Guest Post: Syria And Iran Dominos Lead To World War

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

Almost three years ago I wrote an analytical piece on the concept of deliberately engineering wars, big and small, by elitists to distract the masses away from particular global developments that work to the benefit of the establishment power structure.  That article was entitled ‘Will The Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War?’:

http://www.alt-market.com/neithercorp/press/2010/01/will-globalists-trigger-yet-another-world-war/

In that analysis, I concluded that since at least 2008, the power’s that be (whether posing as Republicans or Democrats) had set in a motion a series of events that revolved around Iran, and most disturbingly, Syria, which could be used to trigger a vast global war scenario.  Today, unfortunately, it seems my concerns were more than valid, and circumstances evolving in that particular region are dire indeed. 

Now, some may argue that circumstances in the Middle East have always been “dire” and that it does not take much to predict a renewal of chaos.  Admittedly, for the past six years alone the American public has been treated to one propaganda campaign after the other testing the social waters to see if a sizable majority of the citizenry could be convinced to support strikes against Iran.  The U.S. and Israeli governments have come very close on several occasions in rhetoric and in the build up of arms, to just such an event.  However, I would submit that the previous threats of war that came and went are absolutely nothing in comparison to the danger today.

Syria’s civil war has developed into something quite frightening, well beyond the blind insurrections of the so-called “Arab Spring”.  So many outside interests (especially U.S. interests) are involved in the conflict it is impossible to tell whether there are actually any real revolutionaries in Syria anymore.  This unsettling of the country’s foundation has taken a turn which I warned about recently, namely, the removal of UN monitors from the area, which was announced only days ago:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/syria-crisis-idINL6E8JGDXH20120816

The removal of UN monitors is a sign that some kind of strike is near the horizon.

Accusations of potential “chemical weapons stores” in Syria are being floated by the Department of Defense as a clear cut rationale for invasion, and Israel has essentially admitted that an attack on Iran is not only on the table but beyond planning stages into near implementation.  Even Israeli citizens are openly worried that their government is “serious” this time in its calls for preemptive attack, stockpiling gas masks and even protesting against the policy:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/israel-plans-for-iran-strike-as-citizens-say-government-serious.html

The tension of the atmosphere surrounding this crisis is unlike anything the Middle East has seen in decades, and that includes the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But before we can understand the true gravity of this situation, we must first confront some misconceptions…

Firstly, I realize that there are many people out there who have natural and conditioned inclinations towards the hatred of Muslim nations.  There are also just as many people out there who are inclined to distrust the intentions of the government of Israel.  Both sides make good points on occasion, and both sides also have a tendency to get lazy, painting with a ridiculously broad brush and blaming all the woes of the world on one side or the other so that they don’t have to think through the complexities of globalism and the one world technocratic club, or accept that “Al-Qaeda” is not the biggest threat to peace and stability.  It’s much easier to convict an entire race, or an entire religion, than it is to comprehend the mechanizations of an elite minority that plays both sides off each other.

Whatever side you may favor, simply know that in the end the sides are irrelevant.  We could argue for months about who is just, who is right, who was there first, etc.  Again, it’s irrelevant.  What does matter, though, are the potential consequences of an exponential conflict in the region, which no one can afford.

Sadly, there are still plenty of Americans out there that believe the U.S. is the “richest nation on the globe” and has finances beyond reckoning with which to wage endless wars. 

Here are the facts.  Here is exactly what will happen if the U.S., NATO, or Israel, enter into a hot war with either Iran or Syria, and the results are not optimistic:

1)  Syria And Iran Will Join Forces

In 2006, Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense treaty in response to the growing possibility of conflict with the West.  Both countries are highly inclined to fulfill this treaty, and it would seem that Iran is already doing so, at least financially, as Syria spirals into civil war.  In fact, the U.S. supported insurgency in Syria was likely developed in order to strain or test the mutual aid treaty.  Given that the CFR is now applauding Al-Qaeda for its efforts in destabilizing the country, I hardly find it outlandish to suggest that the entire rebellion is being at least loosely organized by NATO interests to either draw Iran into open military support of Assad and a weakening proxy war, or to remove Syria from the equation in preparation for a strike on Iran itself (take notice that whenever the mainstream media shows images of Syrian rebels, they are always smiling or looking valiant with guns held high; a typical subliminal tactic used to paint them as “the good guys”):

http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782

2)  Iran Will Shut Down The Strait Of Hormuz

With all the grandstanding at the Department of Defense, you would think that the Hormuz is a non-issue.  This is a mistake.  The strait is around 21 miles wide at its narrowest point which lays right off the coast of Iran, however, of that 21 miles only two safe shipping lanes are available, each measuring a miniscule 2 miles across.  Hormuz is one of two of the most vital oil transit checkpoints in the world, and approximately 20% of all oil produced passes through it.  The logistics for blocking the two working shipping lanes on the strait are simple given the existence of the new Ghader Missile System, which Iran tested successfully this year.  The weapon is specifically designed as a “ship-killer” with the ability to travel at Mach 3, and evade most known radar methods:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-01/iran-missile-test/52318422/1

In the tightly boxed in waterways of the Hormuz, a large scale and difficult to track missile attack would be devastating to any Navy present, and would turn the sea lanes into a junk yard impossible to navigate for oil tankers.  Result?  A catastrophic inflationary event in oil around the world, making gasoline unaffordable for most people and most uses.  The EU’s recent move to stockpile oil in preparation for an Iran strike reveals the seriousness of the situation:

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/europe-starts-piling-oil-iran-wa-news-514340 

3)  Israeli Action Will Draw In The U.S.

Forget what the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey says; the U.S. will absolutely involve itself militarily in Iran or Syria following an Israeli strike.  To begin with, there is no way around a supporting or primary role, especially when Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz.  With 20% of the world’s oil supply on hiatus, at least half of the American populace will be crying out for U.S. military involvement.  Guaranteed.  Dempsey’s claim that Israel may not get American support is simply a charade meant to infer that the subversion of Syria and Iran is not necessarily a joint venture, which it absolutely is.  There is zero chance that an Israeli strike will not be met with frantic calls by the Pentagon and the White House to open the floodgates of U.S. military might and protect one of our few “democratic allies” in the Middle East.     

4)  Syria Will Receive Support From Russia And China

The Russian government has clearly stated on numerous occasions that they will not step back during a strike against Syria, and has even begun positioning naval ships and extra troops at is permanent base off the coast of Tartus, a development which I have been warning about for years:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/03/us-syria-russia-navy-idUSBRE8720AO20120803

Tartus is Russia’s only naval base outside the periphery of its borders, and is strategically imperative to the nation.  Action by the U.S. or Israel against Syria would invariably ellicit, at the very least, economic retaliation, and at the most, Russian military involvement and possible widespread war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120821

China, on the other hand, will likely respond with full scale financial retaliation, up to and including a dump of U.S. Treasury Bonds (a move which they have been preparing for since 2005 anyway).  With oil prices skyrocketing due to increased Middle Eastern distress, multiple countries including the BRIC trading bloc nations and most of the ASEAN trading bloc will have the perfect excuse to dump the dollar, allowing for the introduction of the IMF’s newly revamped SDR (Special Drawing Rights) global currency mechanism to take hold.  

Syria is the key to what I believe will be an attempt on the part of globalists within our government to actually coax a volatile conflict into being, a conflict that will create ample cover for the final push towards global currency, and eventually, global governance.

5)  Economic Implosion Will Become “Secondary”…To The Banksters’ Benefit

In the minds of the general public, the economic distress that we will soon face regardless of whether or not there is ever a war with Iran and Syria will be an afterthought, at least for a time, if the threat of global combat becomes reality.  The fog of war is a fantastic cover for all kind of crime, most especially the economic kind.  Sizable wars naturally inhibit markets and cause erratic flux in capital flows.  Anything, and I mean anything, can be blamed on a war, even the destruction of the U.S. economy and the dollar.  Of course, the real culprits (international and central banks) which have been corrupting and dismantling the American fiscal structure for decades will benefit most from the distraction.

Syria and Iran are, in a way, the first dominos in a long chain of terrible events.  This chain, as chaotic as it seems, leads to only one end result:  Third world status for almost every country on the planet, including the U.S., leaving the financial institutions, like monetary grim reapers, to swoop in and gather up the pieces that remain to be fashioned into a kind of Frankenstein economy.  A fiscal golem.  A global monstrosity that removes all sovereignty whether real or imagined and centralizes the decision making processes of humanity into the hands of a morally bankrupt few.

For those on the side of Israel, the U.S., and NATO, and for those on the side of the Middle East, Russia China, etc., the bottom line is, there will be no winners.  There is no "best case scenario".  There will be no victory parade, for anyone.  There will be no great reformation or peace in the cradle of civilization.  The only people celebrating at the end of the calamitous hostilities will be the hyper-moneyed power addicted .01%, who will celebrate their global coup in private, laughing as the rest of the world burns itself out, and comes begging them for help.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
kato's picture

"So many outside interests (especially U.S. interests)..."

Try IRANIAN you fucking idiot.

Precious's picture

US and UK created pretexts for the war in the Pacific too.  Put sanctions on Japan even though the real imperialsts were the British. Before that UK was destroying China by opium subversion.  Meanwhile Japan was building roads and infrastructure in Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria.  It took nuclear bombs built by the tools of Zionism to stop Japan.  Ironic that now the only group that ever used atomic bombs, tells the world who can and cannot have them.  

US finally succeeded in destroying China by the CIA installing the ignorant, peasant MAO who murdered China's intellectual class, thereby assuring China would be 100 years behind the west.  Just like the British and the Americans like it.  If you don't think Iran, Russia and China have their own version of history, you're wrong.  

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

malikai's picture

I just looked up that Ghader missile. Its range is 100mi and is deployed on trucks.

Good luck enforcing a blockade with that thing around.

otto skorzeny's picture

like shooting fish in a barrel. Carriers are a WWII relic.

kridkrid's picture

Remember the Enterprise! Avenge her loss.

saturn's picture

Can the conflict be avoided? (Much to the dismay of TPTB who love and worship raping)

i-dog's picture

There will be war, unless the people speak out strongly against it. Otherwise, it's implied consent.

Precious's picture

The Iranians are so inept.  They couldn't land a drone.

Ima anal sphincter's picture

i-dog, You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, most Americans are completely clueless and TPTB will continue to murder innocents. If and until The American People rip this thing back, things will continue to slide into hell.

Seer's picture

Speak, speak?  Really?  When has That worked?

TPTB tell us what we can say/do.

Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!

- DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

10mm's picture

Since when did the people speaking out count?.Will not matter.

Watauga's picture

Against Iran, assuming the U.S. engages in pre-emptive strikes or is willing to let a big-deck go to the bottom, Iran does not stand a chance against U.S. CVN power.  Three CVNs (assuming three platforms in launch mode) combined with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy submarine fleet will make mincemeat out of Iranian air defense systems nearly instantly.  At that point, Iran is defenseless against U.S. air power.  The only questions that matter come into play only if we put boots on the ground in Iran.  Then, unless we are willing to engage in total war (e.g., as we did against Germany and Japan in WWII and as Lincoln did with his army against the South in his war), all bets are off.

Ar-Pharazôn's picture

if this missile is positioned on trucks, you can only dream to block Hormuz.

it's a ground to ground missile not a ground to air.

SO, who will keep the skies over Iran will be USA and for sure not Iran. 

1+1=2 bye bye nice trucks

you know the germanzzzzz could not even move their tanks at the end of the war not only for the lack of fuel but also for the lack of sky control by the luftwaffe

mick_richfield's picture

Hmm, yes that looks scary.

You can't dodge those missiles -- and you can't shoot them all down -- so if I were planning the attack I would try to make sure that their crews didn't know where to point them.  

I expect you still need command & control to do targeting even with the best cruise missiles on the planet.

 

kridkrid's picture

Come on, America was an innocent victim of an unprovoked act of aggression on the part of Japan. Haven't you heard the speech? Besides, nobody even knew who this McCollum character was.

Sofa King Confused's picture

Amerika an innocent victim.......HAHAHAHAHAHA thats hilarious.  Japan attacked Amerika because they cut off all oil shipments that Japan needed to fight a war.  I think Amerika knew exactly what would happen.  They needed to enter the war to save europes ass but wanted it to look like Amerika was attacked first.

Precious's picture

Dear Confused.  It's called sarcasm.  Get used to it.

Sofa King Confused's picture

Sorry must have missed the sarc tag.

Or maybe he logged in under the wrong name... Million Dollar Bonus?

kridkrid's picture

Sarcasm. McCollum should have tipped my hand.

Stackers's picture

While Japan was building these roads and infrastructure in Korea and Manchuria you speak of they were also wholesale raping, murdering and torturing the civilian population.

 

Like the man said there are no white knights in the game of global politics and war.

Precious's picture

Yah yah.  Well, the victor writes the history books, right.  

Meanwhile, seems like the Chinese still do a pretty good job of raping, murdering and torturing their own civilian population, and continue to lie about it just like they always have done.  They apparently didn't need Japan's help with that shit.

Seer's picture

Well, that's INTERNAL.  As much as I dislike unjust activities it's nonetheless up to the people there.  Further, let's not confuse reality with politics, MANY people out in the country would continue to live pretty much as they are with or without any government: subsistence = sustainability (look at nature); we've been brainwashed by the globalist to believe that we need to shun away from this, This IS the big deception.

Above someone mentioned that the "intellectuals" we killed.  Well, that's what happens when people discover that an existing paradigm is headed toward failure.  I'm surprised to hear "intellectuals" in China defended while folks here always seem to lash out at them.  Cognitive dissonances I suppose...

BTW - I'd correct your statement of

"seems like the Chinese still do a pretty good job of raping, murdering and torturing their own civilian population, and continue to lie about it just like they always have done."

to

"seems like the Chinese governing body still does a pretty good job of raping, murdering and torturing their own civilian population, and continue to lie about it just like they always have done.

It's about power.  Simple as that.  And, BIG = FAIL!  Always start with a sound premise (you can flower it up after that).

Raymond K Hessel's picture

If it's internal, so what?  It's only legimate raping, murdering, and torturing if it's done by a foreign power?  

My brain hurts trying to figure you out, Seer.

ThirdWorldDude's picture

You mean you wanna go institute US-style "democracy" in China too? So the cops can taser people instead of beating the shit out of them and getting their hands dirty?

 

Internal affairs, Raymond, is a part of a country's sovereignty and it means that different parts of the world have different laws and customs. If the people subjected to them aren't happy, then it's their own responsibility to change that paradigm, not some world police supersaviour force...

You should stop thinking and go about with your day, I promise your brain won't hurt any longer!

RichardP's picture

 

 

If it's internal, so what?  It's only legimate raping, murdering, and torturing if it's done by a foreign power?


This behavior done inside of any given country is not what is commonly exhibited by disciples, and so it must be changed - by force if necessary. (see below).
You mean you wanna go institute US-style "democracy" in China too?
If you truely understand the imperative in the following verses, you will better understand the "need" of Western cultures to interfer in the internal affairs of "heathen" nations.  It is part of the process of making disciples of all nations. Jesus said, "if you love me, keep my commandments".  So we show that we love him by keeping his commandment to make disciples of all nations.  That means interfering with their heathen behaviors.  Most western leaders may have moved away from believing in the Bible, and so their motives may be based more on simple greed.  But obeying this command of Jesus was the motivation behind many Western leaders years ago, and still some today. Matthew 28:18-20 -

New International Version (NIV)

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

(Edit: Can't put spaces between paragraphs for some reason.)

aquarian1's picture

   It's really sad to see someone deliberately mislead others as to what Jesus taught. When he concludes with "those who love me keep my commandments" he has just finished telling them how to recognize evil people and false prophets. It is not what people Say they do --  but what they really do -- that shows their true selves. "You will recognize them by their deeds".

    He reviews the cores of his teachings (his commandments) not judge others, comfort the sick and the suffering, feed the hungry, etc and concludes with "and the most important is to love each other as I have loved you." If you do these things you "believe in me". You are a true christian including those label themselves as Mulsim, Hindu, Buddish etc. Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you a christian, you have to follow his teachings of love, compassion, non-judgement and caring for others.

   So a priest who rapes or sodomizes a child is not a christian. A man who teaches hatred towards others is not a christian, etc.

   The part about going forth and making nations disciples is in a completely different section, is more correctly understood woth the word "instructions". He knows his days on earth are limited and says to the 12 in effect, "Ok guys, don't knock about around here where everyone knows what I have taught, go out into the world and tell every nation my message of love and peace, "these are my instructions to you".

   The new testment was written by different authors many years after Jesus died and none of it by Jesus and in Aramaic, translated and mis-translated to Greek and Latin and then to English, with edits by the clergy to suit their purposes. It has to be read with spiritual understanding, which is what "Let those who have ears, hear." means. Not literal ears everyone has those.

   None of the evils and wars that where done by the church or with its aid have anything to do with Jesus's teachings of love, peace and brotherhood among all men.

   
   The bible has been twisted and distorted by those who wish to stir up ill-feelings towards others throughout history. Your post is also for that reason.

RichardP's picture

King James Version says If ye love me, keep my commandments.  (John 14:15)  That is a different emphasis than your those who love me keep my commandments.  Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you said, although I don't understand your last sentence "Your post is also for that reason."  I was making the point that Stiler makes in his first paragraph below.  Perhaps you would get that if you realize my point keys off of the word "need" in my post.

stiler's picture

During the British Empire sharing the gospel of Christ became synonymous with making someone into an Englishman. And so it is withevery empire I guess.

Hudson Taylor, an English missionary to China believed in living his life as a Chinaman. He wore his hair long and dressed the part, in effect becoming Chinese, yet still English. The missionary society disagreed with him, but he had great success. Look at the house churches in China today.

 

Raymond K Hessel's picture

I dont advocate for world police.  

My comment means it's not okay for people to be tortured, etc simply because it's internal.

Just in case, some asshole in America thinks it's okay to rape or torture me just because I'm American.  That's all.

You should stop telling people not to think.  That's how we got into this mess.  So now, pull back the stick and don't go hare kare on us.   

...btw, the US is a republic not a democracy.  Democracy is mob rule.

Seer's picture

So, you APPROVE of US intervention?  That would statist, wouldn't it?

My POINT is that using FORCE to prevent FORCE is why things are so fucked up now.

I seem to recall reading that the founders of the US Constitution warning about meddling in the affairs of other nations.  Perhaps they understood where that leads? (religious/"humanitarian" or "delivering democracy" are such old tricks, tricks that we repeatedly fall for [because we fall for the nationalistic jargon/propaganda of being "special," which then means that we have to "share" our specialness with others])

It's up to people to fight for their own selves, for their own land.  I find it more ironic that people here, folks who say this exact same thing, couldn't understand this for OTHERS in other parts of the world.  No, my logic and principles are quite sound, thank you very much.

If your brain is hurting then take a break.  If you REALLY want to figure things out it'll come to you, in time.  Hang in there!

Raymond K Hessel's picture

I think our wires are crossed.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't matter if it's internal or external...there's no prime directive here.  It's both equally evil that it happens internally or externally.

I think we're on the same page now.

Watauga's picture

No white knights, to be sure, but armor takes on various shades of gray as it is used, and some shades are certainly darker than others.  Neither Japan nor the U.S. was innocent in the buildup to WWII.  The French and British were not innocent in the buildup of Germany's fatal venture, either.  But in both cases, the allied powers were a hell of a lot less dark than their enemies.

gdogus erectus's picture

Exactly. It's a race right now for those of us who are awake and aware to spread the word and keep this game plan from happening. It all starts with awareness. These plans are not assured to happen.

AGuy's picture

"Meanwhile Japan was building roads and infrastructure in Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria. "

You make it sound is if Japan was an innocent victum of WW2. Japan was guilty as the rest as a 20th century imperialist, siezing land in Asia and the pacific region. Japan didn't go into Korea, China, etc with open hands, but a clenched fists taking anything they could conquer. Japan also used forced labor camps just like the Nazis did. Lets also not forget about the forced prostitution that japan did in their occupied territories.

The OSS didn't install MAO in China. They provided assistance to all resistances fighter in China fighting the Chinese. One group of the resistance fighters was lead by Mao. Mao became the resistance fighter that siezed control.  The US also provide assistance to Stalin to fight the German Nazi's. The US gave support so that Russia would not fall to the Nazi's. At the time, the US didn't like Stalin very much, since he collaborated with Hitler to seize Poland and the baltic states.

Just because the US, UK and other western nations have done terrible, terrible things in the past, does mean the rest were peace loving innocent victums. The world is full of lots and lots of bad people no matter where you go.

Precious's picture

Fucking brainwashed tool.  Is that the version they distribute in the Kansas high school system now?

knightowl77's picture

Your Moral equivalence would indicate that you are the brainwashed one

 

To equate what we did to stop Japan and Germany with what they did, is total marxist propaganda...

 

 

Precious's picture

Uh.  You don't know shit, Hooting Crusader.  And I didn't equate Germany to jack, so fuck off.

MachoMan's picture

To equate what we did to stop Japan and Germany with what they did, is total marxist propaganda...

That's an interesting way of reframing the argument...  what if we tacitly complied with the rise of Japan and Germany?  or, gasp, even supplied the Nazis with the tools necessary to catalogue their extermination of large swaths of jews (e.g. IBM)?  (you mean there's gambling going on here?).  Needless to say, our involvement in the war did not begin with Pearl Harbor.  Further, I think it's difficult, at best, to separate all of the immoral activities given the interconnected nature of dealings between all parties.  While I don't necessarily think that we're of equal moral failure, we're certainly not clean...  to attempt to determine the particular degree each party is culpable is probably to miss the point.

As a rudimentary political strategy, one always attempts to force his opponent into binary decisions, either of which benefit him (most of the time, but not necessarily all of the time, to the opponent's detriment).  Point USA on that one...  although, too much of a good thing eventually leads to...  our present predicament.  (which is also why induction is a strategy destined for failure).

Seer's picture

Thank you for adding a sense of stability.

The world's in techno-color, the "black and/or white" world doesn't exist (except in the minds of the ideologues)

mick68's picture

I knew there had to be a reason for half the US navy sitting in the Persian Gulf, every hired gun the US could find helping attack Syria, and 150K US soldiers planted on an island just off Iran's coast.

Oh, and the 3 trillion the US spent on dozens of permanent bases in the middle east, combined with enough equipment and manpower to well....take over the entire area. And they want us to believe this was all about Afganistan and Iraq. Yeah, we'll go with that.....

Renewable Life's picture

Nothing like re-debating history and pretending shit isn't happening in front of your face!! This article is about today, not 1940 for fuck sake! I feel like I'm trapped in a college freshman world history class! reading this thread!

The REAL question is, are we at the doorstep of another global war, and what are the ramifications of that???

Seer's picture

"The REAL question is, are we at the doorstep of another global war, and what are the ramifications of that???"

Nothing, really, except... DEATH!  In the immortal words of Harry Callahan: ..."you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" (not implying anything derogatory towards you, it's just that this quote came to mind after I thought that it's all a crap-shoot and none of us really can know whether this shit will claim any of our lives)

MrSteve's picture

This whole line is revisionist nonsense. Imperial Japan was raping Nanking for industrial wealth. TR and his peace treaty probably did put them up to it, but they developed imperial militarism for their own purposes. Ask the Chinese if you don't believe me. Oh, and China certainly is 100 years behind the times these days, isn't it? The eating of children, detailed in Pearl Buck's The Good Earth, is over in China. They eat at McDonalds and Burger King now. You need to assemble a few true facts in historical order before you post here. Rewriting history is supposed to be done by the winners, not the weiners.

otto skorzeny's picture

the old FDR plan-hey the economy sucks so let's get America back to work with a nice world war

dick cheneys ghost's picture

The 'petrodollar' was introduced while Nixon was fighting Watergate................

Woodyg's picture

The 2 horns on that devil Nixon's head - ending bretton woods and opening up china.....

It's been downhill since then....

mick_richfield's picture

Oh, I think it was going downhill pretty well before that.

I would pick 1913.

Seer's picture

That ANYONE believes that a POTUS really makes these calls only further erodes my confidence in people rising above all this shit...

Perhaps people saw the hands of FDR (and his mouth) move, but the string-pullers were there, as they have always been.

The British were pretty well indebted to the US (govt as well as corporations), and had Germany been successful (which could never have happened*) then all that debt would have disappeared and the US would have been big losers.  I'm not sure of what happened to that debt, I figure it was, as is always the case, written off anyway, though the big entities accepted it in order to garner big slices of the war profits (and subsequent carvings of the booty).

* BAD SYSTEMS FAIL.  Nazi Germany just as Communist Russia [USSR] could never have taken over the world, and so too will be the cas with Crony-capitalist USA.

The string-pullers were working things well before FDR.  One could view this as Bush I and then Obama: Bush I and "New World Order," then Clinton's NAFTA, then Bush II's "nation building," to now Obama's global dominance.  These people are ALL programmed.  It's time to whacking at the branches and go for the roots, to stop wasting energy on the POTUS and OUT those who are behind the scenes doing the actual manipulations.  From http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10580.html

When the war began, the U.S. economy was in recession. But a 44-month economic boom ensued from 1914 to 1918, first as Europeans began purchasing U.S. goods for the war and later as the United States itself joined the battle. "The long period of U.S. neutrality made the ultimate conversion of the economy to a wartime basis easier than it otherwise would have been," writes Rockoff. "Real plant and equipment were added, and because they were added in response to demands from other countries already at war, they were added precisely in those sectors where they would be needed once the U.S. entered the war."

Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young men from the civilian labor force.

Rockoff estimates the total cost of World War I to the United States at approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross national product at the time. He breaks down the financing of the U.S. war effort as follows: 22 percent in taxes, 58 percent through borrowings from the public, and 20 percent in money creation. The War Revenue Act of 1917 taxed "excess profits" -- profits exceeding an amount determined by the rate of return on capital in a base period -- by some 20 to 60 percent, and the tax rate on income starting at $50,000 rose from 1.5 percent in 1913-15 to more than 18 percent in 1918. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo crisscrossed the country peddling war bonds, even enlisting the help of Hollywood stars and Boy Scouts. The prevalence of patriotic themes created social pressure to purchase the "Liberty bonds" (and, after the armistice, the "Victory bonds"), but in practice the new bondholders did not make a tangible personal sacrifice in buying war bonds, since the yields on the se debt instruments were comparable to those on standard municipal bonds at the time. As Rockoff notes, "patriotic motives were not sufficient to alter market prices of assets during the war."

 

Watauga's picture

FDR was a master, in any case, of statist-collectivist political action.  He was a tyrant--and whether he was calling his own shots or listening to puppetmasters, he was effective in putting the U.S. on the path to totalitarian implosion.