banks got bailed out by government despite the objections of 99 percent of the people. Government made this possible. Government used its muscle to transfer trillions of dollars from taxpayers to the big banks. Not only was this a massive theft it has created a zombie economic system which is smothering most Americans.
In a free market those banks would have failed. Done. Gone. Bye-bye. There would have been a period of adjustment but without the stranglehold of the banks we would have more than recovered by now.
So ask yourself if the system that props up the banks at the expense of everyone else is really the system you trust to make your life better. How many times do you need to see the forces which they say are meant to protect you used against you before you realize what the problem is?
Take those forces away and you get the robber barrons all over again. Trust me, he who has the gold will still make the rules. I'm not saying one is better than the other... I'm suggesting that we've dug ourselves a very deep hole and are left with only bad choices. Honestly, I think the agricultural revolution came 30,000 years too early. We're not ready for large, complex societies. But now that horse is out of the barn and it'll be nothing but one form of bullshit tyranny or another until humans get smarter. We'll probably destroy ourselves first.
"Take those forces away and you get the robber barrons all over again."
Where to start? Robber Baron is a pejorative but it's loosely defined so who are we really supposed to be afraid of? If someone can amass great wealth and dominate an industry simply by being the best provider of a particular good or service why is that bad? If more people are more satisfied with a greater number of goods due to the efforts of a single man then shouldn't that man be seen as a hero rather than as a villain? And if there is no political power for the rich to take hold of then they can only maintain that wealth and power as long as they continue to provide goods and services which make lives better.
"we've dug ourselves a very deep hole and are left with only bad choices. Honestly, I think the agricultural revolution came 30,000 years too early. We're not ready for large, complex societies."
Listen to your own negativity. Of course you'll fail if you insist that man is bad and the world is cursed and woe is me. And that's exactly where the oligarchs want you. You suffer at their hands while they spin tales about how what they are doing to hurt you is actually for your own good. This confuses you and makes you think that the world is too complex and that people have no good choices. Free your mind and your ass will follow.
Ummm... if you're pointing towards the 19th century industrialists as men to be hero-worshipped then you either haven'y studied that era or you really are in favor of some sort of corporate rule. Wow.
@2handband
You've thrown every imaginary objection to libertarianism you can think of. Like throwing shit against a wall - maybe some will stick.
Libertarianism means you don't own anyone. What's the problem? You want to own people?
Libertarianism means every single trasaction you engage in is voluntary. You want to be forced into things?
Don't gve me that shit about working in a factory. Work is work and I've done plenty of factory work. Maybe you're afraid of hard work. You know what I would love? If I was free so I could choose where I work. That would be great.
I want freedom to not participate in the money economy at all. But I'm not going to get it. You're not going to get what you want, either.The problem we have now is large concentrations of wealth controlling government. Take away government and you'll have those exact same concentrations of wealth hiring private armies and ruling directly. Think it through... you wouldn't be any better off. Maybe worse. Once again, we live in a world where all the options are bad, and we're not getting out short of a miracle or catastrophe.
The problem we have now is large concentrations of wealth controlling government. Take away government and you'll have those exact same concentrations of wealth hiring private armies and ruling directly.
Individuals would have twice as much wealth (at least) without the theft of taxes. Individuals would be able to form cooperatives in order to obtain food, security, etc. Just because you can't or won't see the options implicit in freedom doesn't mean that others can't. There are plenty of good options it just takes more gumption than is commonly displayed by modern man,
Ron,
You point out that the NWO speech was on September 11, 1990, but you stop short of saying why.
inquiring minds want to know. Wasn't that the first false flag world trade center bombing? or was that 1993, I forget
What in thee hell is that? Dude. Please. Switch it up.
I've had worse avatars lol.
We came...we saw...we empired some folks.
So, what difference does it make?
Nuklear woar? Hold on, the i-satanephone is ringing to obey at once. Ta ta.
End the everything........
Putin to Assad "if you like your Syria, you can keep your Syria"
So Ron Paul thinks it is important what people in other countries (who are told what to think by their media) think of America when the American media are telling the American people that Ron Paul is a some kind of racist ultra conservative nutjob? Why is one brainwashed group's opinion important and the other brainwashed group's opinion?
Also, the NWO is not pro-American. It is anti-American - at least in the short term. It is currently trying to collapse America. So Ron Paul can't be that out of touch with reality ... unless ...
He's not. His job is to provide the illusion of political opposition. He is very good at his job.
You're right! I was so busy listening to Ron Paul that I forget to overthrow tyranny today. He's a sly devil.
Ron Paul is the real deal, as was Harry Browne.
OT:
Things might take aturn for the best in Canada.
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/amid-media-blackout-canada-lawsuit-chall...
As much as I love Ron it's disingenuous to call us world's policeman. In my mind policing implies upholding the law and keeping ordinary people protected
from criminal activity. The u.s. is on a rampage to destroy any country which doesn't have a bank beholden to rothschild central banking(criminal activity)
I know it's dangerous/lethal to challenge the beast in the arena(kennedy) but to say we are policing implies we are on an altruistic mission. We're not. He knows better.
It's empire building and they are in the process of destroying the last sovereign nations who don't bow to rothschild zionism. Call it for what it is and you're
suddenly an anti-semite. Their old established system has run it's course. The whole insanity of this is they think they are just going to shift gears and introduce
the new shaft, unscathed. It's not going to happen. The cat is out of the bag. The jig is up. No where to run. No where to hide. The power they have is granted to them
by the people they deceive. That won't last forever, despite the tyranny, tanks, missiles. They will wreck the game board, and run home screaming, but they will not succeed.
Unfortunately they probably will. I think the current power structures are going to survive the coming upheavals, and probably emerge stronger than ever. We are well and truly fucked.
"it's disingenuous to call us world's policeman"
It's a well known phrase. He didn't invent it.
"In my mind policing implies upholding the law and keeping ordinary people protected"
Well there's your problem.
It's not a problem Billy. It's a perception.
Blindness is a lack of perception.
and your point Billy, besides spamming every thread 30 times daily, to impress yourself with your infinite knowledge.
hate to break it to you pal you're not as clever as you think you are. i've read your multitude of daily spams trying
so so hard to find leaks in other people's opinions. you're a newbie, i know you're trying so so so hard to impress.
try quality over quanity, you're not that smart. just talkin' loud...ain't saying nothing
But I is smart, I tells ya!
Billy...commenting & voting for yourself over and over is kinda like jerking off. All your comments have one arrow up.
That makes you a jerk-off. There's more to life than an up arrow on ZH. Are you so starved for confirmation/admiration?
Get some social interaction. It will help with your demeaning demeanor...maybe. You're a certified tool.
All your comments have one up arrow. By your own criteria that makes you a _____ ___?
Hey ... YouTP Did someone die and leave you God of the blog? I didn't catch the obit.
I think everyone would agree that our "policing" actions do not protect and serve. Maybe the kind of police Dr. Paul is referring to are like the ones in Boston after the marathon bombing.
yeah it's all a secret conspiracy by the Joos. give it a rest and put away your tinfoil suit. not everything needs a label the lust for power by those who will do anything to achieve it goes back to the dawn of civilization no need to dress it up any other way.
Shut down those liar cunts at CNN and half of the wars and murder would never happen. This one evil cable outlet has spread more Zionism and death than even FOX news could. Wolf Blitzkrieg is straight from Israel, brought over to direct the Zionist propaganda machine called CNN.
I'm pretty much convinced that the neocons are insane. That said, I'm having trouble calling the U.S. an empire, like Ron Paul afficionados do, because of the definition of the word.
What have been called empires in the past, like Rome, imposed military occupation and direct rule upon foreign territories. The USSR was an empire, because countries in the Baltic and central Asia were not Russian but were ruled by Moscow. But it's hard to say that Michigan or Texas or California or Hawaii, even, are foreign to each other or to D.C. Furthermore, all the states rank evenly, no one state rules the others. So we aren't exactly an empire even in North America.
Overseas, the U.S. isn't militarily occupying anyplace, outside of the troops in South Korea and Germany in holdover from the Cold War. But we are hardly ruling over either of those countries. We vacated Iraq. We've still got troops in Afghanistan, but that country will be vacated before Obama's term is up. So how is the we an empire?
I think calling the U.S. an empire obscures what we really are and what we have been doing since the Cold War. We are Team America Superpower (tm) that roars in like the Wrath of God (fuck yeah!) when our interests, economic or evangelistic, rationalize it. We raise hell, kill, maime, and destabilize everything, then we load up and go home.
That was exactly what we did to Iraq. Had we been an empire, we would have occupied the joint and taken a rake from their oil revenues. Instead, we blew shit up, blew town, and left behind a giant power vacuum that is going to take fifty years to play out who fills it...
America, Fuck Yeah!
Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, Yeah.
America, Fuck Yeah!
Freedom is the only way, Yeah.
Terrorists, your game is through,
'cause now you have ta answer to,
America, Fuck yeah!
So lick my butt and suck on my balls.
America, Fuck Yeah!
Whatcha' gonna do when we come for you now.
It's the dream that we all share,
It's the hope for tomorrow (Fuck Yeah!)
McDonald's (Fuck Yeah!)
Wal-Mart (Fuck Yeah!)
The Gap (Fuck Yeah!)
Baseball (Fuck Yeah!)
The NFL (Fuck Yeah!)
Rock N' Roll (Fuck Yeah!)
The Internet (Fuck Yeah!)
Slavery (Fuck Yeah! Fuck Yeah!)
Starbucks (Fuck Yeah!)
Disneyworld (Fuck Yeah!)
Porno (Fuck Yeah!)
Valium (Fuck Yeah!)
Reeboks (Fuck Yeah!)
Fake Tits (Fuck Yeah!)
Sushi (Fuck Yeah!)
Taco Bell (Fuck Yeah!)
Rodeos (Fuck Yeah!)
Bed, Bath and Beyond (Fuck yeah..Fuck Yeah)
Liberty (Fuck Yeah!)
Wax Lips (Fuck Yeah!)
The Alamo (Fuck Yeah!)
Band-aids (Fuck Yeah!)
Las Vegas (Fuck Yeah!)
Christmas (Fuck Yeah!)
Immigrants (Fuck Yeah!)
Popeyes (Fuck Yeah!)
Democrats (Fuck Yeah!)
Republicans (..Fuck Yeah..Fuck Yeah)
Sportsmanship (...)
Books (....)
" trouble calling the U.S. an empire,"
Theyvhave a blue water Navy...
Bremer: U.S. Will Help Iraq Write Constitution | Fox NewsIslamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse.
I know a lot of ZHers cower to Mr. Paul, but that is about as naive a statement as there is.
So your plan is that Islamic extremism should be misunderstood, ignored and perpetuated?
Nice try, Jethro.
Islamic extremism is thoroughly understood. Suggesting it is not is fail #1. RP's suggestion that it can be summarily "replaced" is evidence that he doesn't understand it. The notion is so incomprehensibly naive that only dyed-in-the-wool RP followers fail to see it as such.
Step back from your militant libertarian leanings for a moment and consider the following. What if RP had said "Fundamental Christianity...should be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world can endorse"...? (BTW, that is pretty much the credo of atheist libertarians). If you cannot see how naive the idea is, I suggest you go back to playing with your crayons.
@mayhem_korner
What if RP had said "Fundamental Christianity"...
Well, I persoanlly think it SHOULD be UNDERSTOOD for one. Confronted? Okay, now, PAY ATTENTION cause this is where your canard of an argument comes alive. The only Libertarian or Anarchist who would CONFRONT (and by that I suspect you are infering a use of force) would be if said group or movement intends to and ACTUALLY USES force to achieve its goals on the rest of society which fails to meet its standards. Last time I checked tha "Fundamental Christian" movement seemed to lack that aspect.
As to REPLACING with ideas... well that can be done over time and without aggression or force as has been shown through history. The difference and why your emotionally charged comparison is invalid is that the people who are callled "Islamists" or Radical Islamists" or "Jihadis" (ALL terms which are purposely crafted misuse of language but that's a whole 'nuther story go read some Lila Rajiva about that) actually HAVE and DO use force and condone such action to achieve their goals. That is the sole reason why they are to be opposed not because one disagrees with thier beliefs. Because if it were otherwise, then that would put sqarely in the cross hairs of Christians a whole bunch of people who read another book that allows for and endorses the destruction of Christianity including the killing of Christians. Save for a very few, very radical leaders within that church, who have only stated that fact or written about it, that group of people has yet to actively use force or violence. Therefore no libertarian is compelled to act against those mere words.
Your hypothetical situation is something that is akin to Mr. Paul being labled a racist or anti-semite, two things are antithetical to libertarian thought. Problem is libertarian like many other words such as liberal, has been co-opted by some and is widely misunderstood by most.
I'm sure you can respond by calling me "Jethro" and to go back to plaing with my crayons or some such but perhaps you might want to actually understand what the fuck you are talking about before you rip off some completely assinine scenario because you find someone else's rational opinion on a subject less than in lock step with the type of thinking that got our country into the situation in which it currently finds itself.
And yes, for the record I did use LOCK STEP on purpose.
Nice rant. Missed the mark entirely, but A for effort. You bit on the example (I figured someone would). I wasn't comparing Christianity with Islam - I was pointing out the absurdity of replacing a deeply entrenched idea. Here's where you falter:
As to REPLACING with ideas... well that can be done over time and without aggression or force as has been shown through history.
You make that statement off-handed, with no support whatsoever. And - as pointed out by one of your co-minions below - you are concluding the following: even though RP was unable to convince his cohorts in Congress of any of his ideas, he will be able to summarily "replace" the idea of Islamic extremism.
Try again. But think about what you are actually saying.
Well it certainly is difficult to change the minds of the "There's a Muslim under my bed" crowd. I'll stick with Dr. Paul.
The entire Glaspie set up of Saddam Hussain, Desert Storm and the start of Cold War II is covered extensively in "New American Revolution: The Constitutional Overthrow of the United States Government." (2011) Wm Fawell, www.scienceofliberty.us
Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell.
I was there. We are a long ways away from that day.
I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if that wall had stayed up....
Tear down the wall? Maybe not.
CNN Is Beating the Drums of War
TND Guest Contributor: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
....If mushroom clouds appear, the responsibility will lie with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, and the presstitutes who beat the drums of war.
http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=297127
Ron Paul's legacy will be the destruction and dismantling of the Federal Reserve. We can only hope Rand Paul's promise to re-introduce his father's "Audit the Fed" legislation foists the legs necessary to get it done...
http://www.globaldeflationnews.com/rand-paul-takes-up-his-fathers-cause-...
what America? Its been gone for a long time! believe what you have to believe to give you comfort.
I disagree. As long as DC can spend without needing to ask the taxpayers, things will continue, short of revolution.
The death of the dollar will fix a lot of the current insanity.
Want to see how it ends?
Watch the Gray State trailer.
Pay attention to the part where the police are executing people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy7FVXERKFE
They will look back in history class and say "America had a 'democratic' political system which was replaced by the modern neo-feudal system. Democracy was found to be economically inefficient because it gave those without wealth and responsibility a say in how the wealth was to be managed.
No the USA was a REPUBLIC but people did not know what that was so they became a "Democracy" which meant whomsoever got most votes got to behave like an Emperor and rule by Executive Order
It's true, I saw it on an overpass AND a blimp!
re Washington Wars Since 1990
1990: Ain't that about when the old USA started transforming into the USSA - with the ZIO NeoCON/Bolshevik 5th-Columnist SCUMMM* rising to the top.. with the likes of Wolfowitz slithering outta his rat-hole?
Wow! What a coincidence!!!
(SCUMMM* - Satanic Cabal Underwriting Mass-Murder & Mayhem)
True but you underestimate their power prior to that time. After all, being able to manouevre America into two World Wars is no mean accomplishment.
Saddam had a point - Kuwait would not forgive the $65 billion Iraq owed them for fighting the Khomeini Revolution and protecting the Gulf States and he accused them of slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields. Considering the Wahhabis had tried to conquer Iraq in 1920s and they lived in fear of Shia Uprisings it might have been a tad provocative of the Kuwaitis to lower the price of oil and demand Iraq repay $65 billion.
Unless of course someone was whispering in the ears of both regimes to netralise a threat ?
Ron Paul
The greatest US President the world was never allowed to have.
RP had no record to run on. Thought leader, yes. But never actually accomplished anything in office. Never penned or led the passage of anything substantive to his agenda. Inability to lead trumps merit of ideas.
mayhem, your greatly underestimating the enemy elite..his success is he LIVES.
LOL. Great avoidance of the issue. I wonder who you think the "enemy" is that you would make such an almost Biblical statement about a man whose repeated demand to audit the Fed has never come to fruition.
How could he? He'd have been out-voted overwhelmingly by the bought-and-paid-for Congress-whores.
So he was unable to convince them of his ideas? Is that what you are saying? 'cuz that is what I'm saying.
And tell me this: if RP could not persuade Congress to carry out any of his ideas, how on earth is he going to convince the world's Islamic extremists to "replace" their ideas with something different (as I pointed out in my post above)?
Thanks for making both of my points. 8D
What I'm saying is that the Congress critters are not open to persuasion. Unlike RP they have been bought/compromised or else would never have been allowed near the electorate. They're allowed to deviate within parameters defined by the Deep State but supporting RP would finish them.
WE ARE SO DESPARATE FOR SOME KIND OF 'LEADERSHIP', WE ARE NOW LISTENING TO THE ORIGINAL TIN FOIL HAT MAN ! PITIFUL, WE ARE IN TROUBLE.
WE ARE SO DESPARATE FOR SOME KIND OF 'LEADERSHIP', WE ARE NOW LISTENING TO THE ORIGINAL TIN FOIL HAT MAN ! PITIFUL, WE ARE IN TROUBLE.
Way to kick off the week by establishing your douche baggery Mike.
Funny, I'm not desperate for "leadership".
Oh, wait, that's right I forgot. REAL men do not seek out, desire or need "leaders".
I always forget that.
Those in the rest of the world that hate us for our shock and awe are being given a dose of disengagement. During disengagement, we are blamed for anarchy. But anarchy was there before we arrived. So let us stop thinking that we or some bankers destroyed a utopia that never existed.
Here's an idea: We start a nuclear war that takes out all the major coastal cities. They're going to get drowned out anyway. This way, we can avoid the relocation of the hundreds of millions of people living in those cities wit all its attendent ugly confrontations and discord!
So, How many deaths are the banksters/ZWO resposible for? The banksters fund all sides in a war, and the ZWO enables them.
Seems it would make the holocaust look like a drop in the bucket, no?
The Holocau$t you refer to was a drop in the bucket compared to the total number killed.
I like Ron Paul but ultimately he is controlled opposition.
He says enough to make some ruckus but not enough to get framed for touching little kids or having kiddy porn on his computer (aka Mossad'd)
True, but the ZioCon Establishment would "disappear" him were he to even hint at opening that particular can of worms.
Seriously, though, I don't think the Ron Paul folks get the strategy here. Here's the real bottom line:
As opposed to what our "leaders" say, they are actually very well aware of "peak oil" and its implications. The implications are that we have perhaps 40 years of economically extractable oil left -- maybe less. Given the phenomenal energy content of oil, its unmatched usefulness as a motor fuel, and the overwhelming advantage that possession of will confer to a military organization that controls it over those who don't, the conclusion is simple: The United States military MUST be in control of the last remaining supplies of oil when scarcity begins to bite.
The corollary is that the US must NOT allow any other significant military power to arise in the meantime.
Our "leaders" don't want access to oil supplies for economic reasons. Thinking that would require thinking that they give a $hit about ordinary people. The overwhelming evidence plainly displayed over the last 35 years should be enough to disabuse everyone of that notion.
If you need further convincing, let's look at the top ten countries with proven oil reserrves:
#10: Nigeria. It's geographically isolated from all major powers. US can probably control it when the time comes. No need for current action.
#9: Kazakhstan. Strategically located between Russia and China with Iran and Afghanistan to the south. Putin headed there this weekend. US is limited to "soft power" there for the time being.
#8: Libya. Muammar Gaddafi was never a reliable ally. How'd that work out for him?
#7: Russia. How are things going between the US and Russia these days?
#6: United Arab Emirates. Bribery suffices here, for the moment. The bribery goes both ways.
#5: Kuwait. Firmly under US thumb. Thrilled to let US protect it from potentially threatening neighbors. It's all good at the moment.
#4: Iraq. Assuming you aren't a modern-day Rip Van Winkle, commantary isn't really necessary here.
#3: Iran: See Iraq. Just in the future rather than in present and recent past.
#2: Venezuela. It's surprising how much friction there is between the US and an otherwise minor Latin American country. "Otherwise" being the operative word here. Together with Nigeria, Venezuela is probably the only other country in the top ten that can be indisputably controlled by the US military if push comes to shove. Which it will. Although it's obvious that the US is going to control as many of the others as it can, militarily or otherwise, until the oil gives out. Which it will.
#1: Saudi Arabia. See Kuwait and UAE.
The US wants to control supplies for military reasons. Economic reasons come in a distant second. Those who control the oil control the world. It's all about power. It's all about oil.
That did not come from Ron Paul.
I cant even imagine an America with a military budget of say 10 percent of what it is now.
Talk about economic strength.