Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dangerous, Ignorant Warmongers

Expand Messages
  • Ernie Schreiber
    The article below appeared on the Internet. The question that arises immediately is, how much does anybody REALLY know and how much of that actually ever
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      The article below appeared on the Internet. The question that arises
      immediately is, how much does anybody REALLY know and how much of that
      actually ever reaches the public at large? It is a given that much of this
      is propaganda and the actual truth (or "facts") lies somewhere in-between.
      We've seen propaganda talks before the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq
      started. It is to be hoped that the public will finally become aware of all
      that "talk" and the lying that is being used to create mass-hysteria. We've
      been there before. But when will "we, the people" finally wake up and begin
      to think critically? Our educational systems need urgent upgrading!------

      By Leslie H. Gelb, The Daily Beast

      09 March 12

      I'm not supposed to tell you this. I'm violating the code. I'm giving away
      the deepest, darkest secret of the foreign policy clan: even though we sound
      like we know everything, we know very little, especially about the
      intentions of bad guys and the consequences of war. But since the media
      keeps treating us like sages and keeps ignoring our horrendous mistakes, we
      carry on with our game, and do a lot of damage. Let me give you of few of
      the more recent examples of how ignorant and dangerous we are, and why you
      should be wary of any flat out “truths” and certainties uttered by my

      Take Iran. Those who can't wait to start a war with Iran tell us that Tehran
      is within three seconds, three months, or a year of developing a nuclear
      weapon. I promise you they don't know this for anything near a fact. They're
      trying to push Israel and the United States into a military attack against

      Here's all we do know for sure: Iran is enriching uranium and has the
      capacity to enrich enough of it to a level of purity sufficient to make
      nukes - maybe, perhaps, in a year or two or more. Iran may have or may be
      developing related capacities to place this uranium into explosive form in a
      bomb or missile warhead. We have suspicions about the latter based on
      various kinds of imaging and listening intelligence.

      Now, are these activities something to worry about? Absolutely! But it is
      not a basis for going to war now or soon. It is a basis for Americans,
      Israelis, and others to find out more as quickly as possible through better
      intelligence and diplomacy. Yes, diplomacy, because we can argue forever
      about exactly what the Iranians have and intend, but making diplomatic
      proposals allows us to test our hypotheses. If Tehran rejects reasonable
      proposals, then there are grounds for raising suspicions and waving the war

      By the way, this isn't just my view. It is the consensus position of U.S.
      intelligence agencies. Equally telling, it is what retired senior Israeli
      intelligence chiefs and military officers have been shouting from the
      rooftops publicly, totally contrary to the code of silence on these matters.

      Israeli and American hawks are also proclaiming that we need not worry about
      the consequences of an attack on Iran, that the Iranians could not or would
      not do anything that should trouble us deeply. Hold on to your wallet here.
      How do they know if Tehran will strike back at, say, Saudi or Iraqi oil
      fields and drive oil prices into the stratosphere, or launch terrorist
      attacks against American, Israelis, and others worldwide? Of course, I don't
      know either. But these are real risks that we must accept and reckon with
      before attacking Iran.

      Take Syria. The war twins, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, along
      with the usual cohort of neoconservatives and humanitarian interventionists,
      are urging military action. They want airstrikes and arms for the Syrian
      rebels, no-fly zones, and so forth. They can't stand President Bashar
      al-Assad killing his people. None of us can. But why are the neocons so
      riled up about several thousand Syrian deaths, when they are practically mum
      about the millions killed and being killed in Africa? Why don't they
      advocate arming the Tibetans? Well, we know why they don't want war with
      China. For the time being, all they desire is to beef up U.S. military
      spending and presence in Asia. Then, we'll see.

      So, one might suspect that their passion for Washington "to lead" on Syria
      and get into another war there turns on something other than saving lives.
      Try Iran. They want to weaken Iran's position in the Arab world, with its
      great Syrian ally, and with Iranian-backed extremists like Hezbollah in
      Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It is a noble goal.

      But again what of the consequences, or better, the risks? The
      interventionists, for example, plead to arm Syrian rebels. But who are those
      rebels exactly? Oh, former Syrian soldiers. Oh, people fighting against
      Assad's tyranny. That's fine. But who else are they? Are there major al
      Qaeda elements among them, or other Muslim extremists? Would they be a
      bigger threat to Israel and to Arab neighbors like Jordan than Assad
      himself? The warmongers say not to worry, but they don't know the answers to
      any of these questions. Nor do they have any idea what these "freedom
      fighters" would do with Assad's chemical weapons. Nor have the
      interventionists begun to explain how they would conduct air operations over
      Syria, and what more they'd be prepared to do if those air attacks failed to
      stop Assad's killings.

      There's an even longer list of questions that the war humanitarians should
      be made to answer before any president lifts his sword. Americans need
      protection from these snake-oil salesmen, and that protection depends almost
      entirely on Congress and the media. They have got to be much tougher with
      the experts, pin them down on what they know and don't know and what facts
      their views are based on. They've got to demand real answers, and not let
      the experts escape with slogans like "lead" and "take action," or "that will
      all work out." But it is the rarest of occasions when legislators or
      journalists bear down on the experts. If the questioners don't do their job
      once again, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, then we'll be in wars once again.
      And once again, we'll be very sorry. But the interventionists won't be. They
      never are. They'll just want to keep fighting every war forever until we

      [end of quoted article...]

      Think about it.

      H. E. (Ernie) Schreiber
      EUNACOM Secular Journal: http://eunacom.net
      Discussion List Server at: <eunacom@yahoogroups.com>

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.