US should think twice about Attacking Iran

Obama should think twice about Iran More and more each day appears that the US is inching its way closer to an armed conflict with Iran -- something I think will hurt the US more than Israel in the long term. All because the big bully on the block, Israel is purported to be “facing grave danger.” This is mainly being promoted by Zionist from everywhere this side of the Pecos River. My question is why do we have to defend Israel, a nation with the largest army and only nuclear arsenal in the region?
We all are well aware of the fact that Israel is no friend of Iran, or of any other Islamic and predominantly Arab state in the region. Thus, Israel is the one making trouble yet they want the present administration to decide to launch a pre-emptive war in what are probably the world’s most volatile environs.

If history is any guide, we should be very careful about deciding to attack Iran. Prior to WW 2 it was the Germans who convinced the "enlightened civilization" that it only wants to execute its rights. But one war led to another and country upon country was invaded including France, Belgium, Netherlands and other countries. Now it is Israel, and they will only be happy until all of the other Arab nations are not just a threat, but nonexistent for like Germany, their goal is not defensive but an aggressive offence to conquer the entirety of Middle East Asia.

True, it is hard to assess whether to “confront” or to “contain” Iran without examining more than 300 years of contemporary Iranian history, in concert with the history of conflict in the Middle East throughout modern times. Then we must decide and determine if possible what are we trying to prevent or contain them from doing? Otherwise we will formulate policy, which has become customary, based on anger, fear and hatred singularly. Even worse, one based on Israel must not be allowed to drive the world into chaos, just because it wants to. We need to protect AMERICA's interests, first, last, and always, and America's interests do not include shedding more blood for Israel or carrying their water for them. We lost too many American lives already to satisfy Israel's demands over Iraq. But, apparently, we have learned nothing from Iraq, and Israel doesn't care as long as they get their own way.

The only difference now is that the false flag of preventing a nation from self-determination in the form of developing nuclear capability is the issue. Albeit both the US and Israel have such capabilities and past history reveals that the US vowed that Pakistan or North Korea would never be allowed to possess Nuke. Why should it be different with Iran?

Factually, given our present quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and our bombing of our present alley Pakistan daily, a confrontation with Iran would also last for years and possibly crush America's economy – especially for the average American. Thus any form of military intervention at all in Iran means that the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 plus for a gallon if a war breaks out in the Strait of Hormuz. We are already in a recession at best and depression at worse and hyperinflation is everywhere we look.

Next, we must try and anticipate what will happen as a function if either side wins. After WW II, half of Europe ended up being given to the Soviets. Then due to our wasteful war effort in Iraq, in essence we have succeeded nearly half of this state to Iran. For both of these operation we as a nation have nothing really to show for it, except ending up in bed with the most treacherous leaders in modern times the likes of Mubarak, Pavlavi, House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Assad and yes, the Likud.

The current administration still has Kool-Aid pumping through its veins. Sure, they went into Libya and are now selling wolf tickets about Syria; but the US needs to think about these actions and the global political consequences. We need to stop demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down and cease the threats because it shows hypocrisy when we decide and shout to the world who we think should step down from the position of a head of a state, in particular when we aren’t prepared to remove that person. And talking about democracy when to suggest the aforementioned is in contradiction of our own values.

Also, who cares if Israel is our strongest ally in the region, forget a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: the US government should only have that strong of commitment to the US. If they don’t how we do our thing then stop giving them loot. We should stick to our guns that Netanyahu and Israel should use the 1967 borders should be a basis for negotiating of a Palestinian state. And for those who believe that Israel is our friend, they are not and only care about Israel first – even before the US unlike the US. In the past, they have attacked one of our naval ships, killed our sailors, spied on us, and treat us like a vassal state.

I say let’s us pack up the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and send them to Israel and let them fight their on war. If they do, and if Israel attacks, the United States may get drawn into a war that could set the Middle East further aflame and no telling how bad global markets will get.
Iran is a country of 80 million people, compared with about 30 million in Afghanistan or Iraq. Its territory of 1.65 million square kilometers, including deserts and rugged mountains, gives it impressive strategic depth compared to Israel, which exists on 20,000 square kilometers. Even to attack Iran by air, .Israel would have to strike Iran's four major nuclear sites. The most direct path to do so is across Jordan and Iraq. Will Jordan allow Israel to fly over? Then, Israeli pilots have to fly more than 1,600 kilometers refueling in the air, fighting off Iran's air defense, while attacking multiple underground sites at the same time.

Moreover, Iran is a major oil producer located right by the most critical petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. I’m lost that military intervention is even being considered, because if it happens, it will introduce a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

And although the US will try not to have a land war, we can’t tell what will happen, or know the outcome. Will it be a war of attrition or an all-out invasion? We do know it will be long, money wasting, US war in the Middle East? We cannot forget that in Europe in 1914, a small and unexpected event began the First World War. Obama really needs to think carefully about this. The sad reality is if America and our national security and safety were placed first – we would not attack Iran. However, he has learned from Bush, who has had US in Iraq for more than 10 years and resulted in a sustained US military presence for 11 years an in Afghanistan as we speak.

Europe’s Sovereign Debt Crisis and Germany’s Historic Economic Conundrum

I have been giving the global economic crisis a considerable amount of thought. If you have been reading my essay’s on this blog for any considerable length of time, you are aware of my predictions as early as 2007, with respect to how the US, Greek, French, Spanish, and Italian economies would falter as a function of unsustainable fractional banking practices of central and private banks, poorly formulated and conceived economic political policy, the incessant propensity to employ Keynesian economic philosophy to provide the fasade of short-term solutions to providing economic growth, and how these problems are not due to a liquidity issue but rather a massive debt contraction in which printing and disseminating additional paper money only makes things worse (quantitative easing).

The predicament that Germany finds itself in is unique and historically explains why they have taken the position they have. Many western nations including the US and its major European counterparts have been giving Germany the business for not want to bailout nations heavily burden by debt in which their citizens receive big pension pay outs so that they can retire before age 50 and live club-med life styles.

Since the times of Bismarck, Germany has been considered a threat to the rest of Europe. : This both economically and militarily. Ever since Prussia defeated France in the war of 1870-71, this has been the case. Even after the war, Germany did not really rebound economically until 1895. By the time they did, around 20 years later the First World War had started and in-between that time the British government, among others was taking a page from Napoleon and the US Civil War to destroy German economic growth via an extensive counterfeiting operation.

Unlike the European nations who are in dire economic straits and begging for Germany to take on their massive debt burden, they remember how the Allies dictated the harsh terms in the armistice signed at Compiegne, France. The reparations imposed as a function of the Treaty of Versailles led to hyperinflation in 1923 which only got worse when the depression hit the world in 1929 which resulted in massive deflation. The treaty resulted in Germany giving up an eight of its territory which equaled near 7 million people, all of its international investments and it colonies outside of Europe. Leaving the nation with close to 150 billion Marks in debt.

Neither the European Union nor the US has a Dr. Hjalmar Schact to assist them in this present crisis. It was Schact who revived the 1920s Weimar Republic of Germany from post WW 1 hyperinflation. A period before then which saw a currency exchange rate of 1 trillion Marks for 1 US dollar. German as well as the rest of Europe knows this recent fix is short term and is equal to using dental floss to splint a compound fractured leg. Just today banks in Britain still acknowledge that the euro zone crisis was the biggest threat to the UK's banking system. This is why Germany is reluctant to assist in the massive Euro zone bailout in which they would assume most of the exposure. German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has rejected the notion that the debt deal agreed in Brussels recently could be renegotiated to give Greece more generous terms while he was speaking in Istanbul.

This is why the World’s central banks (led by the US Federal Reserve) reduced rates to prop up the broken legged Euro zone economy once again. “The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank (ECB), the United States Federal Reserve and the Swiss National Bank on Wednesday announced a coordinated attempt to provide liquidity support to the global financial system to avert further global financial distress.”

The Federal Reserve, in a morning press release, said that it will take measures to provide easier access for European banks that hold dollar-denominated currencies for dollar loans to U.S. currency. This translates simple into Washington politicians from Obama to the Congress made easy millions by buying stocks knowing they were to bail out some countries in Europe.

The bottomline truth about today's Federal Reserve-led coordinated effort by developed worlds' central banks to ease the liquidity problems of European banks is this: It doesn't change anything. European leaders still have the same tough decision to make. Either impose even stricter austerity measures on Europe's struggling nations or force Germany and other stronger European nations to come forward with an even bigger bailout, or, of course, kiss the Euro good-bye. Germany keeps all of this in perspective and in the back of their collective unconscious, they have to remember the Treaty of WW 1 and the hardships of hyper-inflation suffered them and after WW 2. Thus it is no wonder they are hesitant to help the very nations who destroyed their economy. The parliament remembers because they suggest that German participation in bailout process violates limits of acceptable integration within the EU, interfering in sovereign affairs of other member states. This even if Angela Merkel and the German courts do not. The reality is that no matter the German court ruling, its decision has little to do with saving the euro in the long term. The state of Europe will eventually show it’s jaundiced and gangrene infected economic limbs and do as all bacterial infected cells do, and Germany will survive waiting in the wind while the rest of Europe remains helpless.

If I can recall of this history, surely the Germans can and the rest of Europe. But as to the Us Federal Reserve and President Obama, I doubt it and this really scares me about the economic prospect for Americans long-term future, one in which we are trying to create with short-term and temporary fixes.

What Obama Can Learn From Mugabe that Ron Paul Did

Hard to imagine it was just four years ago that pundits across the globe were slinging harsh and vilifying attacks against Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. They asserted that Mugabe under the banner of populism and black sovereignty had run and was continuing to run the country's economy into the ground. Inflation's was at an unimaginable rate of 100,000 percent which eventually grew to 231 million percent.The shelves of many stores were almost empty and prices were constantly increasing due to hyperinflation. For the general population, it was estimated that four out of five people were unemployed and that the situation was so bad that about 3,000 people a day were reported to be crossing Zimbabwe's borders into neighboring countries.

This no longer is the case, thanks namely to policies put in place and established by the same supposedly villainous Robert Mugabe. No longer does the African nation suffer with the highest rate of inflation in the world. Now just a few years’ latter goods are back on the shelves of local stores. Why, because of the government's decision to replace the Zimbabwe dollar with the South African rand and the US dollar.

The Zimbabwe's economy has produced economic growth for two successive years due to positive policies and strong commodity prices, and this according to the International Monetary Fund. Although this southern African country's economy was beaten down by hyperinflation (drops in value) which reached 500 billion percent in 2008 and grew 5.7 percent in 2009, now as it stands, Zimbabwe has a budget surplus and demonstrates additional signs of improvement. The economy of Zimbabwe grew close to 8 percent in 2010 is expected to grow near 10 percent this year.

The question for many remains how did this happen after being vilified by the United States and Europe just 5 years ago for not doing enough to improve the economy and the nation’s policy for land redistribution from Europeans to native Zimbabweans? How is this possible when once the rest of the world was saying that the people of Zimbabwe were not capable of self-government? First higher gold and platinum prices have boosted exports and government revenues in 2010. In addition, not being the victim of severe droughts as other African nations around the horn have resulted in conditions contributed that have led to increase in agricultural output. The policies of Mugabe targeted several areas including but not limited to reducing rigid labor market constraints, establishing security of land tenure, clarifying ownership requirements under the indigenization legislation, and addressing concerns about governance in the diamond sector. They also implemented other reforms including actions that have resulted in a more than 50 % increase of livestock folds across the country. Last but not least, there were the strict reforms imposed in the banking system.

Given all of the aforementioned, I often wonder why have these occurrences in Zimbabwe and imposed by President Mugabe received vapid coverage in mainstream western media and not openly discussed and acknowledged by President Obama? After all it was just last year when the nation‘s central bank introduced a $50 billion note (at the time enough to buy just two loaves of bread). It was implemented to avoid cash shortages because like our dollar, theirs was virtually worthless. The simple lesson for the President should be to learn from what we observe transpire in Zimbabwe, but he will not. Some economist have suggested that with the Federal Reserve Bank incessant use of quantitative easing (printing fiat money willy nily), that the U.S. economy will enter “hyperinflation” similar to what we saw in Zimbabwe. Why because no matter what, the artificiality of the US economy will be subjected to the reluctance of the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. We are already seeing large increases in everything from commodities to basic goods and with government debt growing so much, inflation has to start to accelerate at a dangerous rate.

From a policy approach it is obvious that Obama doesn’t comprehend, understand or believe the aforementioned as being a tenable outcome. Dr. Ron Paul does since he understands and states that “a thriving economy is not the but the result of a free people.” The actions of the President and a House that currently only serves to manage economic forces in an effort to mandate how business should be conducted, fail to egage the larger picture. Although not completely flawless, Dr. Paul’s economic principles rest on the idea that humans have the right to choose how to interact with one another. The clearest example concerns how we conduct foreign policy as nation and how these actions inherently impact our potential for economic growth negatively. For him, there is no reason to provide $3 billion to Israel annually while at the same time give their Arab neighbors and enemies and $12. Paul is the only current politician who has stated the reality of the US economy being considerably in worse shape than Europe.

First we owe Japan more than a trillion dollars, not to mention we are in worse shape than Japan, even after their natural disasters since they do have major exports to lean on and higher rates of savings available. The question should be why are US politicians from the President on down not addressing the citizens of this nation honestly about our economic conundrum? What are we doing to maintain our competitive edge in the world while all other nations are acting? Nothing, we fuss and bicker and Obama doesn’t show the will or ability to work on this from a serious purview and neither do Republicans. While Zimbabwe is going through with their plans for a gold-backed currency and China Becomes World’s Largest Gold Buyer, our economy is slowing down and we applaud an artificial stock bubble like it means we are back on track. Things that Paul openly supports.

As opposed to trying to solve our problems, our federal government only attempts to spends, borrow, and print money our-way out of debt so much that the dollar is null. Why, because our politicians figure the best way to grow (which isn’t growth) our economy is by printing new money to pay its debts, and borrows hundreds of billions abroad in the form of Treasury obligations that someday must be paid. All of this even when they know such is in contradiction to the laws of economics. From what has been said and written, it is pellucid that Dr. Paul understands this as well as Robert Mugabe. The query is does or can President Obama and can he learn from them both?

preparing america for hyperinflation

ink and paper

Now I really wanted to call this post “Uncle Tom’s Dollar”, but I wanted to show I am not as uncouth, incorrigible and uncultured as I really am. Plus, If I did, I would have to point out how dumb and stupid and ill informed the folks many who may read my blog get they news from (folks on Fox and CNN) really are and I did not want to insult their ill informed and poorly readness (yep I made the word up). Besides I’m sure folk on TV have to spend their time looking at the cathode ray tube unlike me who would rather read a coupla few books and newspapers a week – especially when I don’t have to have a person select and pick what they think I want to hear or worse need to know. Now I have learned from my prior post that folks don’t like reading, even if it is between a page or two in length, and have limited knowledge of history. Well really, I have observed such and have not learned anything whatsoever for I am about to do the same thing again.

I have an affinity for loot, money, the dollar bill. But slowly I am loosing that affinity for it is not able to buy as much as it used too. Frankly I am afraid for if it keeps loosing its ability to get me the things I want, or if I have to use more of them to get what I want, then I speculate we will miss no longer being on a gold standard. I could go back to the Romans, or Hungary or even Serbia to explain what I see from what I know has happened in the past, but I wont. But I will say that what we are experiencing is eerily similar to what happened in Germany before the rise of Hitler and even more recently what has been going on in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is the first country in the 21st century that I know of to suffer from hyperinflation. On one extreme, which is extreme, we may find ourselves in the same position of Zimbabwe with respect to their hyperinflation. True, we aint taking land back from white farmers and giving to poor folks who don’t know how to run large farms and end up mismanaging them. But Obama is dead set on this redistribution of wealth as was (is) Mugabe. In Zimbabwe (a place I have been and surprisingly makes great wine also) put so much into spending on printing loot. Why, because the demand for cash was so great. Here, just like there, the depreciation of assets is way greater than investment, which led the to import capital from abroad.

This is very scary for a few reason, namely because they had to replace the Zimbabwe dollar with a foreign currency that was fully backed by a foreign reserve currency freely convertible at a fixed rate on demand. It was so bad there that commercial banks maybe in a position to issue their own private notes without government regulation (as was the case here before the civil war prior to Lincoln issuing the Greenback).

The Germany situation is a lot more closer because the devaluation of the Mark they suffered was the result of waging a war they loss (can you say Afghanistan and Iraq). After WW 1, Germany had to make reparation payment as well as keep its industrial economy running. Problem was that they were no longer on the gold standard. When mark lost value, corporations cut jobs, paid workers less and produced cheaper goods for exports. This is especially true when there is in an economic crisis or a war, the pressure to inflate becomes overwhelming.

Now I don’t THINK we are or will be experiencing hyperinflation. But I do several things I have observed now and before in history. One, that as in Germany, retailers shelves are not selling and are not as stocked as before the recession, meaning its hard for us to make a profit. Two, I see more empty commercial real-estate. Three, the government has no adequate income thus I think will be forced to raise taxes (which they will not collect given the present climate and will have to print more money or worse borrow more abroad).

In essence our government will monetize debt. I mean what else can you do when we build a big azz deficit. All the Federal Reserve does is buys bonds trying to stabilize the market, which means they just printing loot on the invisible security of these bonds. If history teaches anything, it is that government cant be trusted to manage loot as this clock shows with respect to the US. When currency is not redeemable in gold, its value depends entirely on the judgment and the conscience of the politicians. All money is a matter of belief and the Obama administration shows a willingness to tolerate a weaker currency in an effort to boost exports and the economy as long as it doesn’t drive away the nation’s creditors. Problem is that world wide folks getting rid of dollars with the quickness. Even here in the states. Banks are increasing foreign currency holdings and since 1999, holdings in US Dollars have dropped from 63 percent in 1999 to 37 percent currently. Yep, the dollar is almost worthless, but why shouldn’t it be, after all its just paper and ink.