An interview with Doug Casey

Doug: Speaking of evil, it’s evil to initiate the use of force or fraud. If Iran enriches uranium or even builds tools for war, that’s not evil per se. But using force to stop them from doing something that is not in itself wrong is wrong, and that would make Iran’s attackers the axis of evil.

In my mind, the US is the biggest threat to peace in the world today. I can easily imagine those in power in the US starting a war over any silly pretext, real or imagined. It could easily happen by accident at this point. Things go wrong. Maybe some young hotheads in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard decide to take a boat out and attack a US frigate – launch a few RPGs at it before they’re blown out of the water. Then the US feels it needs to mete out some punishment and launches a strike against the base the boat came from – which would be attacking the Iranian mainland – and the thing spins completely out of control. Could happen at the drop of a hat. Maybe the commander of a US ship has a streak of General Jack D. Ripper from Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove in him. Maybe the Russians or the Chinese – who are aiding the Iranians – mount a false-flag incident, because they want to see the US get involved in another tar baby.

Read it all.

There is so much going on in international politics right now,no one is above spinning stories for their own benefit.It’s our job to turn on our BS filter and find the true story buried beneath layers of spin.

Reading American,British,Israeli,and Iranian news,they all have their own spin,and the truth lies somewhere in the blend.You have to make up your own mind.

Keep your eyes and ears open.Things are on a hair trigger right now.



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “An interview with Doug Casey

  1. Reg T

    War for unsavory purposes – such as a distraction from the scandal of semen on a blue dress, or to shore up a re-election campaign – is morally wrong. War that occurs as a natural consequence of our right to defend ourselves, our servicemen and our country is not.

    We made no talk of war when Russia developed a nuclear capability, nor when China or Pakistan or India or even North Korea did the same. None of them (well, perhaps North Korea, in a non-specific manner) threatened to destroy another country, nor did they send terrorists and suicide bombers into that country to kill their citizens. There is a world of difference between Iran and the others, due to the tenets of Islam (kill all infidels) and the behavior of Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, who has stated on numerous occasions his intention of destroying Israel.

    The threat itself – as real as it is – is not enough to take us to war with Iran, but it is right for us to bring pressure to bear to see that this threat is not carried out. The situation is far different from merely the possibility of war, it is the possibility that the entire nation of Israel, and all of her men, women, and children, could be destroyed in one massive launch of rockets and aircraft. Were that to happen, Israel could not prevent nuclear weapons from causing a second – and perhaps final – Holocaust.

    I’m sorry, but Casey has his head up his ass. The U.S. has indeed initiated military action – as in Kosovo and Libya – that it had no moral reason to start. But the defense of our nation, and of an ally that is the only other true democracy in the world, a country which has striven to defend itself against the constant and unending attempts of the muslims to destroy it – but has even so NOT gone to war with those countries and peoples, in spite of a moral right to do so to end the very real threat, – is a righteous endeavor.

    Even the anti-Semites among us cannot claim Israelis have no right to defend themselves, and can present no logical reason for us not to assist them in their attempt to prevent the destruction of their nation, their people. We are not talking about helping them in a war of aggression against another country, but of not refusing to help when they are attacked. That would be equivalent to standing and watching a woman being raped, when you had the means to stop the rape and keep her safe. No man with balls, no man who claims to love his wife and family, no man who believes himself to be a man will stand by when innocents are being injured or killed. Only a craven and cowardly individual would do that.

    Casey sounds like a libertarian who isn’t intelligent enough to tell when force against a very real threat is justified. Waiting for the hammer to fall and the bullet to pierce your chest is not a bright idea. Especially when the entity making the threat has already shown a willingness to kill.

    • Let me ask you a question:If we use the very same standard you use against Iran against ourselves,would Iran have the moral right to attack us preemptively to defend herself?We HAVE invaded two countries that border Iran,so could they not logically conclude that we intend to attack them from any of our numerous bases in THEIR backyard?

      I’m staunchly Pro-Israel for many reasons,but I fail to see how any of our previous endeavors in the middle east have done anything but make their long term situation less stable.

      Israel has no problem defending itself when it sees fit,and has done so with flying colors all by herself.Six day war anyone?

      We are in no position of moral leadership to presume we know what’s best for ANYONE in the middle east,and to do so may very well spark WWIII,in my opinion.

      Besides,it’s not like we have five trillion dollars in the bank to fund ANOTHER war anyhow.

      • Reg T

        No, they would not. We have not sworn the death of their people or the destruction of their country. I thought I had made that part plain. And, frankly, Israel would do just fine if we simply stepped aside and let her get on with kicking Iran’s ass, via cyber war, assassination, and the bombing of Irans nuclear facilities, if it comes to that.

        The problem comes from the fact that what Iran promises will happen – the destruction of Israel – will become extremely easy for them to accomplish once they have nukes, if they don’t mind dying in the process. Based on Ahmadinejad’s stated intention and his obvious psychosis, that is a very strong possibility, whether the people of Iran wish it or not.

        Once he has two or three deliverable nuclear weapons, it will be almost impossible – perhaps actually impossible – for Israel to defend against its total destruction if they were launched behind a screen of thousands of conventional missiles, rockets, and bombs.

        Does that make it any plainer? Let me know which you think would be less expensive, if either were to occur: assisting Israel in halting Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons – even if it somehow cost the five trillion you exaggerate that it would cost – or the cost of nuclear war in the Middle East, with Israel destroyed by Iran, but not before launching enough weapons of their own to seal all of the oil wells in the Middle East. Do you really think that would be cheaper? That the world economy could recover from that? As opposed to spending a little bit more than we spent in Libya (certainly less than “five trillion”) to stop them?

        I’m not in favor of going to war with Iran, but I am less in favor of the death of Israel and all of her people at the hands of a madman who has made it plain that is his intention. If Israel can accomplish that without our help, that would be great. If they cannot, then it would behoove us to help.

        • The five trillion I mentioned was my way of saying that we are broke.How do you know what WWIII will cost?Iran isn’t Iraq,not by a long shot,as they have very powerful friends that seem to be getting weary of our meddling in affairs in THEIR backyard.

          Israel can and will do what it sees as its best interests,either with or without our assistance.It is long past time for us to tend our own garden,and let them tend to theirs.

          I do have a problem with the mindset that says we have to send our children off to a foreign shore to die and be maimed in the name of preventing someone from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.We’ve been fed that line of crap once before and it turned out to be just that.Crap.

          If you believe so fervently in the moral right of preemptive war,might I suggest you join up with the IDF.Don’t make that argument and then sit idly by as our children march off to fight the fight YOU are so eager to instigate.THAT is cowardly and craven.You talk the talk,do you walk the walk?

  2. If Iran enriches uranium or even builds tools for war, that’s not evil per se. But using force to stop them from doing something that is not in itself wrong is wrong, and that would make Iran’s attackers the axis of evil.

    In my mind, the US is the biggest threat to peace in the world today. I can easily imagine those in power in the US starting a war over any silly pretext, real or imagined.