Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

The warfare establishment will get your children in the end, one way or another, unless you take evasive action.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: L. Ali Khan writes 'The grand plan to sell warfare systems openly to allies and secretly to adversaries consists of a shrewd strategy. For years, the warfare establishment studies potential conflicts involving nations that can afford to buy weapons. For example, Saudi Arabia has been identified as a perfect candidate to engage in warfare with its neighbors. Saudi Arabia has a vulnerable monarchy. It is rich. In addition to domestic vulnerabilities, the war in Yemen, the Shia-Sunni discord, the disagreements with Qatar and Lebanon, and many other trigger points force Saudi Arabia to buy expensive weapons.

Creating the dread of Iran as the most dangerous, terror-sponsoring nation in the world fits into the establishment narrative that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States need to arm themselves against domestic revolutions and external aggression, all of it allegedly Iran-sponsored. Ironically, the dread of Iran also forces Israel to buy the U.S. warfare systems. The dread of Iran is also beneficial for the European states willing to sell arms to Iran, after a 'wink-wink' opposition from the U.S. warfare establishment. If Iran is militarily strong, the U.S. can sell more arms to its allies. This logic is so simple that the simple-minded finds it incredible.

Likewise, North Korea as a bully state in the region is conducive to selling arms to Japan and South Korea. The warfare establishment has every reason to showcase North Korea as a crazy country that can attack neighboring states without reason or warning. A cornered and demonized North Korea displays craziness of its own making (which country wouldn't under starvation pressures) but the warfare establishment blows it out of all proportion because the higher the dread, the higher the need for 'defense' weapons that the U.S. warfare industry can sell for billions of dollars. To reinforce the dread of North Korea, the bogus conflict over the South China Sea is exaggerated to sell weapons to vulnerable states, including Taiwan.

As India emerges from poverty imposed by the British colonists and joins the top economies, the U.S. warfare establishment is drawing India into costly conflicts with China and Pakistan. The simmering territorial disputes with neighbors have been employed to persuade India to stand up to China and fight a cold war with Pakistan over Kashmir and Afghanistan. India has surged to the second biggest buyer of U.S. weapons.'
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: So what can YOU do, reader?

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20 centrica AT APPROX 145.00 directline AT APPROX 358.70 g4s AT APPROX 252.90 gkn AT APPROX 298.40 glencore AT APPROX 343.00 m&s AT APPROX 319.30 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00 standardlife AT APPROX 417.90

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Just let things go on as they are and leave your descendants to suffer all the worst consequences of all this? Unification: Is that REALLY all you are made of? Alas.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 12:52:9 on 24/11/2017

Related points:

References:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/21/the-merchant-of-weapons/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.