U.S Plans For War In Iran and In The Sudan. Do We Really Need More Wars?

By Linda Mains

Please if you love my blog donate I want to expand Hypocriti-co into a real web site...don't forget to donate to it. Thanks Linda Mains

There is a bill called the War Acts bill, which use to be called the G.I Bill, but Ron Paul’s views about being a non-interventionist, while the U.S should avoid entangling-alliances with other nations, while retaining our diplomatic ties, while advocating; open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy, in regards to our diplomacy with other nations.

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War Resolution Acts, during his last run for President in 2008. Plus in 2010; his foreign policies where more conservative than 60% of the house, and more liberal than 40% of the house; he also has a strong believe, that an actual declaration of war should have been directed at the (supposed terrorist or the politicians whom where really responsible for 9/11) or the actual terrorists; Al-Qaeda (or U.S covert operatives), rather than waging a monetarily-driven war against Iraq. In 2003 Ron Paul had said that America should only seek war to protect its citizens. All acts of war must be declared by the congress, and not by the will of our President! Plus; he wants all wars to be concluded by a certain time or an exit strategy to bring back our troops; something that the American people deserve and desperately want to happen.

Ron Paul is right; America cares far too much about Israel, and we should allow Israel to become a more independent country, but he also stated that Israel should be allowed to govern their country, anyway that they see fit. He is also against the U.S attacking Iran, and is supported by many in congress on both sides of the congressional isle. There is a resolution called the Denis Kucinich resolution which is asking the United Nations; to charge Iranian President Mahmound Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter. While also being against the proposal, which is urging our Administration to consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur...claiming that the proposal is unrelated to "U.S national interests," and he was the only "no" vote regarding H.R. 180, a bill that states; they will publish a list every 6 months, of all the people whom have direct investments in or are conducting business in the Sudan, like power-production, mineral extraction, oil-related or the military equipment industry. This bill also excludes business operations with the regional government of Southern Sudan, the marginalized populations of Sudan, and with peace keeping or humanitarian organizations.

Something sounds really fishy in this bill; our government wants to start a war to save people from genocide...but in this bill, they want to extract the Sudan's natural resources, while not doing any business or helping any humanitarian organizations. Why? So the bill goes on to state; that this bill is not unconstitutional with a divestment-measure in the bill because (1) it's not pre-empted under the Supremacy clause; (2) it's authorized by the congress, as an appropriate measure with regard to interstate or foreign commerce; and (3) it's authorized by Congress as a measure, that promotes U.S. foreign policy. So my big question is; exactly what is our U.S foreign policy regarding the Sedan? The wording of this bill is very vague. Oh and the bill H.R 180 had this in it; tax payers are paying for this-the first phase of the Youth Challenge Program, a program which is a 5 month residential alternative military-like school, that offers at-risk adolescents an opportunity to work on their education and life skills; in a structured and disciplined environment; all of which is in this bill. What is a Youth Challenging Program doing in a bill to help the people in the Sudan? Can you say WOW?

This bill can’t make America's foreign policies and the reasons that we fight wars…look anymore corrupt, to the rest of the world; (sec 6) should open your eyes, it amends the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide a safe harbor from civil, criminal, or administrative action, for under section 3 of this Act which Authorizes state or local government divestment in such companies. (sec 7) Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to provide safe harbor for employee-benefit-plan-employees, based upon the plan's divesting or not investing in a company, that is on such a list; (sec 8) Prohibits the U.S government from contracting or renewing a contract for goods or services with a company that is on such a list. It also authorizes the President to waive such prohibition for national security reasons. What are those security reasons? What is really disturbing about this Bill is that it does not mention the Sedan…so these laws could happen anywhere; it has very ambiguous language in it. Sec 9; it is U.S policy to support any state or local governments decision to prohibit any state or local government contracting for goods or services with a company that is on such a list. OK where does it mention the Sudan in this bill, and where's the list with the company’s names on it? The people whom wrote this bill are hi-jacking our economy, and our rights with bills worded just like these!

OK so supposedly they don't want to support companies, that are doing biz with the people whom are responsible for the killings in the Sudan. Am I going blind because I did not read the reason why we had companies on some supposed list; banning companies from doing business with us, or the reasons why these companies where banned in the first place. Plus; what does our social-security law, have to do with a company, who might be doing business with the military that is responsible for the bloodshed in the Sudan? Paul has also cited; that past ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Iraq as evidence against divestment from business connected to the Sudanese government.

So since I’m talking about foreign policies, lets discuss Iran for a moment…shall we?

It looks like the Obama administration is currently trying to figure out, exactly what Israel is going to do to Iran. It's obvious that The Obama administration does not like surprises, and the President has made major efforts to avoid any surprises in our relationship with Israel...particularly on the issue about Iran. Did you know that our country and Israel have consultation advice, between both countries; which feature video-teleconferences? Even with all of this, Netanyahu the prime minister in Israel; won't give Obama any reassurances, that he will ask us for permission (like another leader of any country has to ask us for permission?), before attacking Iran. If that happens; Iran will probably launch a terrorist attack on the United States in response.

If Israel attacks Iran, the U.S would probably join in an air strike with Jerusalem, if Jerusalem decides to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. A former top-ranking U.S Air Force officer told participants at a conference this weekend, which was organized by a Washington think tank. And Charles F. Wald a former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command, has said a military strike on Iran, could set back the Islamic Republic's “alleged nuclear weapons program” by several years, but cautioned, "I don't think Israel can do it alone."

So what's the real reason that our government and President might want to attack Iran?

The Tehran government has developed a plan, to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE, with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated, international oil trading mechanism. Which means that if the U.S doesn't intervene before Iran does this; the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade, so given our debt level size, and the neoconservative project for U.S global domination. Terran's objectives obviously constitute an encroachment on the U.S dollars supremacy, in their international oil market a market that they created. James Madison stated in his political observations; "no nation could preserve it's freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

So what where the real reasons behind the U.S. attacking Iraq? Well we all know it wasn't about those weapons of mass destruction. I hope that most of us know that by now.

You know that war in Iraq had nothing to do with International terrorism either... What that war was really about was; gaining control over Iraq's hydrocarbon-reserves, while maintaining the U.S dollar as a monopoly currency, which is critical to the international-oil-market. Administration insiders in 2004 knew that Bush/Cheney entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. So what was the neoconservative strategy? Well it's pretty obvious; it was to install a pro-U.S government in Baghdad!

Along with the fact that the U.S. has been establishing multiple U.S military bases; which were partly designed to thwart off any further momentum within OPEC towards petroleum. Except there was only one problem with this strategy it was flawed, because Iran had already begun to move towards a petro-euro system for international oil trading...while Russia was also discussing this option as well.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petro-dollar warfare, and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments - especially the E.U., Russia and China were not amused - and neither were the U.S soldiers who where stationed in Iraq, and neither where the soldiers whom are currently stationed in Iraq. This pre-war hypothesis has been validated by an article on June 5th, 2003 in the Financial Times; which has confirmed that Iraqi oil sales were returning to the international markets, markets that were once dominated by the U.S dollar; not euros. This fact is really suspicious, since these facts don’t appear in five major U.S media conglomerates publications; these publications appear to be censoring their information to the public.

So what's the real objective with a war with Iran? It's to draw Iran into a full scale war
with the U.S. and our allies!

Supposedly we want to invade Iran, and replace the existing anti-American government, with one that will be our ally. All though...I believe it has more to do with having-our currency remain on top, while extracting the Euro out of the middle east; while toppling other governments...in the U.S. corruption knows no bounds.

Ron Paul also believes, that we should not be participating in, by accepting certain organizations funding, because those organizations are overriding American sovereignty; like the United Nations (whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world piece; it replaced the League of Nations in 1945), the International Criminal Court (it's a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), the Law of the Sea Treaty (defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.), NATO (to seek better relations with former potential enemies to the east 9/11 was the only time NATO said that the act was like an attack on all nineteen NATO members, they have a lot to do with the war in Iraq, and most recently they have enforced a NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya) , and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (was a region-level with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues).

Ron Paul is also against the World Trade Organization; he has stated that it's a barrier to free trade, and that the economic argument for free trade should be, no more complex than the moral argument. The World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe that in order to have any type of free-trade to be a positive in the world, that it requires some type of compensation or a "deal." He is also a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism (which is economic policies that restrain trade between states. threw means of tariffs on imported goods, and a lot of other governmental regulations.)

I believe that any government in the world should be allowed and trusted to use any form of power that it wants to use, which includes Nuclear Power. That same government should be allowed to decide what type of monetary-system that it wants to use in its country as well. We the people cannot continue to blackmail the rest of the world; into taking on our debt or taking on our monetary system. Iran has its own government…and we should allow them, to make whatever decisions that they deem necessary, to run their government. We also need to stop creating phony bills and phony terrorist scenarios; which are claiming to help the victims of the world, while simultaneously taking our rights away and those people’s rights away as well; while continuously robing those destitute countries of their natural resources. Wars should only be fought; because they need to be fought, to protect the citizens of our country…we cannot continue to fight wars, to achieve financial dominance over other countries! We cannot continue to fight wars because some other country might attack us at a later date. We also cannot use other nations horrible tragedy’s like the genocide that is occurring in the Sedan, as a way to achieve our schemes and plans; tricking those demoralized people while we plan on robbing them of their precious resources. Like I’ve said before and I will say it again; evil knows no bounds and ultimate power corrupts totally, and we wonder why other countries don’t like the U.S.?

Sources; http://thejcrevelator2.hubpages.com/hub/thejcrevelator2attachiran

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-officer-if-israel-strikes-iran-u-s-will-likely-join-1.5791

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/16/israel-s-secret-iran-attack-plan-electronic-warfare.html

http://www.ngycp.org/site/state/la/node/2262

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations