How big must Bibi's cartoon bomb be before US/UK troops die in another Middle East war for Israel?

How big must Bibi's cartoon bomb be before US/UK troops die in another Middle East war for Israel?

By Dark Politricks

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "performance" in the UN assembly the other day it is clear he is itching for a war with Iran.

Despite the facts of the matter e.g NO PROOF that Iran is building a bomb which comes from people such as top American and Israeli military and intelligence officials who have gone public to state that:

• Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb.
• Even if they did - they would be stupid to use it as America and Israel has thousands of nuclear bombs and they would be wiped out in seconds.
• Plus even American intelligence operatives such as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,  General Ron Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree that Iran is a "rational" state actor who wouldn't suicidally kill their whole country for the sake of one (probably shot down) attempt at a nuclear strike on Israel.

If we want to see all of the following:

• The Middle East in more flames as Syria and Iran go down fighting, with proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas lobbing rockets into neighbouring countries, terrorists blowing themselves up on New York and London trains and more havoc than could be imagined at this point.
• More US embassies being overrun and more US ambassadors being killed.
• Yet more US and UK troops dying on foreign lands fighting wars for other countries.
• The price of your petrol rise to stupendously high levels (they are already crazy in the UK £1.4+ for a litre of unleaded).
• Another hypocritical breach of international law in which we let a member of the Nuclear non proliferation treaty (Iran) who has not been proved breaking it whilst a non signatory (Israel with their 200+ nukes) start another pre-emptive illegal war "just in case" they might have been right.
• Then a war in Iran is just want we need.

We seem to forget that Iran has one of the largest populations of Jews outside Israel in the Middle East and they are not living in ghettos, forced into concentration camps, being exterminated or any of the other deeds carried out by the Nazi's that led to Israels creation after World War 2.

In fact they live quite comfortably. Israel was a country created in the misguided belief that Palestine was a place with no inhabitants. Just sat there waiting for thousands of Jews, many with no links to the land whatsoever, to come and kill British soldiers by the hundreds through terrorist organisations like Irgun and Stern gang.

Then afterwards start a civil war - in which the seeds of a new "international law", created by the USA and the Nuremberg trials to punish the Germans for their crimes against the Jews, were totally ignored by the same people who first benefited from them.

Laws that have still not been fulfilled. Such as the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. 

Plus laws that are still breached to this day; such as the attacking of whole civilian populations as Israel did in Operation Cast Lead, targeted assassinations and illegal blockades of whole territories such as Gaza.

In fact it is no wonder that Israel along with the USA finds itself in a nice group of countries who haven't signed up to the International Criminal Court alongside China, Iraq, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey.

I suppose it's because they would find their soldiers and leaders in the dock so often that they might as well set-up a camp alongside it.

I doubt acts such as these would be welcomed by bosses of the US Army as they would find themselves consuming whole years worth of dockets at the International Criminal Court.

Crimes such as:

• Those carried out at Guantanamo bay.
• The torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib.
• The drone strikes that kill 50 civilians for every "terrorist" in Pakistan.
• The targeted assassinations of US civilians without judicial process.
• The false flag attacks.
• The piracy on the high seas such as the attack on the Mavi Marmara.
• The white phosphorus attack on UN compounds inside Gaza.
• The US soldiers who kill Afghans for fun such as the U.S. soldier who walked off his base and into a nearby village where he killed 16 civilians, nine of them children.
• Or the "Kill Squad" that killed for fun and collected their dead victims fingers as trophies.
• Or the US soldiers filming themselves pissing on dead Afghan bodies.

I suppose it makes you understand why Israel and America were so keen NOT to join the International Criminal Court, even though Bill Clinton signed up to it before George W Bush withdrew the signature in 2002.

Maybe we just have to wait for Romney to steal the election with the help of the Koch brothers before we get this disastrous war with Iran which will undoubtedly worsen our global recession.

Or maybe Obama is just putting it all off until after the election so that he can use AIPAC dollars for his re-election campaign and then he will surprise us all by doing what US Presidents's haven't done previously in their last term - act like an honest broker between Israel and Palestine.

If he really, really tries to sort out that problem, the one all US Presidents weakly attempt to in their second term, then the anti-Zionist rage (NOT anti-semitic) will hopefully subside.

Maybe even Iran won't consider the racist Israeli government a threat, which it is at the moment, with their hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons and their support for terrorist groups like the MEK who have just been removed from the US terrorist watchlist. 

A group who bombs, assassinates and terrorises Iranians all the time. But then they are "freedom  fighters" when they are fighting OUR enemies aren't they!

Maybe once President Obama doesn't have to think about another re-election then all that "change" he promised us he will actually try to deliver.

Maybe starting with actually letting Palestine become a real state in the eyes of the UN and remove the promise that the USA will always block votes aimed at curbing Israeli war crimes and breaches of international law in the UN Security Council. 

Maybe when their crimes are re-examined in an international court (not that they subscribe to the concept of International law) such as the illegal blockade of Gaza, the occupation of Palestinian territory and their ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem. He might actually grow a pair and try to prevent the submission and humiliation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state.

Maybe if he doesn't have to worry about AIPAC spies and blackmail (and just the possibility of assassination) he will actually stand up to Israel's constant threats of external annihilation. A successful tactic they have used since their inception to excuse their wars and abuses and keep their population scared of all those "evil Muslims" that want to exterminate them.

Maybe he will even have enough of a pair to stand over Bibi and rip up his cartoon drawing of bomb telling him "no more".

Maybe one day even Jews and Non Jews can live in a secular Israel/Palestine together as equals.

We can only dream.

Whatever is happening another war in the Middle East is not what we need right now!

So how long do after this comical performance by Bibi at the UN do you expect to see US and UK troops fighting for Israel against Iran once Bibi's "red line" is crossed on his cartoon bomb?

 

Would we have had the financial crisis if women ran banks?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched last nights episode of Tom Hartmans "The Big Picture" on Russia Today (watch live online here)

Tom is obviously a Democrat and a liberal but in his last segment something he said I found quite interesting.

Basically the leading founding father Thomas Jefferson  knew the dangers of corporations and unlimited greed and said so in a great speech - abbreviated here:

"I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson obviously was aware of the dangers of unlimited corporation power, money and influence and it would be good if some of the Tea Party members who are so fond of the founding fathers actually read more of what they actually said about standing armies, corporations, a Federal bank and undue political influence by lobbyists.

Tom Hartman then followed that up with other Presidential quotes throughout the ages all of which said that there was little need for people to earn so much money that it coultn't be spent in their lifetime.

Not only does it prevent a true meritocracy from occurring - as huge amounts of wealth are passed down the family line like an aristocracy - the thing the founding fathers fought against in the American Revolution. But it leaves people with so much money that could be used for the good of the nation as a whole except many of these super rich people would rather pay no tax at all than do some good for their country. It also showed that high tax rates have no correspondence with job creation, productivity or industrial or technical innovation.

As you can see Tom's main point was that the top rate of tax has dropped from a whopping 94% in the mid 1940's, to 70% during the 1970's and then its current position of 35% and this has no correspondence with the high times of American society.

It does however correspond with huge wealth inequality between the rich and poor. With the richest few percent getting richer and the middle classes basically staying the same. Tickle down economics doesn't seem to work too well it seems.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

The 1950's were a golden time in American society where there were plenty of jobs, houses, affordable education and guess what - the richest few percent (those job creators) didn't up sticks and leave America to another country with lower tax rates. They stayed and paid their taxes.

He also talked about a study that showed that once a person is earning enough money to cover all their basic needs e.g housing, food, travel, clothing etc then earning more money does NOT make them happier.

This reminds me of learning about Maslows hierarchy of needs at college.

Once you have all your basics covered, maybe married or in a relationship and doing a job you like or maybe other activities that fulfill your life then your pyramid of needs are satisfied.

The question then becomes what happens to all those people who have so much money that there is nothing left on earth to do with it.

I am talking about people who earn billions of dollars, fly around in private jets, own multiple huge boats and have garages full of the latest Ferrari's and Porches.

They may play golf all day or do other hobbies but I reckon there is another need that is missing from the pyramid that only comes when all the others are fulfilled and the person has  enough money to achieve or attempt to achieve it plus a certain character trait that is the opposite of altruism - a hunger for power.

Some people are born alpha dogs, others aren't.

Some people in the old days where physical power was all that mattered would have been battered to the floor and trod over like a carpet (people like Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers for instance).

Today things are different and money (lots of it) equals power or the ability to achieve it through various means. This might mean running a huge global corporation or the attempted ownership of countries and even blocks of them (i.e. the EU).

This is what many people believe the Citizens United Ruling has allowed to occur with the super rich trying to "buy" the Presidency through their use of Super Pacs, and huge financial donations.

Whereas Obama is having to rely on lots of small donations and seems to have lost out on those big money givers he had last time around Mitt Romney only needs to attend a couple of functions with the Koch Brothers and he walks away with a few hundred million dollar bills in his pocket.

These ultra rich are not "wealth generators" or "altruistic job creators" for if they were they would say to themselves:

"Well I have more money than I can ever spend in my lifetime. Or leave to my children who will just end up spolit entitled brats who probably won't do a day's work in their lives. With all this money I will do something good for my country and leave a lasting legacy like the Victorian Philantrophists and I don't mind taking a hit on my immense fortune by opening factories and other businesses in the USA and pay the taxes and benefits that come with creating jobs in my country."

"Yes it might cost more than off-shoring all my labour and manufacturing to China or India but as I have more money than I could possibly spend it makes no difference to me if I have to pay slightly more in wages or health benefits if it means that it brings jobs back to desolate American towns like Detroit or New Orleans."

No instead of thinking like this they chose to play king maker and attempt to buy the Presidency with Super Pacs and huge donations to their desired candidate (or the one they are stuck with e.g Mitt Romney)

People with huge amounts of wealth could do immense amounts of good to the people of the earth and I am sure lots of them exist but when the ultimate pyramid slice at the top of Maslows Hierarchy becomes "ultimate power" you end up with Koch Brothers buying Presidencies, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and huge experimental projects that are doomed to failure like the Euro.

You also end up with Banksters who have so much money that the only joy they get out of life is making billion dollar gambles with pension funds on the stock market, derivative overloads and the fixing of Libor interest rates. All of which have unintended consequences that affect whole countries and even the world as we are currently experiencing.

You are either this kind of person or you may have an altruistic personality, probably non alpha males, who chose to spend their money on charitable organisations. Building schools and hospitals in under privileged areas and all the sort of things that leave a lasting legacy once they are gone from this earth apart from a mention in a Wikipedia article as one of the banksters who was complicit in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

This leads me to another interesting point in which an ex female banker appeared on the "This Week" programme last Thursday in which she said that due to the "alpha male" culture of bankers in the City of London there was more risk taking and therefore potential for disaster.

If women ran banks and trading floors she reckoned the financial crisis probably would never have happened in the first place.

An interesting thought...