Thursday, April 19, 2018

Philip Giraldi — Why Each US President Ends Up As Ruthless Interventionist These Days

In the wake of last week’s cruise missile attack on Syria, there was a joke going around the internet saying that it doesn’t matter who Americans vote for, they always wind up getting John McCain as President of the United States. The humor derives from the fact that the past three presidents all ran for office committed to reducing America’s interventionism overseas but once in office they reversed course and expanded US military commitments worldwide, turning them into facsimiles of John McCain, who has never seen a war he didn’t like....
Pundits see the process whereby all new presidents turn into hawks as evidence of the pervasiveness of the Deep State in US foreign policy, but as the Deep State operates largely in the open in the United States, it might also be referred to as the Establishment consensus. The persistence of the Establishment view in what has become increasingly a national security state is largely due to the fact that there is little pushback against it.
The media is fully on board and Congress, which should be serving as a brake on presumed presidential prerogatives to go to war, benefits substantially from the bloated budgets and other emoluments that derive from American imperialism. Defense and related budgets grow in spite of the lack of any real threat and the public is fed a steady diet of fear by the media and government regarding fabricated threats to US national security.…
Establishment politics has meant that the United States is now a rogue nation defined by its propensity to go to war. America’s bombing of Syria is illegal, immoral, ineffective and dishonest.
Strategic Culture Foundation
Why Each US President Ends Up As Ruthless Interventionist These Days
Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer, now Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest

6 comments:

Konrad said...

Philip Giraldi: “America’s bombing of Syria is illegal, immoral, ineffective and dishonest.”

Yes, but for some people the bombing of Syria was very lucrative.

For example, Theresa May’s husband Philip is a Senior Executive of Capital Group, a £1.4 trillion (USD $1.97 trillion) investment firm that buys shares in companies across the globe, including Lockheed Martin.

After those 100+ Lockheed AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles were fired at Syria, Lockheed’s stock spiked upward, since investors know that Lockheed will receive orders for 100+ new JASSM cruise missiles to replace the ones that were fired at Syria. This dramatically boosted the fortune of Capital Group, which owns 10% of Lockheed stock.

Philip May shares Theresa May’s bed (literally) and together they plot activities (such as wars) that will further boost Capital Group’s wealth.

The evil of politicians is truly boundless.

See https://www.globalresearch.ca/disgusting-conflict-of-interest-theresa-mays-husbands-investment-firm-made-a-financial-killing-from-the-bombing-of-syria/5636632

Unknown said...

Then there is this - Bill Hicks explains US Presidency

Kaivey said...

These people are terribly evil. This is how they make their money, if only the public knew.

Tom Hickey said...

The core lie is that intervention is about political liberalism ("spreading freedom and democracy, resting the oppressed) when it is actually about economic liberalism (capitalism, favoring domestic capital).

Noah Way said...

Exactly. You don't spread democracy at gunpoint.

Spreading democracy is a code word for spreading capitalism. Any system that competes with capitalism (socialism, the riba of Islamic law, etc.) is the deadly enemy of capitalism and must be exterminated.

Kaivey said...

What they mean by democracy is opening to elections to be manipulated by Western powers. It means opening to a countries markets to Western capital so that the elite can buy up everything. Then a county's assets can be in the hands a few Western people. As they get exponentially richer they can buy up even more of the world's resources, and they can also create the money out of nothing in Western banks. So, create the money out of nothing, and buy up all the resources in Africa.

But China and Russia remain outside of the Western capitalist system, and have always done so to some degree.

The elite were once very conservative and hated democracy, but it became a gift the them, and 'liberal values' became their propaganda. Democracy means they can manipulate countries and once they have puppets in power who they pay handsomely, they don't mind the system staying as it is.

Regimes such as Syria and Cuba have to be repressive to keep the CIA and the West out, otherwise they will topple the regime to get their guys in, and may even murder its leaders in a coup. I'm not making excuses for repressive regimes, but it's complicated.