Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: US General speaks on WW3

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 4:10 p.m. EST by zorno (386)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"I'm afraid that this thing is going to be a fait accompli.... It's just going to happen one morning: We're going to wake up, and the strike has been conducted." Those were the recent remarks to EIR News Service by Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command, on the danger of a military strike against Iran. Only a few days earlier, Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, warned that Russia could be drawn into a regional nuclear conflict, and that it could escalate into a full-scale war. And quite a few American military officers have been warning about the "incalculable consequences" of an attack on Iran. Leading Mideast specialists have long been warning that any war against Iran would mean World War III:




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by gmxusa (274) 12 years ago

AIPAC, the Israel lobby, creates bill to block Obama or the government to enter diplomatic talks with Iran, to force a war.

It reads:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. -- No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. -- The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States. What does this mean?

It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the "appropriate Congressional committees" (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States."

To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time.

If President Roosevelt wanted to meet with Hitler, he could have and, of course, he did repeatedly meet with Stalin. During the Cold War, U.S. diplomats maintained continuous contacts with the Soviets, a regime that murdered tens of millions and, later, with the Chinese regime which murdered even more. And they did so without needing permission from Congress. (President Nixon was only able to normalize relations with China by means of secret negotiations which, had they been exposed, would have been torpedoed by the Republican right.)

But all the rules of normal statecraft are dropped when it comes to Iran which may, or may not, be working on developing a nuclear capacity. Of course if it is, it is obviously even more critical that the American government officials speak to Iranian counterparts.


[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I don't like anyone tying the administrations hands like this - all options should remain on the table. That said - I'm not sure talking to ahmadinejad would be very useful - he's crazy.

Obviously the timing between these comments by both Russian and U.S. military leaders is intended to signal something - to what and to whom is difficult to say.

I suspect - without having read either statement - that it's likely an attempt to put pressure on Iran to behave - and that isn't likely to be all that productive. I don't know of any strategy that would be productive toward that end.

They could - and probably are - sending signals to each other as well.

Any signal to Iran will most likely be interpreted by other mid-East leaders - as an indication of where they stand in the world today and what risks they face going forward - a fact that both the U.S. and Russia are no doubt hoping to use to their advantage - individually or collectively.

[-] 2 points by unconditionalbaseincome (20) 12 years ago

yes, but it will be like the banking collapse:

no one will honor the Credit Default Swaps! ;-)

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 12 years ago

If they bomb Iran, China will slap the US and Israel on the wrist, than check to make sure the nukes are actually gone. At which point, relations will normalize.

[-] 1 points by Bpshebniski (9) from Scottsdale, AZ 12 years ago

I'm moving back to Canada.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Larouche? Seriously? That guy is more crazy than Alex Jones. Don't even bring that crap here.

[-] 0 points by Var (195) 12 years ago

Alex Jones isn't crazy, he's a blowhard but he knows the facts and he warned us 10 years ago about today's problems.

Larouche however is a Cointelpro nut.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

They won't defend Iran the way they say they will. They need This and if they defend Iran militarily they loose India. That would undo all of the economic gains made my Russia and China over the last 10 years.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

I recently read that Obama staffers were talking about how they were going to "smash" the BRIC.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

lol. they wish. the US needs bric to help Italy.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

There are factions within the US, so there is a part of the US that needs the BRIC. I believe though there is another part, that generally has a depopulation agenda. When there are too many people, they get out of control and start protest movements, and things like that. Sometimes, they believe that it is necessary to reduce the size of the population through war.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

WTF does this have to do with this forum or the OWS movement?

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Absolutely nothing. It is designed to divert us from the real enemy, the horrible banks.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Who do you think is behind the wars? International finance.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Maybe. But we are targeting Wall Street and the Banks. Other movements are looking into wars. You should ask them.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Many people are unwilling to face this issue. This is a kind of denial that occurs when people face the possibility of their own death.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

No. We just don't want to get diverted. If you are interested in stopping wars, you should concentrate on that. Don't try to interfere with people trying stop those who hurt the 99%.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Stop it! People's benefits are being cut, but tax payer's money is being used for the war business ... where the 1% make profit and we die. Corruption is what needs to stop no matter where it is.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

I'm not trying to divert anybody. I don't see why you can't realize that this is the same issue.

I see this connection, so I think it is appropriate for me to post here, if the moderator doesn't delete my posts. If you are not interested, I'm sure you can find other posts to read.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 12 years ago

You are correct zomo, they are related. Some people just have a hard time seeing the big picture. Others don't realize we are closer to WWIII than we've ever been, far closer than during the Cold War.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

That's right, and I am hoping that people will be able to see that this threat is related to the corruption of the financial system. Its not hard for most people to understand that wars are something that the Fed makes money off of, by getting us into debt. The idea of a global nuclear war just doesn't make sense to most people. The don't comprehend that there is a motivation to depopulate the earth.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 12 years ago

Agreed. I just finished reading that article you link to and regardless of what someone thinks of LaRouche personally, everything in that article makes sense. The article isn't by Lyndon anyway, but I think his wife (?). And a lot of people think that a depopulation agenda is unthinkable, but they're being far too idealistic. It's a topic that's been discussed behind closed doors for at least a decade.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to see that someone is thinking with some sanity about this issue.

By the way, I've heard that the depopulation agenda is supposed to be more like one hundred years old.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 12 years ago

That's entirely possible. I wanted to be conservative lest some visitors to this thread think I was off my rocker. Consider who was running things a hundred years ago; John D. Rockefeller, the Rothschilds, Andrew Carnegie, etc. Who's running things now? David Rockefeller, the Rothschilds, the Carnegie Institute, etc. 'Nuff said, eh?

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

That's true, I hesitate to discuss these things as well, because of the common knee jerk reaction that people have to call me a conspiracy theorist.

There is supposedly a letter from Albert Pike, a Freemason and Confederate general, that details a plan for three world wars, said to have been written some time after the civil war.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 12 years ago

That letter I would DEFINITELY like to read!

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Ok, the following pages give an introduction to it:


You can find many more sites on this topic, if you do a google search on the follwoing terms:

albert pike world wars letter

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Read the following site to understand the connection between Wall Street and world war:


Here's a quote:

Since the early 1920s unsubstantiated reports have circulated to the effect that not only German industrialists, but also Wall Street financiers, had some role — possibly a substantial role — in the rise of Hitler and Naziism. This book presents previously unpublished evidence, a great deal from files of the Nuremburg Military Tribunals, to support this hypothesis.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Wall Street, the big banks and corporations are the ones who have always been pushing for war.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Nothing to do with OWS. This is a movement against the criminal banks, not the Soviet Union.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

War is big business for criminal banks.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Yes. So are other things. Banks are into everything. However, the anti-War Movement is dealing with that, not us.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

This problem may deal with you if you don't deal with it.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Maybe, but OWS is still going after the banks and Wall Street. That is our focus. You can go deal with the Soviets. :)

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

This isn't an issue of the Soviets, the Russians are trying to stop any possibility of a war. This is mostly about the Israelis and their relationship to the international financiers, on Wall Street and the City of London.

If you are not interested in this topic there is no reason you need to continue replying to my posts. Many other people seem to be interested in discussing this topic.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Israel?? the US General didn't even mention Israel. Unfortunately the fact you have indicates to me that you are being anti-Semitic.

The OWS movement has no place for any such behaviour. We are inclusive and particularly hate any form of anti-Semitism. Jewish people are in the 99% also.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

There is lots of background information about Israel preparing to bomb Iran, and I can call you anti-semitic just as well. Furthermore, you don't speak for OWS.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

There you go again. There is nothing in the Original post that says anything about Israel. That is why you could be perceived as being anti-Semitic, and your most recent post goes further in that direction. You could call me anti-Semitic, but it is unlikely to be proven, as I hav not made any anti-Semitic statements, and will not either. I speak for OccupyEdinburgh, which is part of the Occupy Movement. OWS is in communication with ourselves and all other worldwide Occupy Movements. We all hate anti-Semitism, and would appreciate it if you would stop making what appears to be anti-Jewish statements.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

You post does not concern me one way or the other.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Good. So tone down the anti-Semitism and Cold War rhetoric, and stick to topic - "stopping the monied corruption of our Democracy". Thank you.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

You are trying to control my freedom of speech and freedom of thought by calling me an anti-Semite. Shame on you. I will continue to post as my conscience dictates.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

No. You mentioned some off topic discussion about Russia and the US being engaged by a possible WW3 scenario. Then you bring Israel into the discussion. Why? I think people can determine why. Anti-Semitism may be what you call "freedom of speech", but it still remains anti-Semitism. This Movement is not about trying to start wars with Russia or anyone else, or persecuting Jews. People stick to the topic of the Movement's goals. Thank you.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

If you want to understand the connection between Wall Street and world war, I suggest you look at the following website:

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

It's written by Anthony Sutton, who was a professor of history at the University of Stanford. He claims that Wall Street financed Hitler for the purpose of starting World War 2. Considering the extent to which Obama was financed by Wall Street, some people are saying the same about him now.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

I don't consider you to be the authority on "what this movement is about", you apparently are incapable of recognizing the connection between war and Wall Street so you are not qualified to be such an authority.

Because I mentioned Israel you jump to the conclusion that I'm anti-Semitic. This is just a sign of your own bigotry.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

A genuine concern, but is posted here I think, to give rise to fear and diversion. Let's stay on topic here, and post our concerns about such issues where they may have some positive effect.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

Unfortunately, a lot if people are trying to hijack the Occupy Movement. There are other concerns, but we have to concentrate on bringing these bank crooks to justice and not let them sneak away because of some other issue. Hell. I am concerned about road safety also, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I'm not sure I entirely understand your analogy, but I feel I have made my point regarding this website forum; and people are, of course, free to draw their own conclusions. Clearly, a lot of people think this forum still has sufficient value to continue with it. That's fine - I just wanted to draw attention to it's potential liability in the battle for framing this movement in an accurate light. I have had my say on the issue, and will move onward, and hopefilly upward, to other conciderations. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

We need to cripple the support base that has protected those crooks and has written laws to please them.

One easy way to know that incumbents are in their pocket is that they actually sign a pledge to lobbyist Grover Norquist. They make it sound good, but it is a pledge to protect the 1% from any tax increases.

Those same people will protect the 1%'s right to pour money into campaigns, right down to (no kidding) local school boards. We need to vote them out!

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

But you see, if they wipe you out in a nuclear war, they won't have to worry about your protest movement. This is not my opinion, this is what was said by a US and Russian general recently.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

For me, it was meant to give urgency, because the problems we are dealing with are not just unemployment, banking and economic issues, but life and death issues for the majority of the people.

The same objectives apply. Glass Steagall, I've heard, would eliminate the phone money behind the people responsible for the war economy.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Clearly, this site was invaluable, especially during the formative moments of this movement, and therefore has not been in vain. And I agree with you about urgency - now to tactics. Please see the posts on that subject at moveon.org. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Persephonie (50) 12 years ago

Yeah, it is a scary thought, but due to all the alliances if one country is attacked, then the other countries allied with them will get in on it as well, and the same for the other side. With all the bombs everyone has now a days it could pretty much kill everyone on the planet (even those not hit directly would likely die or be deformed by the radiation) I think the US is said to have what, 4 or 5 thousand nucear weapons, and Russia and China both have something like 4 thousand each? It is just a disaster waiting to happen.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

That's right, it surprises me that so many people here can't understand the importance of this issue and how it is connected to Wall Street.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Isarel may attack Iran and with Europe destablized we could see a massive war.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Very true, too many people here are afraid to acknowledge this.

[-] 1 points by superomenna1 (89) 12 years ago

Russia won't allow this to happen.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Israel will hit it's targets so fast that Russia may have no time to step in, until after the damage is done.We may be fast approaching a disaster that makes previous world wars look like a playground bully fight.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Hopefully, you are right. How do you see Russia preventing this from happening?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Larouche LaLoon


[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

F*CKING crazy ass war mongers will kill us all. They just cannot let it be.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

That's true, its why I'm trying to get people here to talk about this. The Israelis had big demonstration against a war with Iran when it leaked out that Netanyahu had been discussing it, or even making plans about it.