Why We’re Sliding Towards World War

Why Now?

Paul Craig Roberts – former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, former editor of the Wall Street Journal, listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, PhD economist – wrote an article about the build up of hostilities between the U.S. and Russia titled, simply: “War Is Coming”.

Similarly, Ronald Reagan’s head of the Office of Management and Budget – David Stockman – is posting pieces warning of the dispute between the U.S. and Russia leading to World War 3.

Trend forecaster Gerald Celente – who has been making some accurate financial and geopolitical predictions for decades – says WW3 will start soon.

Investment fund manager and adviser Martin Armstrong has charted the “cycles of war” back to 600 BC … and says that we’ll have major wars between now and 2020. He has written pieces recently entitled, “Why We will Go to War with Russia“, and another one saying, “Prepare for World War III“.

Investment adviser Larry Edelson – who has long studied the “cycles of war” – recently wrote:

This year … we will also be hit by another ramping up of the related war cycles.

***

All part and parcel of the rising war cycles that I’ve been warning you about, conditions that will not abate until at least the year 2020.


Former Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner – who has made some big accurate calls, and counts major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients – says there will be “a major war”, which will drive the Dow to 5,000.

Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a war as epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East.

What’s causing the slide towards war? We discuss several causes below.

Debt, Economic Collapse and Distraction

Martin Armstrong – who studies cycles, and managed multi-billion dollar sovereign investment funds – argues that war plans against Syria are really about debt and spending:

The Syrian mess seems to have people lining up on Capital Hill when sources there say the phone calls coming in are overwhelmingly against any action. The politicians are ignoring the people entirely. This suggests there is indeed a secret agenda to achieve a goal outside the discussion box. That is most like the debt problem and a war is necessary to relief the pressure to curtail spending.

Armstrong says the same thing caused Turkey to shoot down a Russian fighter jet over Syria:

This mess lies squarely in the hands of the Obama Administration and then to have the audacity to pretend Turkey had a right to defend its airspace when not being attacked is just too much. These people NEED war to distract everyone from the Sovereign Debt Crisis that is causing the collapse of governments for a system of borrowing year after year with ABSOLUTELY no intention of ever paying any debt off.

The same logic applies to Europe and other countries …

Armstrong writes:

Our greatest problem is the bureaucracy wants a war. This will distract everyone from the NSA and justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction for the economic decline that is coming.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Kyle Bass notes:

Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.

Billionaire investor Jim Rogers notes:

A continuation of bailouts in Europe could ultimately spark another world war, says international investor Jim Rogers.

***

“Add debt, the situation gets worse, and eventually it just collapses. Then everybody is looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we’re in World War II or World War whatever.”

Economist and investment manager Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:

A Handful of People Make a Killing Off War

War is very good for a handful of defense contractors and banksters who make huge sums from backing unnecessary war.

America is now officially an oligarchy.  And a high-level Bush administration official – Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – says that the oligarchy controls American war-making decisions.

So the people who stand to make a killing from wars push the government into fighting them.

Voodoo Economics

Many influential economists and talking heads hold the discredited belief that war is good for the economy.

Therefore, many are overtly or more subtly pushing for war under the mistaken view that it will help the economy.

Challengers Give Declining Empires “Itchy Fingers”

Historians say that declining empires tend to attack their rising rivals … so the risk of world war is rising because the U.S. feels threatened by the rising empire of China.

The U.S. government considers economic rivalry to be a basis for war. Therefore, the U.S. is systematically using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence.

Competition for Resources Is Heating Up

In addition, it is well-established that competition for scarce resources often leads to war. For example, Oxford University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics notes:

In his classic, A Study of War, Wright (1942) devotes a chapter to the relationship between war and resources. Another classic reference, Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Richardson (1960),extensively discusses economic causes of war, including the control of “sources of essential commodities.”A large literature pioneered by Homer-Dixon (1991, 1999) argues that scarcity of various environmental resources is a major cause of conflict and resource wars (see Toset, Gleditsch, and Hegre 2000, for empirical evidence).

***

In the War of the Pacific (1879–1884), Chile fought against a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru for the control of guano [i.e. bird poop] mineral deposits. The war was precipitated by the rise in the value of the deposits due to their extensive use in agriculture.

***

Westing (1986) argues that many of the wars in the twentieth century had an important resource dimension. As examples he cites the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), the Six Day War (1967), and the Chaco War (1932–1935). More recently, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a result of the dispute over the Rumaila oil field. In Resource Wars (2001), Klare argues that following the end of the Cold War, control of valuable natural resources has become increasingly important, and these resources will become a primary motivation for wars in the future.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (and many world leaders) admitted that the Iraq war was really about oil, and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And see this and this. Libya, Syria, Iran and Russia are all oil-producing countries as well …

Indeed, we’ve extensively documented that the wars in the Middle East and North Africa are largely about oil and gas. The wars in Syria and Iraq are about pipelines.  The war in Gaza may be no exception. And see this. And Ukraine may largely be about gas as well.

And James Quinn and Charles Hugh Smith say we’re running out of all sorts of resources … which will lead to war.

Central Banking and Currency Wars

We’re in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. Brazilian president Rousseff said in 2010:

The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations … it ended in world war two.

Jim Rickards agrees:

Currency wars lead to trade wars, which often lead to hot wars. In 2009, Rickards participated in the Pentagon’s first-ever “financial” war games. While expressing confidence in America’s ability to defeat any other nation-state in battle, Rickards says the U.S. could get dragged into “asymmetric warfare,” if currency wars lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty.

As does billionaire investor Jim Rogers:

Trade wars always lead to wars.

Given that China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have joined together to create a $100 billion bank based in China, and that more and more trades are being settled in Yuan or Rubles – instead of dollars – the currency war is quickly heating up.

Indeed, many of America’s closest allies are joining China’s effort … which is challenging America and the Dollar’s hegemony.

Multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

What happened to [Libya’s] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.

Senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

Indeed, some say that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking.

Runaway Inequality

Paul Tudor Jones – founder of the Tudor Investment Corporation and the Tudor Group, which trade in the fixed-income, equity, currency and commodity markets – said recently:

This gap between the 1 percent and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist.

Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars.

And see this.

War Is Destroying Our National Security, Our Democracy and Our Economy

We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet we’re now less safe after 13 years of war.

Never-ending wars are also destroying our democratic republic. The Founding Fathers warned against standing armies, saying that they destroy freedom. (Update). Perversely, our government treats anti-war sentiment as terrorism.

The Founding Fathers – and the father of free market capitalism – also warned against financing wars with debt. But according to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the U.S. debt for the Iraq war could be as high as $5 trillion dollars (or $6 trillion dollars according to a study by Brown University.)

Indeed, top economists say that war is destroying our economy.

But war is great for the bankers and the defense contractors. And – as discussed above – governments are desperate for war.

So it’s up to us – the people – to stop wider war.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Silverado

    I have a better idea…why don’t we just surrender the war monger criminal neocons before any war starts? Our troubles would be over – financially and morally.

    • ClubToTheHead

      The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

      Post 9/11 supporters of GWOT argued that the Constitution is

      not a suicide pact as justification for the government’s unconstitutional

      activities.

      All Americans should now agree that the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact, and

      if the government plays at being insane so effectively that it is now

      effectively insane, then the American people should not comply with its

      insanity even if the government consists of constitutionally legitimized

      authorities.

      The Constitution is still NOT a suicide pact.

    • jandr0

      [I have a better idea…why don’t we just surrender the war monger criminal neocons before any war starts? ]

      And maybe your idea sucks because it is NOT just the neocons. You have bought the “bread and circuses” sideshow that is being presented to you hook, line and sinker.

      • wunsacon

        That’s unfair to say unless you first establish that Silverado believes Obama and the D’s are /not/ “neocons”.

        Please see my similar reply to Sarastro.

        • jandr0

          [That’s unfair to say unless you first establish that Silverado believes Obama and the D’s are /not/ “neocons”.]

          Technically, for that specific assumption, you are correct. I certainly assumed that Silverado would not be associating “Obama and the D’s” with “neocons” (as they are not – in my perception – widely regarded as “neocons”).

          Given the general ascription of individual politicians or administrations as “neocons” or not (which I infer from reading across all political media), I opine that was a reasonable assumption (i.e. it has quite strong validity).

          Notwithstanding the strong likelihood, however, you are correct that in particular instances the specific assumption you highlighted could still be wrong, and then yes, it would be unfair. If that is the case, Silverado is of course free to point that out to me.

          On the other hand, I stand on my initial primary point that it is NOT just the supposed “neocons” – whether that includes Obama and/or Hillary or not – and that anyone who reduces the threat or imminence of war to supposed “neocons” only has bought into the politicial pageantry.

          • berger friedrich-wolfgang

            Oh weiah ! Serious PROBLEMS !!!

          • wunsacon

            Yeah, I was nitpicking. Sometimes I refer to Obama and Hillary as neocons, because they retain the same staff who continue the policies. But, if I accept the mainstream definition of “neocons”, then I agree with your original statement.

            Funny, there’s nothing “new” about “neo”-con policy. The more history I read, the more I realize it’s just in the DNA of empires to constantly trick people into wars.

    • Sarastro92

      It’s not the neo-Cons… the entire policy package that started with the Wolfowitz doctrine is now bi-partisan consensus policy … there’s no daylight between Killary Klinton and almost the whole GOP field on taking the path to protect ISIS and confront Russia (only Sanders, Paul and maybe Trump) have taken any exception to the path leading to war. Obama is on board too it seems afer rejecting a French- Russian anti-ISIS alliance.

      • wunsacon

        Obama retained neocons in his administration. Maybe Silverado considers Obomba to be a neocon.

        If so, then you’re arguing with Silverado over semantics.

        • Sarastro92

          I’m just stating facts and not engrossed in semantics or other games. We’re talking about Hillary Clinton, not Obama.

          Fact: In 2012 Hillary hired Cheney aide Victoria Nuland who eventually engineered the Kiev neofascist coup

          Fact: Nuland’s husband- ” Robert Kagan, … also co-founded an influential bipartisan
          advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.”

          From the NYTImes; “Are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

          • wunsacon

            I agree with your facts. Also, I wasn’t accusing you of any kind of underhanded debate. I was just pointing out that people might be using the same term “neocon” to mean a large group (basically almost everyone in power — including Obomba and Killary) or just a small subset.

            Sorry, I shouldn’t have nitpicked in the first place. Happy T.

          • Silverado

            Birds of a feather flock together…
            Hillary (and her replacement John Kerry as well) is as big of a criminal neocon as either one of the Kagans.

          • Sarastro92

            Correct. Anti-war activists know this too and will find it very hard to turn out and vote for her. That’s why she is a very weak candidate.

        • Silverado

          Neocons can be of any political party. As long as they support this continued what I like to call “military adventurism” and the associated war crimes and crimes against humanity that should result from that support, then yes Obama, Hillary, the idiots at the Federal Reserve who finance and perpetuate these crimes and every govt drone that votes in favor of continuing this…disaster are neocons as well. Why mince words?? They should be treated like the mass-murderers and the child molesters they act like and are.

    • Dex

      those dickheads won’t surrender on their own and peacefully. the only viable somewhat peaceful way out of this shit is to completely shut down the dollar, thus denying the war machine its funding oil. that this would lead to financial ruin and a poverty explosion inside the US, where the people at the very bottom will be denied basic supplies for their lives thanks to the world’s non-acceptance of the dollar and the previous outsourcing of all manufacturing to China (killed off any possible self-sustainability of the US economy), this would have to be accepted as inevitable collateral damage. it still beats the shit out of a worldwide nuclear fallout and civilian casualties etc, for a relatively small price in total. next, the impoverished US masses would take up arms, and there’s two possible aiming direction for them either they could fight among themselves for bits left over by the establishment, and then starve out and die, or, if there’s still enough common sense left in their television-whitewashed brains, direct the guns at the DC establishment, deposing it in a second american revolution, and restore the country to a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.

  • KAI!

    We started WW3 when we invaded Iraq. I told you that in 2003!

  • Nov 24, 2015 The Deep State The Unelected Shadow Government

    America’s next president will inherit more than a bitterly divided nation. He or she will also inherit a shadow government—a permanent, corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country. As John W. Whitehead warns in this week’s vodcast, all it will take is another terrorist attack or a natural disaster for such a regime to emerge from the shadows.

    https://youtu.be/vjdw3Is9mT4

  • Sarastro92

    The bizarre thing is that both commentators cited and the war bureaucracy think the next conflict will be a replay of Desert Storm or Shock and Awe… it won’t.

    The protagonists start with a nuclear weapons superpower, besieged on all sides, staggering under sanctions… this is becoming existential for Putin and Russia… time is not on their side… if the situation continues to deteriorate, this can rapidly turn into Russia vs. NATO…

    That conflict won’t be set-piece tit for tat, diversionary type event… this will rapidly escalate to a thermonuclear hair-trigger… just the way the whole Cuban Missile crisis spun out of control … the world barely averted a nuclear exchange by a matter of seconds… The coming conflict can be expected to break the same way as Cuba did… very, very critical…

    • tom

      “…this is becoming existential for Putin and Russia… time is not on their side…”

      What appallingly wrongheaded rubbish. Time is very much on the side of Russia; by far the world’s biggest nation (geographically), with more natural resources than any other and a relatively very small population. Much of it is currently frozen tundra, which may become much more useful if global warming materializes.

      As for the absurd sanctions, they are the ultimate demonstration of that old rule that governments always accomplish exactly the opposite of what they set out to do. The sanctions were meant to harm Russia and create pressure for Putin’s overthrow. Instead they have greatly strengthened the Russian economy, forcing it to make best use of its own immense resources and to stop relying on imports. It is the nations that applied the sanctions that are suffering, but the Russians don’t care.

      The nuclear power that is running out of time is the USA, and the problem is that it is ruled by an elite of amoral psychopaths, some at least of whom hold delusionary beliefs that when the apocalypse comes they will go to “heaven”.

      • Sarastro92

        The Russian economy is in deteriorating condition … as it worsens Putin’s political base will erode with it. It has been Russia’s plan to pursue import substitution to counter the sanctions. What’s the evidence this has been a success?

        Meanwhile power was just cut off in Crime by sabotage… and the military pressures on its borders increases. he aircraft shot down also raises the stakes in the ME for Russia.

        None of this is good news and is pushing Putin into a corner. These are facts, not an anti- Russia agenda.

        I agree the financial situation in the US is ominous, but probably no crash is imminent.

        • mulga mumblebrain

          Putin’s vase is currently 90%, and has only grown under sanctions. No doubt you think, like previous fascists, that the Russians are as gutless as you, and can be pushed around by jumped-up pip-squeaks with delusions of adequacy.

          • Sarastro92

            You’re talking Crap. I’m not looking for regime change in Russia. I oppose the coup in Kiev by neo-Nazis.

            What I have done is given you an appraisal of the strategic situation. Maybe it’s right. Maybe not. So far you have presented no counter-facts, just some mindless rage instead of an argument.

            Not even Russian state organs claim things are better now than in say, 2012 for the Russian economy. Crimea has been plunged into darkness. Gas supplies to Ukraine have been halted. I didn’t invent these facts. You seem to think this is all good news for Russia. It’s not. A wounded Russia does not make for global stability as tensions rise.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            You’re plainly a Russophobe posing as a disinterested observer, as your prediction of Putin’s political base eroding makes plain. Transparent, hence the blustering pretense of impartiality. It doesn’t convince.

          • Sarastro92

            Glad you have far greater insight than I into the Russian people and their ability to embrace non-stop pain. That doesn’t make me a Russophobe.

        • cstahnke

          You are certainly right but “the economy” in today’s world and even more in tomorrow’s world is not what it once was. Through technology and automation we have the ability to maintain a convivial society if we are relatively united and, just as critical, that our society is relatively free of the sorts of criminal gangs that dominate the U.S. and, increasingly, Europe. Putin has gone the route of building a strong state to counter the Russian criminal gangs and oligarchs who dominated the state during the time of Yeltsin. The West is pulling out all the stops to try and undermine the Russian state through NGOs (really just CIA contractors) and blatant cultural warriors like Pussy Riot who if they aren’t direct hires of the CIA certainly appeared to be from the beginning. Russian is building a very different society–he may succeed and if he does it is very bad news for Washington because, in tactical terms, his unified state can out maneuver the warring factions within Washington/NATO.

          • Sarastro92

            Not really buying the latest version of the “new economy”… have heard this for decades. I agree we could build a convivial society (nice turn of phrase)… but the immediate issues are mass unemployment/disemployment; rising poverty; deteriorating infrastructure; and a myriad of social disintegration (like rising suicide deaths among former white working class that arises from a broken, dysfunctional economy.

            There has been no net economic growth since 2007 to speak of and all the factors that created a blowout in 2008 are operative today, only worse. Meanwhile, the real economy is contracting.
            http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/

            Putin has curtailed the NGO flank, but sad to say, the socio-economic front is not thriving in Russia. That’s not my wish… just a fact. There are only so many clever moves but in a state of aggression, wild cards like Turkey can show up and escalate the situation out of control. I’m glad you can predict it will all work out great… If history is a guide (like WW I and WWII) I’m not as sanguine as you.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            I see that you are really just a pessimism junkie. I can’t really argue with that. Things are going bad, very, very, bad, very quickly. I agree with your observations almost entirely, but, as I made plain above, I still retain some vestigial hope for humanity, but it all depends on Russia and China. Nothing else can contain then hopefully roll back Zionazi genocidism. I have a feeling that if humanity survives this century, it will be down to the efforts of Russia and China, and because the Fourth Reich fell, without thermo-nuclear war. If that wonder occurs, VV Putin will go down in history as a hero, and a miracle.

          • berger friedrich-wolfgang

            Where is “TRUTH” , When Experienced “ASSERTED” GREATNESS , ,which turned Out , to be a Deliberate “BAD JOKE” , already Justifies , to Denounce “the Revealing PERSON” as “PESSIMISM JUNKIE” ???

          • Sarastro92

            Nonsense. Smart commentators are not oblivious to the increasingly dangerous path we’re all tyraversing… in many ways more ominous than the 1969 Showdown in Cuba that almost ended civilization and life on this planet. That’s eyes wide open realism, not pessimism porn.

            The power grid to Crimea was sabotaged earlier this week; almost 250 people died a few weeks ago when a Russian commercial airliner was blown out of the air; this week a Russian military aircraft battling jihadi forces was blown out of the skies and the pilot was shot to ribbons… now the Russian are deploying SAMs in Syria.

            Are you going to guarantee us that the Russian – Turkish conflict won’t escalate? What happens when the Russians take out Turkish aircraft and maybe bombard a Turkish airbase? Are you predicting this kind of conflict is impossible?

            Only a fool or propagandist would tell everyone to move along, no reason for alarm. But you know, I’m hoping you’re right and this is all just shadows and theater.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            I’m not at all inclined to describe your pessimism as self-indulgent. In fact your pessimism seems quite realistic to me. We are definitely on the edge of destruction, not just from the Western psychopaths’ insanely reckless aggression, but also from economic implosion under debt and inequality, and from the rapidly accelerating global ecological collapse. My hopes for Putin and China are, indeed, wishful thinking, but perhaps a concerted effort at wishful thinking might have some ‘spooky effect at a distance’ on the psychotics.

          • Sarastro92

            Well ok. I would hope to join a burgeoning political movement to stop/ deflect/ slow down the march to war… but , as with you, I’m not (realistically) optimistic this will happen … but maybe, as in the Cuban Crisis, we’ll luck out.

            Commentators are noting in some way we’re careening into a situation worse the Cuban crisis… after all, aircraft weren’t exploding in air or shot-down (though there was some of that in the preceding years)

          • cstahnke

            One way or the other the “new economy” will establish itself and is establishing itself. First, financialization and offshoring of jobs, second lowering prices for complex computer-based system and other technology and materials and as we are beginning to see a massive turn toward robotics. This will free most of us from work potentially. There remain, however, a large number of people that are addicted to making people miserable for their own pleasure and, at the moment, these people tend to dominate our politics. When more and more people can articulate precisely what I just said–the gig is up and things will change.

          • Sarastro92

            These trends I believe are operating more slowly than you suggest cs. There are less than 30,000 installed industrial robots. The US workforce is over 160 million. Prices are not set at cost, but by (monopoly markets).

            I embrace your vision and believe it’s technically feasible… but I don’t think that’s the direction the Ruling class will pursue.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            The Pussy Riot harridans were a real low in sordid provocation, but didn’t the Western bien pensants love them. Those brilliant tricks with frozen chickens! You can almost smell the ‘Freedom’.

          • berger friedrich-wolfgang

            Seems You have a Preference for “PERVERSITY” !!!

          • mulga mumblebrain

            I’d call it an INCLINATION-nothing more.

      • mulga mumblebrain

        Excellent, tom, with one caveat. If the Russian tundra melts (really a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’) we’ll all be in deep, deep do-do.Like the dodo.

    • cstahnke

      Nobody thinks any of that. There will be no wider war–more skirmishes, certainly, maybe a major escalation here and there but no one wants war least of all the U.S. military other than as rhetorical ploy to posture and struggle for power within the various factions (gangs) in Washington. The U.S. military is incapable of fighting a major war against substantial enemies. They are all sitting fat and sassy with this phony Orwellian “War on Terror.” Why stop the gravy train with real war?

      • Sarastro92

        You’re wrong. From the Nation: “Turkey Brings NATO to the precipice of war”

        “http://www.thenation.com/article/turkey-brings-nato-to-the-precipice-of-war-with-russia/”

        Did the US want nuclear war with the USSR when they put missiles on the Turkish border in 1960 , and then launched the Bay of Pigs and non-stop regime change in Cuba? No. But their reckless aggression brought the world to the brink of nuclear war— really only seconds away from launch– in 1962. That’s the danger when NATO nations start shooting anti-ISIS aircraft out of the sky… you may be the only one who thinks recent events are all just a casual chess match. The stakes are a lot higher when the players are thermonuclear superpowers.

        • mulga mumblebrain

          The entire history of the USA is one of ‘reckless aggression’. The apocalypticist influence of fundamentalist ‘Christian’ lunacy cannot be ignored as a cause of this mania.

          • berger friedrich-wolfgang

            The Millions of VICTIMS of these IDIOTIC POLICY , Cry for JUSTICE !!!

          • Sarastro92

            Christian fundies rarely have been in power in the US… and those who have had some influence (eg WJ Bryant; the abolitionists) were fairly benign

          • berger friedrich-wolfgang

            You Surely MEANT “Christian fundies as Neocons” were Equally Accepted by “WORLD – BANKS BOSS” , as “Willing PUPPETS” !!!

          • cstahnke

            That’s overstating it–there much creativity progressive innovation and movements towards justice in American history.

        • cstahnke

          There has to be, always, a “strategy of tension” to maintain the status quo. No one is interested in solving international conflicts and no one wants to have them spin out of control either–they all want balance and stability. By “no one” I mean the people who count in the Deep State or Deep States since most countries now have them.

          • Sarastro92

            I don’t think the US Deep State is interested in the status quo, balance and stability. For almost 25 years now The Wolfowitz Doctrine (unchallenged global dominance) has been embraced by all ruling factions and with that really high-risk ventures. These include terror spectacles and open collaboration with no-fascists. Regime Change right up to the Kremlin is the operation policy. The ruling class maniacs are willing to go to the brink and figure everyone will pull back at the last moment. If there’s a miscalculation, the result is a global nuclear holocaust … and as the WB states, yes, we seem to be careening towards war.

      • berger friedrich-wolfgang

        Seems , Nobody Registered “THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATION / CULTURE” ! Bad Joke , to through a “BOMB” , and Await Nothing to Happen ! Your last Sentence We Can agree ! But the WILL in the EAST , to endlessly “TOLERATE” “Western Clowns THREATS” , is long GONE !

  • tom

    “Paul Craig Roberts – former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, former editor of the Wall Street Journal, listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world…”

    Try “…one of the ten most influential political thinkers in the world…”

    • cstahnke

      Wish he was—he may be one of the best but he is ignored by the mainstream.

  • MCB

    “You may not be interested in war; but war is interested in you.” – Leon Trotsky

    • berger friedrich-wolfgang

      Yepee , a “LEARNED BOLSHEWIJK” !!! — MAAZEL TOV !

  • mulga mumblebrain

    How does humanity survive war between Russia and Uncle Satan? Even a small exchange of nukes will cause a nuclear winter.

    • berger friedrich-wolfgang

      Yeah , We Really have “ANGST” !!!

    • cstahnke

      The point here is that the oligarchs and criminal gangs that largely rule the West are going to have a hard time after a nuclear exchange even if, as many of us know, they are making arrangements. Besides, oligarchs need servants and agents and those people are cynical and highly able and should their oligarchs show signs of abandoning them and their families some of these rich fucks will find themselves lying in an ally.

      • mulga mumblebrain

        I think a global pandemic, like an improved Ebola, which they seem to be still working on, against which the elite will have secretly immunised themselves and their required hench-men, seems more likely. They’d need to subjugate China and Russia, or at least their ruling elites, first, or they’d get a thermo-nuclear riposte once things became obvious. Unfortunately US elites have been bragging of nuclear supremacy for some time, based on a sneak first-strike and ‘missile defence’ to mop up any retaliation that survives the attack.

    • berger friedrich-wolfgang

      BE SURE , YOUR “UNCLE DRACULA” IS NOT INTERESTED IN HUMANITY , Only in “HUMAN BLOOD” !!!

  • Basle

    There is a war party among the American political elite. Arguing that the reason is the debt issue is the tree hiding the forest. Same comment regarding natural resources, currencies and inequality. America is an oligarchy. No doubt about it. Who are its members, and who do they respond to? Before asking the people to stop the coming war, those questions must be answered.
    PS: Quoting billionaires who shamefully benefited from the Fed’s easy monetary policy of the last twenty-five years, to comfort one’s case denotes an interesting approach of today’s problems.

  • berger friedrich-wolfgang

    Seems British OVERLORD DRACULA has Some PROBLEMS with FEDERAL SERFS !!!!

  • cstahnke

    I don’t agree. While I believe it is possible that we could blunder into larger war I don’t think it will be WWIII which would involve nuclear weapons. I think all this misses the point. Power has shifted away from states and towards other formations that I will gangs who align themselves into factions some loose and some fairly tight. One of Putin’s main “sins” is that he is a regressive force–he has resurrected nationalism and a powerful state from the ruins of a state that was riddled with gangs who has spent the Yeltsin years looting the country with the help of powerful Western gangs mostly centeed in Washington. This is why Putin has reaped the universal hatred within nearly all the gangs that now dominate the scene in Washington. If, for example, Putin was actually able to engineer some kind of negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war and, worse, actually destroy ISIS, then the gangs would automatically be weakened since there power and wealth depends on the continuing “war on terror” which I would just call “the terror” or “war” since the term is meaningless. At the same time, these gangs that dominate NATO do not want full scale war at all since a nuclear exchange would make matters worse for them personally.

    What the current elite gangs want is a continuous state of crisis–this is something all the factions agree on because it gives the cover so that the population won’t be asking too many questions. Crises in recent years have gone from looking like war is inevitable to a cooling of tensions. Just look at the perennial threats to go to war against Iran–it looked like it was about to happen and then all the talk of war mysteriously stopped. Then, when the public had forgotten the last crisis, they start turning on the Mighty Wurlitzer and the whole routine charade starts up again. At the moment it doesn’t seem to be working so well–that’s why they had to create ISIS or allow it to emerge with its cartoon villainy.

    The wild card is Erdogan, the true-believer who wants to create a new Sunni Caliphate and channel the energy of Muslim youth in this project. I don’t see how he can succeed but he knows that the West is not united since it is dominated by often competing gangs who only agree on general principles–Putin also knows this which is why he’s willing to take a big chance in Syria. Interesting story.

  • deceneu♔♔♔

    “there will be “a major war”, which will drive the Dow to 5,000.”

    …and i predict that there won’t be a DOW at all should ww3 start