America's Imperial Arrogance
America's Imperial Arrogance - by Stephen Lendman
Already waging multiple direct and proxy wars, will Obama dare launch more? Views differ. Some believe budget constraints contain him. Others say imperial aims matter most.
Heading into an election year adds further complications for and against more war. Will presidential aspirants anger voters advocating it? Republican hawks aren't worried. Will Obama launch it when public sentiment wants current ones ended? Don't bet against it, whatever he says.
With growing rage against the system, changing the subject may work best distracting it. At issue is hoping fear resonates more than human need and grievances.
Fake threats provide pretexts for militarism, wars, occupations, higher defense budgets, domestic repression, and elevating national security state priorities above others.
America is a rogue terror state, an imperial predator. Unchallenged global dominance is planned. All nations it doesn't control are targeted. It was Saddam's undoing, Gaddafi's also as well as others post-WW II, including democrats, despots and others in between.
Since last winter, Syria was targeted. Externally generated violence rages. Regime change is planned. Whether or not successful, is Iran next? The fullness of time will tell.
One View from Britain
Commenting on UK reports about Britain preparing for war, London Guardian writer Simon Jenkins headlined, "America's itch to brawl has a new target - but bombs can't conquer Iran," saying:
What's suggested is "appalling." At risk is "armageddon engulfing the region." Iran poses no threat whatever. It's no "two-bit dictatorship" like Iraq, but neither was Libya and other past US targets.
Iran's "a nation of 70 million people, an ancient and proud civilization with a developed civil society (and) pluralist democracy.” Claiming belligerent nuclear ambitions is "massively overhyped." Absent evidence, it's entirely bogus.
Waging "war on Iran would be a catastrophe," aside from issues of international law and legitimacy to attack another nonbelligerent country.
Moreover, America's post-9/11 wars "have been a gigantic historic tragedy. They have not advanced western security one jot."
Of course, doing so wasn't intended. At issue is imperial dominance. Creating enemies further advances it. Ravaging the world one country at a time is planned. Iran's turn may come sooner or later. Conquering it is another matter, besides engulfing the entire region and threatening general war.
"A virus seems to be running through the upper echelons of Washington and London." Add Israel to the mix, a longstanding regional menace. Together they comprise a rogue axis. With France, they revel in war, mass destruction, human slaughter, and for what?
Britain's been there before, building, then losing its empire. America's turn is next. Imperial arrogance is self-defeating. The same dynamic doomed past empires. None survived. What can't go on forever, won't.
Britain knows its history but didn't learn. Now it plays Bonnie to America's Clyde, or maybe it's the other way around. Either way they're junior partners. Arrogant hegemons play back seat to no one.
Perishing by the sword follows living by it unless planet earth goes first. Don't discount it given America's preemptive nuclear first strike policy. Be scared. Be very scared, regardless of whether attacking Iran is planned.
Hostile State Department Rhetoric
Either way, inflammatory rhetoric on Iran is real. The State Department publishes annual Country Reports on Terrorism.
In August, its 2010 report omitted obvious choices never included: namely, America, Britain, France and Israel. Other rogue states also qualify, but these top the list.
Instead, four countries were named - Cuba, Sudan (now its North after balkanization divided the country), Syria and Iran, called "the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2010" with no evidence whatever proving it and clear proof pointing fingers at top unnamed choices.
Nonetheless, the State Department bogusly claimed:
"Iran's financial, material, and logistic support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace, threatened economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy."
Continue to read:
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.