Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 01, 2012

Dempsey: War On Iran Would Be Illegal

The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has always cautioned against a go-it-alone approach, but he appeared to up the ante this week by saying Washington did not want to be blamed for any Israeli initiative.

"I don't want to be complicit if they (Israel) choose to do it," Dempsey was quoted as saying by Britain's Guardian newspaper on Friday, suggesting that he would view an Israeli attack as reprehensible or illegal.

Thanks to General Dempsey for making this point.

An attack on Iran, by Israel alone or by some U.S. led gang, would indeed be highly illegal. It would a war of aggression and thereby a supreme crime.

Most countries of this world would certainly point this out. The 120 members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which are currently holding a huge conference in Tehran, have given their unanimous backing to Iran's nuclear program:

[T]he final result of the Nonaligned Movement’s meeting, the biggest international gathering in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, amounted to the strongest expression of support for Iran’s nuclear energy rights in its showdown with the West. The unanimous backing of the final document undercut the American argument that Iran was an isolated outlier nation.

The Tehran Declaration document not only emphasizes Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy but acknowledges the right to ownership of a full nuclear fuel cycle, which means uranium enrichment — a matter of deep dispute.

There is no "deep dispute" about Iran's right to a full nuclear fuel cycle. The wide majority of the countries in this world stand fully behind that. Only the U.S. and a handful of its allies see this different.

As we said the isolation of Iran is a myth.

With the backing of all these countries Iran will also keep enough economic connections to evade any of the unilateral sanctions the U.S. and its stooges try to strong-arm against it. Indeed these sanctions are now incentives for the majority of states to permanently circumvent the global institutions the west has under control and is using against Iran.

When the global financial SWIFT system is used to prevent money transfers to Iran the countries who will keep working with Iran will create new systems. Once those are established SWIFT will never again have the standing it had before. Instead of buying Iranian oil in US dollars more and more countries will use other currencies. Once they have worked out how to do this they will never return to the dollar.

With the sanctions on Iran the U.S. and the west are hurting themselves. Therein lies a danger. In 2000 the sanctions on Iraq were on the verge of breaking down. The damage they did on the Iraqi population had become too visible. But instead of lowering the sanction regime or negotiate a peaceful outcome the U.S. attacked Iraq. A somewhat similar mechanism might come into play should the sanction regime on Iran, as can be expected, turn out to be ineffective while creating damage to the global role of the United States.

It is unlikely that the U.S. would then climb down. But an open attack on Iran, which even under attack can control the oil flow from the Gulf, carries, besides being completely illegal, too much economic risk. I find it therefore likely that U.S. will rather try something different to bring down the Iranian state. One not yet tried option would be to incite and support some violent ethnic insurgencies within Iran. The Azeris in the north, supported by an Israel friendly Azerbaijan, and the Balochs in the south east of Iran are prime candidates for such a scheme.

When that will turn out to not have the wished for effects all options may again be on the table.

Posted by b on September 1, 2012 at 17:58 UTC | Permalink


this is where irregular warfare comes into play:

jihadis are cheap, bright enough for the simple task of killing and expendable

Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2012 19:01 utc | 1

global role of US? thats to crush any independent state bar israel

Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2012 19:09 utc | 2

I think it is agreed that it is only Netanyahu and Ehud Barak who want an attack upon Iran. Many Israeli figures with experience warn against it, as of uncertain results. Dempsey is not alone.

Netanyahu is a master of politics, so he knows where he's going. The question is where? This point needs to be discussed.

Myself, I've always presumed that it is a means of getting rid of the Palestinians. He has no real interest in Iran, and Iran is not a real danger.

Netanyahu seems to me to be a millenarian zealot, much like the zealots of the Jewish revolt in AD 69 and after. The possibility that the situation of Israel might turn bad as a result of the attack doesn't seem to bother him.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 1 2012 19:35 utc | 3

Obama set himself up for this before the last election. Now he has put the military in an uncomfortable position.

Iran was supposedly a threat on June 4, 2008 -- Obama (on knee-pads) at AIPAC:

Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama vowed Wednesday he would work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Iran to security in the Middle East and around the globe. "There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran," he told the powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

Well now the American people overwhelmingly believe that Iran is a threat, the president still agree, the congress likewise -- but the people who would do the heavy lifting to eliminate a "threat" don't think that it's a great idea.

This has happened before, with "Fox" Fallon back around the same time Obama had his knee-pads on. In an interview with al Jazeera television, CentCom Commander Admiral William "Fox" Fallon warned that constant talk of bombing Iran is not helpful. “This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” he said. “I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for,” said Fallon. “It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.” Fallon was subsequently fired by President Bush for his opposition to war with Iran.

So Obama vowed to work to eliminate the threat, and touts his sanctions. But the sanctions have only served to accelerate and harden the Iran nuclear program. So now that you've hung Israel out to dry, Barry, and failed to do what you said you'd do, what's next? Netanyahu will be sure to take this line when he visits the U.S. this month, so we know what Israel wants and they are accustomed to get what they want. Obama will have to fire General Dempsey if he decides to go with a stronger military threat. It doesn't matter to Iran -- it's been threatened for years and actually it still is, with many US military bases and warships nearby.

Why does the US military shy away from an attack? Because Iran is no patsy like the US is used to. There are many ways Iran could counter an attack. Dempsey knows this, but he can't say it. He has to use other reasons.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2012 19:45 utc | 4

Good, Don, you've explained how Netanyahu works.

But what is the aim of Netanyahu? What does he want to get out of it? That's the big issue.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 1 2012 20:10 utc | 5

the US war on Iraq was a war of aggression, along with the war on Vietnam, Haiti, and dozens of others.

Posted by: Susan | Sep 2 2012 0:11 utc | 6

Aloha, b and barflies...! I gave ya'll plenty of hat tips...! ;-)

Debunking The Latest IAEA Report on Iran...

Posted by: CTuttle | Sep 2 2012 1:13 utc | 7

The ethnic minority card has indeed been played over and over again, starting with the US backed invasion of Iran by Saddam. The 2 million or so Arab-Iranians who live in the oil rich alluvial plain of the Tigress/Euphrates delta, on the other (Arab) side of the Zagros mountain range gave the finger to Saddam and fought hard for their Iranian homeland. The Balouchi nuisance was put to an end by the execution of the murderous Rigi brothers a few years back. And the Azarbaijan danger is that she will rise up and get rid of the son of the KGB strongman Aliyov and pledge allegiance to her Osuli Shi'a older and wiser sister, Iran; and specifically to the Supreme Leader Imam Khamenei, who of course is Azari.

So no, all ethnic groups are firmly committed to the Revolution and its ideals. That's not to say that Uncle Weasel won't try more of his shenanigans, but the fat lady has done sung that tune.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 2 2012 3:06 utc | 8

Alexno asks: Netanyahu is a master of politics, so he knows where he's going. The question is where? This point needs to be discussed.

I disagree that he knows where he is going. He might be a master of Israeli politics, but he looks like a buffoon in the world of international politics (diplomacy). Your guess that he might be trying to create a world crisis that would allow him to deal with Palestinian problem in a permanent way is plausible but if that is the case he would cause Israel some serious hurt. He might think he knows where he is going, but if that scenario is the case he will never get there.

It is important to know what motivates him but I am inclined to think he is not rational.

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 2 2012 3:29 utc | 9

Bibi is a mobster, plain and simple. A gonif from the shtetl who made it big in Israel.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 2 2012 4:32 utc | 10

Bibi is a mobster, plain and simple. A gonif from the shtetl who made it big in Israel.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 2 2012 4:32 utc | 11

The war on Iraq was illegal, so is the indiscriminate killing via drones in Pakistan and Yemen. Legality of their aggression is a non-issue for the psychopaths in Washington, London or Paris, as where there is no judge there is no crime.

The Zionist stormtroopers of deaths are not held back by legal concerns, they feel above the law, but largely by not being able to calculate the consequences operation blowback would entail. Too many wild cards, even in a best case scenario, the risk factor is way too big for the chicken hawks. Bandar Bush must have been surprised too in his last seconds.

As matters stand, tax revenues falling while unemployment is rising, the US and its anglosaxon finger puppets will run out of money before Iran runs out of determination. Fighting wars is expensive, especially with crude at $200 a barrel. All Iran has to do is wait out the economic collapse that is heading the West's way, up to their eyeballs in debt with no one to finance a ludicrous war. A bankrupt USA is far worse a threat to Israel than a nuclear Iran.

As someone on MoA once wrote, if going into Iraq was a picnic, attacking Iran will be a disco on crack. The repercussions and potential fall out are of such gravity that not even Netanyahu in all his illusions of grandeur can ignore them. He doesn't want to enter the history books as the last PM of Israel.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 2 2012 7:13 utc | 12

I very much agree with 'b'. Like 'b', I too think that the US will not want to get into an open fight with Iran and they will most likely try to fuel ethnic insurgency in Iran. They first experimented with this method (ie. ethnic/religious/sectarian insurgency)in Libya, now they are trying it in Syria, and in my opinion that is their most likely method of aggression against Iran.
My choice of ethnic minorities to cause insurgency, however, would be slightly different from b's. I have no doubt that the 2009 Iranian elections were free of any significant irregularities. Furthermore I am sure that despite all their propaganda all the decision makers in the West are also aware of this fact.
Based on the 2009 election reslts Azeries overwhelmingly voted for Ahmadinejad. That is not how you would expect a separatist ethnic minority would vote.
I am more inclined to think that US will try its luck with the Kurds and Balouchies (both voted Mousavi).
Sadly I don't think that the Iranian decision makers are on the right track into addressing this issue. Their most likely response/preventive measure will be oppressive police methods, rather than addressing some of the most pressing needs of the rural Iranians (such as free basic education, universal healthcare and a decent roof which is not made of mud brick and would not collapse with a small earthquake)

Posted by: pirouz_2 | Sep 2 2012 10:09 utc | 13

After I read that NY Times article on the non-aligned meeting I was much less sanguine about the likelihood of the resource rich non-aligned nations ability to counter amerikan hegemony.
Yeah they did vote to support Iran's right to nuclear self determination, but the manner that occurred and the sideshows were an indication that some of the largest were doing washington's bidding.
If the NYT story isn't a total remington job it shows India managed to be even more kiss assy and duplicitous than even the most cynical observer of that nation's political class could guess at.
They haggled over the wording of the nuclear non-proliferation stuff an act of cynical hypocrisy when one considers that up until four years ago India was a western pariah for its nuclear weapons program - now they begrudge Iran having a peaceful nuclear program.
I dunno how the 'non-aligned' definition works and it is easy to understand why having India as a member could give the group serious power. It doesn't because India's membership appears to be purely as an agent of amerika, which begs the question that after signing up with washington and grabbing illegitimate post-facto approval for their own nuclear weapons program itself a blatant breach of UN non-proliferation treaties, how can India be considered non-aligned?

It also appears that fears about Egypt's newest pharoah Mohamed Morsi, were well founded. If India's role was to water down the motion of support for Iran, Egypts instruction were to ensure that no mention of Syria, much less amy agreement to support Assad made it onto the final communique.

These were small victories for the empire considering 120 of the approx 180 nation states on this planet voted to support Iran's nuclear program is an overwhelming slap in the face of the amerikan empire. Nevertheless have no doubt that egypt and india have been lined up as amerika's kiss ass spoilers, at non-alined fora. This is a familiar role for the sleazy ingrates who control the political elites in both nations. The other nations committed to a non-aligned strategy for resisting empires would be wise to ditch em now, rather than let egypt and india continue to play both sides against the middle.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 2 2012 12:24 utc | 14

Any chance that this is a not so subtle message to the Israelis that the US military establishment has no interest in this war and that if Israel attacks without the US approval they might have to do so alone?

We all know (Bibi obviously included) that Israel can twist US politicians into supine sock puppets, particularly before an election. But the military is a different story, particularly from many of these higher ups in the military (unless they too are playing politics, which they usually are). This certainly could be Dempsey acting alone or this could be the administration's attempt to send that message while keeping Obama out of the conversation to shield him for the criticism that will be doled out by the neocons.

Also, they did greatly decrease the number of US troops involved in the war games planned for October, correct? Given that we know that the administration wants nothing to with this war before the election, they are playing all angles.

Posted by: Base | Sep 2 2012 13:52 utc | 15

You haven´t mentioned that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) published a resolution in support of Iran's nuclear energy programme and condemned the West's sanctions against Tehran. Thirthy countries signed economic agreement with Iran. This shows that Iran isn´t as isolated as western media claims...


Posted by: Pierre Gilly | Sep 2 2012 14:28 utc | 16

@ Debs #14
I don't agree with your take on India as being a US handmaiden. Quite the opposite is true. India has shaken off US demands to stay away from Iran, in great part because India needs Iran's energy resources (oil & gas) and also needs Iran as an entry into Central Asia, since its historical route through Pakistan has been effectively blocked. The loss of India as a dependable ally on Iran even after high-level visits and concessions by several US leaders is a major event representing a major US loss.

At the recent NAM Summit Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was given a state dinner by President Ahmadinejad and his speech was moved up in the schedule to prime time. This is part of what PM Singh said:

We need new instruments of global governance to confront cross-cutting and trans-national challenges through coordinated global action. These include international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the menace of maritime piracy, the growing threat to cyber security and the growing challenge of pursuing ecologically sustainable development while ensuring energy, water and food security.

Our Movement should take the lead in building global governance structures that are representative, credible and effective. It is my sincere hope that the Movement can agree on action to reform institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, the World Bank and the IMF. Existing problems cannot be solved effectively without a greater voice for developing countries on issues such as global trade, finance and development.

Could the NYTimes be wrong in its negative assessment of the political effects of the NAM Summit, which is also the US line? Could India's position on nonproliferation be less important than its policy of dumping the US-controlled UN (my interpretation) and going for true global governance rather than US leadership? Yes.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 2 2012 14:56 utc | 17

Blair and Bush couldn't have done it without others, including Kerry, Gore, Clintons, Biden, etc. Oh look, I happened to mention all "democratic liberals." I say put 'em all in the dock.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 2 2012 17:29 utc | 19

I was about to post this in my usual watering hole,, but in addition to Flynt and Hillary's misguided new policy of screening comments, the comments are closed. So here goes.

Today I met one of my heroes, Mr. Thierry Mayssan, investigative journalist extraordinaire. He is in Tehran for the New Horizons International Film Festival (where I am acting as a jury member), having flown in from Damascus.

What he had to say about Syria is that while the Army has turned a corner and thigs will be getting better in the next few weeks, the foreign mercenaries will be giving Syria hell for the foreseeable future. He said that the Sunnis are firmly on the side of everyone else, and that it is almost entirely foreign mercenaries at this point which the Syrian people and army are fighting. The so-called Free Syria Army is entirely non-Syrian vicious mercenaries except for the figureheads in France which are drawn from the Brotherhood.

Did or did not Egypt have a revolution? No, they did not. A revolution means the involvement of the masses of the people in a new system of governance. This is not the case. I mentioned the theory that the Brotherhood had made a deal with the devil, who saw that it was time to change the old octogenarian guard of Mobarak, Tantawi et al, and to usher in the new cadre who are in their fifties. Thierry said that this was basically correct and much closer to the truth than the other theory, which is borne of wishful thinking. (Incidentally, this is also the view of all of my Hezbollahi friends and acquaintances.)

The Egypt conversation about the nature of revolution segued into Thierry stating that Bahrain and Yemen are going through revolutions. He agreed with me that nothing would change in Bahrain until something changes in Saudi Arabia. When? “Very soon.” He said that he felt that not only the Shi’a in Hasa, but the Malekis in the Hejaz are biding their time, waiting for the right time to strike. When would that be? At the crisis of succession, at which point the family will start to canabalize itself. Uncle Weasel will have picked their favorite octogenarian “son” and will fan the flames of the bloodletting, hoping to help him consolidate power, but things will probably get out of control and start to unravel for the House of Sa’ud.

And Europe? Things are bad, but the people are dazed and confused (too much Led Zep in the 70’s). But he stated a very interesting thing. He said that change will definitely not come from the [stupid] people, but it might come from another quarter. Like what? Well, take Greece. If it defaults…- I interjected that this is an almost certain inevitability – if Greece defaults, then it will have no choice but to go over to the Russian camp. And Putin has been very carefully and cleverly laying the groundwork for such a possibility… and if this happens, it will be the first in a possible domino effect, where the direction of defections from the Warsaw Pact countries is reversed, and by a non-Warsaw Pact country at that.

I’ll see if I can ask him about Iran and the beating of the war drums tomorrow.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 2 2012 17:30 utc | 20

But he stated a very interesting thing. He said that change will definitely not come from the [stupid] people

I think he is wrong, the change is coming from within I have always said when silver reaches >=$32 the western economies will start to rapidly go downhill. Well silver today is at $31.87 I suspect a major investment house bigger then Lehman will start to have severe financial difficulties. The Mississippi Delta is being flooded by salt water from the hurricane as there was a severe drought and water levels were already historically low this will cause severe hardship to downstream populations. So when we stupid people wake up viola there will be internal strife. An attempt will be made to hit at Iran but will soon fizzle out. The Khazar empire will never get off the ground.

Posted by: hans | Sep 2 2012 19:47 utc | 21

US to Israel: We don't trust you.

TIME, August 31, 2012
Exclusive: U.S. Scales-Back Military Exercise with Israel, Affecting Potential Iran Strike
By Karl Vick and Aaron J. Klein

A smaller U.S. contingent may make it more difficult for the Israeli government to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran's nuclear program.

Seven months ago, Israel and the United States postponed a massive joint military exercise that was originally set to go forward just as concerns were brimming that Israel would launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The exercise was rescheduled for late October, and appears likely to go forward on the cusp of the U.S. presidential election. But it won’t be nearly the same exercise. Well-placed sources in both countries have told TIME that Washington has greatly reduced the scale of U.S. participation, slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise.

“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a senior Israeli military official tells TIME.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 2 2012 19:48 utc | 22

Tehran Times: The U.S. filmmakers Scott J.T. Frank and Darnell Stephen Summers have been selected for the jury of New Horizon this year.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 2 2012 20:11 utc | 23

Apparently, Israeli PM shouts at US Ambassador "Time has run out" Link

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 3 2012 0:39 utc | 24

unknown unknowns #20.

I have noted your writing at raceforiran and it seemed you had some sensible things to say. I must say you have just discredited yourself by saying that Thierry Mayssan is one of your heroes. He is totally divorced from reality. Wikipedia describes him as saying that on 911 "the attack against the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a missile." Please do note that this assertion places Mayssan completely outside of the realm of rational discourse -- it is where the really loony conspiracy theorist live.

I presume you are Iranian. If you want any credibility with sympathetic Western listeners I would suggest that you not mention him again.

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 3 2012 7:37 utc | 25

"Apparently, Israeli PM shouts at US Ambassador "Time has run out" "

Yeah, apparently Netanyahu is confused about which dude represents a superpower, and which dude heads a pissant little country that can't even muster the firepower to singe Ahmadenijad's balls.

Let's be charitable and say that Bibi is getting so frustrated that he's having a Clint Eastwood Moment.

But, really, am I the only person here who gets the feeling that Israel has cried "Wolf! Wolf!" once too often?

Posted by: Johnboy | Sep 3 2012 7:44 utc | 26

Dempsey's assertion that an attack will be "illegal" is not not because he doesn't want a war, but purely because of the consequences such an attack will have on US forces,assets and bases in the region..

I mean, since when has legality issues prevented the US from launching wars on other people? In fact, they always manage to fix the case for war and make it legal..

Iran's just a bridge too far for the US and they won't venture into such unknown territory with little assurance of "victory". Afghanistan was supposed to be over in a couple of weeks, Iraq in a couple of months..We all know the outcome of those wars.

Israel's madness may be their own undoing..If Obama was smart, he'll take this opportunity to break AIPAC's stranglehold on US politics..He should go live on TV and state that Israel wants the US to go to war on their behalf and that Israel is blackmailing US politicians to go into war.

One thing for sure, any US war on Iran will be the end of US/Israel presence in the Middle East..

Posted by: Zico | Sep 3 2012 9:18 utc | 27

"If Obama was smart, he'll take this opportunity to break AIPAC's stranglehold on US politics"

That would, of course, be Netanyahu's worse nightmare; much, much worse that starting a war and then losing.

Posted by: Johnboy | Sep 3 2012 12:29 utc | 28

After the election, Obama might very well go in another direction regarding AIPAC, Israel and Iran.. And concerning Bibi Netanjahu, he's not to be confused with a rational figure, he's lost his marbles long time ago, and going at Iran will be suicide, for USA as well as for Israel. Iran would be Iraqs quagmire squared. And The US knows this, even rational heads in Israel know that.

Posted by: Alexander | Sep 3 2012 13:01 utc | 29

Netanyahu is as crazy as a fox, when you consider how successfully he's completely taken attention from the Israeli rape of Palestine and redirected it toward a nearby benign country which hasn't attacked anyone. The prime minister of a tiny country the size of New Jersey, with less people, has the government of the world's most powerful country spinning like a top, running ten billion dollar aircraft carriers hither and yon (mostly hither - around Iran). Credit where credit is due, I say.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 3 2012 14:57 utc | 30

Susan 6;Yeah,I used to compare Iraq 03 with Poland 39,but since I've rated Iraq ten times worse,as Hitler was just trying to regain territory stolen by the Allied victors of WW1,and his ambitions were local,(at least then)but Iraq is 8000 miles away,and never ours to begin with,a much more malevolent act.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 3 2012 15:42 utc | 31

And sorry,Obomba is not that smart,he's just another miseducated poison ivy league graduate of intelligence for sale to the highest bidder,of which our government is full of on both sides of the aisle.Give him another chance to f*ck US?At least with Mitt,a signal will have been given,screw US and you are a one termer also,and maybe,but I have my doubts,our Labor party Zionists might just critique a rep more than this clown.Labor or Likud,what's the diff?

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 3 2012 15:48 utc | 32

21;Too much Led Zep?Never,but too much Kiss,yeah,I can see that,posers as rock stars,like MSM as journalism.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 3 2012 15:52 utc | 33

Debs;Just because you read an account of the non aligned conference in the NYTs,certainly doesn't make their account truthful,as they are proven serial liars,or are you unaware of that?
Hey,Britain says they won't extradite Assange is the US wants the death penalty.
Thanks for nada,Britain.Talk about a fallen nation.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 3 2012 15:58 utc | 34

With the backing of all these countries Iran will also keep enough economic connections to evade any of the unilateral sanctions the U.S. and its stooges try to strong-arm against it. Indeed these sanctions are now incentives for the majority of states to permanently circumvent the global institutions the west has under control and is using against Iran.

When the global financial SWIFT system is used to prevent money transfers to Iran the countries who will keep working with Iran will create new systems. Once those are established SWIFT will never again have the standing it had before. Instead of buying Iranian oil in US dollars more and more countries will use other currencies. Once they have worked out how to do this they will never return to the dollar.

Yep. Entropy's a mother-f...r. Or as an engineer friend of mine always says: "Mother Nature is a cold-hearted bitch with a sick sense of humor."

Nature/money/water always finds a way. India is bartering, Japan is exploring its own payment mechanism, and China does whatever it wants.

My only question is why/how the western mentality got so tightly wound up in its own BS that this root dynamic escaped "it." In any event, probably all to the good (a more balanced, truly multi-polar world). There may be glimpses of actionable, at the popular level, dynamics in the answer.

Thanks. New to the site. Great stuff.

Posted by: grizzlebar | Sep 4 2012 3:09 utc | 35

ToivoS I find Thierrey Meyssan and the Voltaire Network to be very credible. I live in Chicago.

I hope that's okay.

Unknown Unknowns thanks for your report. Meyssan is a hero of mine too. He helped free Yara Saleh (after her capture by the FSA).

Posted by: revenire | Sep 6 2012 22:15 utc | 36

But when has "illegal" ever stopped Israel or the U.S.? But so appreciate Dempsey's clear crisp manner and words. A sane voice. And a good sign from Obama that he appointed him

Posted by: Kathleen | Sep 8 2012 14:05 utc | 37

The comments to this entry are closed.