American militarism and the glorification of the institution began in earnest after the crypto-Jew Teddy Roosevelt became President in 1901, with the periodic interventions in America's back yard, in Central and South America in support of their strategic and business interests. This was a step away from what the gentile anti-colonial founding fathers wanted...........a very small military........backed essentially by a peoples army mobilized at wartime, with a nation minding its own business.
America in the 1930's still had a small standing army of 100,000, and then only after the WWII did the American military, mobilized to 12 million by 1945, spending 45% of the GDP on defense, thereafter remained a large force of well over a million personnel, spending 10% on defense annually with the start of the Cold War.
The myth was sold that war was good for the economy, and that WWII was good for America. In reality the American economy was doing very well, and picking up well before WWII, and subsequent American involvement. In fact there is no hard facts to disprove that America could have just as easily by the same extent if not more have prospered as she did if America had not become involved in WWII.
Politically the push towards militarism, and wars abroad became a serious issue for America with the start of the Cold War, the Marshal Plan, and the inception of military aid, a concept which had never existed before in American foreign policy. Proxy wars and real wars were fought against Communism................but we must never forget who funded and founded Communism in the Soviet Union, and else where as a psuedo-Jewish experiment.
In fact it is quite simple. Their game is quite simple once you get to know it. You build up two competing/opposing blocks secretly funded by them, and then get them to slog it out in war, till they destroy themselves, and then you go into those countries to pick up the pieces---plus in addition you get the instant fetish thrill of seeing the mass slaughter of 'stupid goyim' killing themselves over your 'brilliant designs' and schemes:
The Triple Alliance vs the Central Powers---WWI (1914-18). Their strategically placed agents on BOTH SIDES, directed the two blocks towards a war hysteria, whose inevitable result was war, which just required a spark...........and Gabriel Princip, their agent provided that......their agents created a climate where rationality and accommodation became impossible and indeed unthinkable in the so called age of reason. And they sustained both sides with ample finance and munitions to maintain their war-------The Netherlands for example was an important conduit for supplying the German war machine, with finance from the USA and UK, and munitions and raw materials, as well as through the Scandinavian countries. Otherwise the 'Great War' would have ended in one year or less.
WWII (1939-45) which essentially was a war between Jewish funded Communist Soviet Union and Jewish funded Nazi Germany (Third Reich), both of which international Jewry carefully steered, propagated and maintained in power for the final outcome of genocidal wars between the two.
The Cold War (1948-1991) again involved extensive Jewish involvement in both sides, as puppet masters, and back room financiers. Though we never had a direct confrontation between the two superpowers, as the events of 1962 showed how catastrophic such an event could become, never the less there was plenty of other proxy wars between the two---notably Vietnam, Korea.......and so on.
The current drive to surround and demonize Russia, a democratic country, with missiles and NATO military bases as if Russia posed a threat to Western civilization, and I assume China, there after. We also note the finance of American investment going into both Russia and especially China simultaneously, juxtaposed with the Jew position paper of "The Project for a New American Century" (2000) whose ultimate target is Russia and China, articulated in the American government strategic security policy statement of 2002.
This would not make sense to mere mortals unless viewed through the lens of Jewish genocide fetishes.
Can we see a pattern here? You build opposing blocks over essentially phony issues---I mean why can't the USA get along with Russia? Exist on the basis of live and let live. Then you arm each side, and finance their military projects-------both Russia and the USA, are arming themselves beyond reasonable requirements,......then you trigger incidents.......which spark a fight between them, and in this scenario Iran is a good bet.
Logically from the Russian strategic perspective whilst Russia should fully defend Iran as much as she can with arms supplies and technical help, a nation which should be viewed as a primary front line state before Russia, Russia nevertheless should avoid direct confrontation with the Americans and NATO. Any attack on Iran by America will constitute a very significant step towards directly targeting Russia there after, militarily. Instead Russia should seek a regional alliance with other like minded powers, and try and form a block against this Zionist scheme.
If we apply the above model to Iran/Iraq, the same pattern and principles apply, and we are looking at schemes carried out over half a century at least, 50 years to you and me. On the Iraqi side you get a half educated thug and enforcer for the party promoted to the top position, give him arms through the Eastern bloc countries at first, and then more arms, and really lethal arms from the West later, and of course cheap credit to finance his wars.
On the Iranian side you get a playboy weak minded malleable monarch who does everything you say(rumor is that he even asked his British handlers who to marry), puts all his countries oil dollars in your banks, and buys billions of $ worth of arms--$150 billion at current prices? But he makes the mistake of seeking peace with his neighbor, Iraq, and thus he spoils his role, "The Algiers Accord" (1975), and you could hear the Jews scream..."quick ........get rid of him!"...and lo...a few years later he is out, and the puppet mullahs are in...AND WITHIN 1 YEAR ARE AT WAR WITH IRAQ!
The mullahs do not attack Iraq, but incite it through their activities with the Shia of Iraq, and thus force Saddam to attack them which saves their Islamic revolution. Saddam seeks peaces after two years of war in 1982, but the mullahs want war into infinity, or until he is removed. During the war, the mullahs continue to receive arms through the back door----via Chile, Israel and a few other places.......but the illiterate mullahs do not play by the game, and they attack tankers in the Gulf by 1987, neutral tankers..........thats was not in their script and job description. Their arms supplies via Chile and Israel is cut off; they lose; over a million dead; $500-1000 billion worth of destruction in the two countries; Iran is weak, as is Iraq.
The Jew has had his fetish of genocide and destruction.
Quite clearly Jews as a race did not invent wars, regional wars especially, but I reserve my judgment about their role in global wars. But it is without dispute that the Jewish communities high priests have caused, and continue to cause many of the global conflicts of more recent times, from the twentieth to the present century.
Given this fact Americans, gentile non-Jewish Americans need to take stock of this fact and quickly steer their nation away from Jewish militarism, and cease to function as their war workhorse for ever. They need to find their moral courage and their true national interests before it is too late.
I have doubts that the rational, reasoned arguments of the professor below will make ANY impact on the people who matter in America, as they have been so thoroughly mesmerized by the 'beauty' of war and profit, but ultimately such things function within a wider society, and because of the corrosive effects of such things the society destroys itself, then ultimately they too will suffer from their excesses and greed.
___________________________________________
The Impact of Recent Wars of Choice on U.S. Global Markets
By Ismael Hossein-zadeh
Militarism has always tried to disguise its interests as national interests and justify its parasitic role and existentialist military adventures on grounds that such military operations will lead to economic gains for the imperium and the nation as a whole. This despite the fact that military adventures instigated by beneficiaries of the business of war are often costly economic burdens that tend to be at odds not only with the interests of the masses of the poor and working people, but also with those of non-military transnational capitalists who pay taxes to finance such adventures while losing sales and investment opportunities in foreign markets to international competition, as well as losing political and economic stability in global markets.
War and the Non-Military U.S. Transnational Capital
Recent U.S. military buildup and its unilateral aggressions abroad have increasingly become economic burdens not only because they devour a disproportionately large share of national resources, but also because such adventurous operations tend to create instability in international markets, subvert long-term global investment, and increase energy or fuel costs. Furthermore, the resentment and hostilities that unprovoked aggressions generate in foreign lands are bound to create backlash at the consumer level. For example, the Iranian-made beverage Zam Zam Cola has in recent years made significant inroads into the traditional markets of the U.S. brands Coca-cola and Pepsi not only in the Middle East but also in Europe and elsewhere. A Business Week report pointed out in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that in the Muslim world, Europe and elsewhere “there have been calls for boycotts of American brands as well as demonstrations at symbols of U.S. business, such as McDonald’s corporation.”
A leading Middle East business journal, AME Info, reported in its April 8, 2004 issue that in 2000 a number of Arab organizations “asked Muslims to shun goods from America, seen as an enemy of Islam and a supporter of Israel. In Bahrain, the Al-Montazah supermarket chain, for example, boosted sales by pulling about 1,000 US products off its shelves, and other grocers followed suit.” Coca-Cola and Pepsi, “sometimes considered unflattering shorthand for the United States, took the brunt of the blow. Coca-Cola admitted that the boycott trimmed some $40 million off profits in the Gulf in 2002.” In 2003, Coca-Cola retreated from Bahrain to Athens. “We see that retrenchment as the rise of local brands. Coca-Cola feels they are identified with US regional policy, and there's nothing they can do about it.” The report further pointed out that in recent years a number of “Muslim colas” have appeared in the Middle Eastern/Muslim markets. “Don't Drink Stupid, Drink Committed, read the labels of Mecca Cola, from France. . . . Iran's Zam Zam Cola, originally concocted for Arab markets, has spread to countries including France and the United States.” The report also indicated that US exports to the Middle East dropped $31 billion from 1998-2002. Branded, value-added goods—all the stuff easily recognized as American—were hit the hardest. “Our piece of the pie is shrinking,”
says Grant Smith, director of IRmep, a Washington-based think tank on Middle Eastern affairs, “and it's because of our degraded image.”
Evidence shows that the foreign policy-induced loss of market share in global markets goes beyond the Middle East and/or the Muslim world. According to a December 2004 survey of 8,000 international consumers carried out by Global Market Insite (GMI) Inc., one-third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom “said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly the ‘war on terror’ and the occupation of Iraq, constituted their strongest impression of the United States. Brands closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil, are particularly at risk.” Twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada “said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies.” Commenting on the results of the survey, Dr. Mitchell Eggers, GMI's chief operating officer and chief pollster, pointed out, "Unfortunately, current American foreign policy is viewed by international consumers as a significant negative, when it used to be a positive."
Kevin Roberts, chief executive of advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi, likewise expressed concern about global consumer backlash against militaristic U.S. foreign policy when he told the Financial Times that he believed consumers in Europe and Asia are becoming increasingly resistant to having "brand America rammed down their throats." Similarly, Simon Anholt, author of Brand America, told the British trade magazine Marketing Weekthat “four more years of Bush's foreign policy could have grave consequences for U.S. companies' international market share.”
Despite these damages and threats to global U.S. market share, beneficiaries of war dividends claim that their military operations abroad would yield economic benefits for the nation as a whole because, they claim, such military actions would help spread unhindered market mechanism, remove obstacles to transnational corporations and keep foreign markets and resources open to their business operations. Recently, such assertions are frequently interspersed with claims of “spreading democracy worldwide.” In this fashion, beneficiaries of war and militarism try to disguise the colossal military buildup, which has become an end—indeed, an empire—in itself, as a means for spreading democracy and achieving international economic advantage. Such claims are made both directly through Pentagon policy documents and indirectly through militaristic surrogate think tanks such as the Project for New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). In recent years, such allegations are also made through a number of policy papers written by the Bush administration.
Evidence, as well as logic and common sense, suggest, however, that not only are the assertions that continued military buildup would help spread political and economic freedom are hollow and disingenuous but that, in fact, war and militarism as strategies to achieve these lofty ideals are counterproductive, especially in the era of integrated and interdependent global markets. Not only is militarism inherently at odds with freedom, but it is also burdensome economically—except, of course, for the beneficiaries of the business of war. Economic liberalism, which has in the last few decades been called neoliberalism, is, in fact, antithetical to militarism; it shuns militarism not only because militarism is costly and wasteful but also because it is disruptive to international economics and would, therefore, undermine global capitalist profitability—again, except for military industries and war-related businesses. Accordingly, economic liberalism/neoliberalism tends to rely on market (not military) force to maintain international economic superiority.
As this strategy of relying on market efficiency (instead of military power) in pursuit of international economic advantage tends to expose a large military establishment as parasitic and redundant, it also helps explain the inherent conflict between militarism and liberalism/neoliberalism. The strategy further helps explain why beneficiaries of war and militarism, the military establishment and the neoconservative militarists in and around the Bush administration, were so hostile to Bill Clinton and his neoliberal economic policies. In addition, the conflicting interests of militarism and neoliberalism help explain why these beneficiaries stifled the widespread calls for “peace dividends” and military downsizing in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps more importantly, the conflicting interests of militarism and those of non-military transnational capital help explicate why representatives of the latter interests have not encouraged or embraced the Bush administration’s policy of unilateral militarism. Although non-military transnational interests have not expressed a strong opposition to the administration’s drive to war, they have nonetheless shown some tepid wariness toward it. Even big oil, the major (but largely incidental) beneficiaries of war, did not support the war on Iraq.
This is not to say that the American oil companies and other non-military transnational corporations would not welcome the spoils of war in the form of oil price hikes, or of the acquisition of asset ownership that would result from privatization of previously-public industries and enterprises that might ensue from the policy of “regime change” in a country like Iraq. Indeed, there is evidence that, as soon as Iraq came under U.S. occupation, many such corporations from agribusiness, transportation, telecommunications, financial services, and power rushed their representatives to Baghdad to participate in the contracting and privatization bonanza that followed the occupation.
Nonetheless, there is no evidence that major oil and other non-military transnational corporations instigated or encouraged the invasion, because non-military transnational corporations, including big oil, prefers stability and predictability in global markets to short-term spoils of war.
Representatives of non-military transnational capital prefer multilateral economic policies of neoliberalism to unilateral actions of the Bush administration because they are afraid that war and militarism might subvert international economics and undermine long-term U.S. competitiveness. Expressing such concerns of neoliberalism, Business Week carried an article on the eve of the invasion of Iraq that read, “Washington’s unilateral tendencies have also created nervousness in global financial markets on which the U.S. has become dependent. It has made the multilateral trade negotiations—in which so many American companies have a huge stake—a secondary priority. . . . Financing foreign wars and boosting homeland security is bound to erode U.S. economic vitality.”
Three weeks later, in another article titled “How War Will Shape the Economy” the magazine wrote: “The real threat of the war is to the rapid productivity growth of the 1990s, which may be tough to sustain in an unsettled and hostile world. New Economy growth depends on globalization and innovation, both of which could be dampened by war and a potentially difficult aftermath.” The article further pointed out, “Any slowdown in the free flow of trade, people, and technologies could significantly dampen innovation and growth in the U.S. and abroad. . . . What we do know is that the market-driven growth the U.S. enjoyed in the 1990s thrived on an atmosphere of global peace. . . . The war in Iraq, the tough rebuilding task ahead, and the rise in global tension all signal to an end to that fertile era.”
Writing in the October 27, 2003 issue of the Star Tribune, Ron Bosrock of the Global Institute of St. John’s University likewise expressed anxiety over negative economic consequences that might follow from the Bush administration’s policies of unilateral military operations and economic sanctions: “In the meantime, the U.S. economy, in order to grow, will have to continue to expand into the global markets while dealing with this ever-increasing competition from EU, China, India . . .. If this new U.S. foreign policy of militarism leads to decades of upheaval, how will U.S. businesses convince their future global partners that they should look to them for stable business opportunities—as opposed to all those new competitors waiting in the wings?”
Concerns of this nature have prompted a broad spectrum of non-military business interests to form coalitions of trade associations that are designed to lobby foreign policy makers against unilateral U.S. military aggressions abroad. One such anti-militarist alliance of American businesses is USA*ENGAGE. It is a coalition of nearly 700 small and large businesses, agriculture groups and trade associations working to seek alternatives to the proliferation of unilateral U.S. foreign policy actions and to promote the benefits of U.S. engagement abroad. “American values are best advanced,” points out the coalition’s statement of principles, “by engagement of American business and agriculture in the world, not by ceding markets to foreign competition. Helping train workers, building roads, telephone systems, and power plants in poorer nations, promoting free enterprise—these activities improve the lives of people worldwide and support American values. Unfortunately the real difference made by American companies and workers through such day-to-day activity is lost in the emotion of political debates, where there is pressure to make a symbolic gesture a unilateral foreign policy action, even if it won't work.”
Non-military business interests’ anxiety over the Bush administration’s unilateral foreign policy measures is, of course, rooted in their negatively-affected financial balance sheets by those actions: “Hundreds of companies blame the Iraq war for poor financial results in 2003, many warning that continued U.S. military involvement there could harm this year's performance,” pointed out James Cox of USA Today. In a relatively comprehensive survey of the economic impact of the war, published in the July 14, 2004 issue of the paper, Cox further wrote: “In recent regulatory filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, airlines, home builders, broadcasters, mortgage providers, mutual funds and
others say the war was directly to blame for lower revenue and profits last year.” Many businesses blamed the war and international political turbulence as a ‘risk factor’ that threatened their sales: “The war led to sharp decreases in business and leisure travel, say air carriers, travel services, casino operators, restaurant chains and hotel owners.”
The survey covered a number of airlines including Delta Airlines, JetBlue, Northwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines, all of which blamed the war for a drop in air travel. Related industries such as travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, and resort and casino operations all suffered losses accordingly.
The mutual funds managers who were interviewed in the USA Today survey included David J. Galvan of Wayne Hummer Income Fund who wrote (in a letter to shareholders), “The war in Iraq created a quagmire for corporations." Vintage Mutual Funds likewise concluded that "the price of these commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan may be more than the American public had expected or is willing to tolerate." In a SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) filing, Domenic Colasacco, manager of the Boston Balanced Fund, characterized the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq "sad and increasingly risky." Even technology giants such as Cisco, PeopleSoft and Hewlett-Packard that tend to benefit from military spending expressed concerns that “hostilities in Iraq hurt results or could harm performance.” For example, managers at Hewlett-Packard complained that "potential for future attacks, the national and international responses to attacks or perceived threats to national security, and other actual or potential conflicts or wars, including the ongoing military operations in Iraq, have created many economic and political uncertainties that could adversely affect our business, results of operations and stock price in ways that we cannot presently predict." Other companies that were specifically mentioned in the survey as having complained about the “whiplash from the Iraq conflict” included home builders Hovnanian and Cavalier homes, casino company Mandalay Resort Group, retailer Restoration Hardware, cosmetics giant Estée Lauder, eyewear retailer Cole, Longs Drug Stores, golf club maker Callaway, and H&Q Life Sciences.
This is just one third of the presentation paper, and you can read the original and the rest of it HERE
