Target Tehran?

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 12 February 2007 15:09.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

... Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The stark warning of Dwight D Eisenhower, contained in his farewell address of January 17, 1961.

You do have to follow the money. If you follow the money here, it’s not so much that Halliburton wanted a war so they told Dick Cheney to go get one for them. It wasn’t that. But you do get a willingness to go to war.

Lt.Col Karen Kwiatkowski, US Dept of Defense (ret) and noted critic of the war in Iraq, quoted in the BBC documentary Why We Fight, broadcast on 23rd March, 2005.

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the “highest levels” of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

The Indy’s front page lead today.

Below the fold is that BBC documentary in four parts, as it is packaged for YouTube. Certainly it is beautifully produced, and duly received its professional encomia from Robert Redford’s friends. But the BBC is a wholly left-leaning organisation and it shows. By way of a health warning, be aware that the programme opens with a carefully cut and edited version of Ike’s farewell speech (in the opening quote to this post I have re-contextualised his words). Of the integrity of the rest of the programme I won’t comment in any detail, save to say that the conclusions broadly agree with my understanding of how this wicked world works.

Bear in mind also that the saving grace of the programme-makers is their discontent. As they make clear in their criticism of Congress they are from a tradition that is not at all the same as the political left. On this we may find common cause.

Here’s why:-

Why We Fight: Part One

Why We Fight: Part Two

Why We Fight: Part Three

Why We Fight: Part Four

Tags: War on Terror

Comments:

Posted by ES on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:40 | #

Who owns how much of the the “military-industrial complex”? And Haliburton? I would wager that members of organized Jewry at the highest levels own a dominant stake in Halib, with lesser allied families holding large stakes. That’s the usual way it works, it seems.

Posted by ES on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:06 | #

Several bits of info:

—Haliburton is almost certainly controlled by those who placed Bush II in office. Why? It’s usual for organized Jewry to station goy-puppets as CEOs/board members/university presidents/think tank members at places they control during inter-officio years. That’s the U.S. farm system.

—Jews became a very substantial part of the budding “military-industrial complex” during WWI. (Recall Baruch directed the War Industries Board—i.e., the entire U.S. industrial effort for the war.)

—Rockefeller/Morgan/Rothschilds controlled the backbone of US industry by WWI (steel, oil, railroads, raw materials of every type, etc). It’s likely that Jews remained a substantial part of the Complex by 1950.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18 | #

ES,

Re: your first comment, I don’t think it does always work like that, actually. Jewish power does not extend to owning everything. It does have its place, which I have endeavoured to describe in the past as “Jannisaries in the culture war” and, obviously, Jewry is present among the elites in far greater numbers than its proportion of the population. But the main roles in the power elite are occupied by white Anglo-Saxons whom organised Jewry works assiduously to keep “on-side”.

Generally, it behoves us to guard against sweeping statements on the JQ because sweeping generalisations upon our moral character flow back with tiresome regularity in our direction, and prevent our voices from being heard.

This is the website of the anti-Halliburton peacenik left, and is probably as good a commentary on the company as you’ll find anywhere.

Posted by Matra on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:42 | #

The left’s Halliburton fantasies and “no blood for oil” sloganeering that monopolised the anti-war argument made it more likely the pro-war side would win the argument. From what I can tell the anti-war movement is dominated by Jews. Unsurprisingly they would rather talk about the Halliburton bogeyman than Israel and the neocons’ ethnocentrism. Remember how defensive even Noam Chomsky got when the Walt-Mearsheimer paper was released? Harvey Weinstein - who put out Fahrenheir 9/11 - Chomsky, and the rest would rather keep the focus on baddie capitalist oilmen (with Southern accents!), defence contractors, and the so-called “WASP establishment”. (Not that these groups are all innocent) Most US oilmen are despised by neocons because they are pro-stability which neocons interpret as pro-Arab.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:52 | #

Halliburton isn’t an oil company (which do benefit from stability), but a defence contractor, which relies on wars for its profits. Not that there’s anything wrong with mercenaries per se, but it is a worry when they start dictating foreign policy.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:32 | #

Halliburton isn’t an oil company (which do benefit from stability), but a defence contractor

Actually it is both.

which relies on wars for its profits

Are you sure about that? I don’t doubt they are profiting from their various contracts in Iraq but does the the company and its subsidiaries as a whole depend on these to profit? I suspect there are pretty low margins given the environment they are operating in. Though I’m just speculating on that.

Anyway, the point is that the left wing war opponents and some on the right (particularly in the US - the land of Economic Man) seem blind to the ethnic motivations of those who pushed hardest for war. It’s all about the money they say. I disagree.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:09 | #

“Halliburton isn’t an oil company (which do benefit from stability), but a defence contractor, which relies on wars for its profits.”

Oil companies acquire oil and sell it. Halliburton, thus, does not qualify as an oil company. Halliburton’s self-description:

http://www.halliburton.com/Default.aspx?navid=338&pageid=713

“For almost a century, Halliburton has made an indelible impression on the world. From developing breakthrough technologies and constructing monumental infrastructure projects to managing logistics for military operations, Halliburton and our predecessor companies have been leaders in the energy services and engineering and construction (E&C) industries.

“Halliburton has expanded through internal growth and acquisition since it was established in 1919. Major purchases include Brown & Root, an engineering and construction company, in 1962 and Dresser Industries, a major provider of integrated services and project management for the oil industry, in 1998. Dresser had acquired M.W. Kellogg, a leader in petroleum refining and petrochemical processing, technology, engineering and construction, in 1988.”

Posted by Michelle Greenspan on Sat, 10 Aug 2019 15:34 | #

This piece is from RT/ Therefore, observe the backdoor Russian Fed Slant and ad-ware such as Michelle Greenspan filling in for Rick Sanchez. Also note that among the Defense Contractor lobbyists cited, that William Lind (a relative friend of White Nationalism) is highlighted. Nevertheless, the beginning section of this RT piece does highlights some key relations of American defense contractors to the United States Government.

“It’s hardly a secret that the majority of our budget here in the U.S. goes to our so-called Defense Department. Why is this the case? Well, here’s one reason - those who make the decisions about when and where we go to war and how much we spend on these wars and occupations often have a vested material interest in The US spending money on the military. They make money when we go to war.

Here’s the latest egregious example of this phenomenon. James Mattis was appointed by President Trump to be the Secretary of Defense a couple of years ago. Many of us came to know him as ‘Mad-Dog Mattis’ - a nickname given to him by the press. But what fewer people knew was that he was fresh off the board of General Dynamics at the time: General Dynamics, the sixth largest so-called defense contractor on earth. This is the man who was the head of the Defense Department. Well now, guess what? He’s rejoining the General Dynamics board of directors. And why is this significant? Well, we took a peak into General Dynamics recent SEC filing.

And we’re going to put it up on the screen for you. Here’s what the company says:

Think about that for a moment. This company relies on one single customer for a majority of its revenue. It would almost be more conspiratorial to say that this company doesn’t want to assure that The U.S. Government stays at war. After all, war is literally good for business. And lets not pretend that this began with Mr. Trump. Or that this is a uniquely Republican experience.

President Obama, despite promising during his campaign not to hire any lobbyists, nominated Raytheon senior executive William Lind to be second in command at the DOD. And Raytheon too, makes a majority of its sales from the U.S. Government. 81% of its sales last year, 2018, came from the U.S. Government.

But lets not pretend that this exists only in The Pentagon. Here’s the current Senate Arms Service Committee and the amount each of them has taken from the defense industry according to the records that are publicly available. We’re going to put that up on the screen for you. These are the men and women with the power to make decisions about when we spend our money, where we spend our money on the military. And again, both Democrats and Republicans have blood on their hands in this regard”: