# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Council on Foreign Relations: Time to attack Iran

## FrankRep

*WWIII Countdown: CFR declares "Time to Attack Iran"*


Waiting for the Storm
December 27, 2011


The highly influential Council on Foreign Relations (aka CFR) declared this month in their online publication "Foreign Affairs" that it is now time to attack Iran, subtitled "Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option"





*Council on Foreign Relations: Time to attack Iran*
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...to-attack-iran


====






*The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline*


Does America have a hidden oligarchy? Is U.S. foreign policy run by a closed shop? What is the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House. But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for? Why do the major media avoid discussing it? What has been its impact on America's past - and what is it planning for the future? (2008, 272pp, pb)


*Council on Foreign Relations and Media Control*

----------


## FrankRep

*Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich willing to attack Iran to prevent them from getting nukes*

CBS News
November 12, 2011

----------


## moderate libertarian

What is CFR's plan to protects Americans' daughters, wives, girl friends, sons from these enhanced checks at train stations, shopping malls, sports stadiums, movies, steak houses etc?

*TX bill banning TSA from touching “anus, sexual organ, breast” is dead*

Jun 30, 2011 ... Lawmakers in the Lone Star State adjourned their special session Wednesday 
without passing SB 29, a bill that would have limited ...

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-...breast-is-dead


On the flip side, it it possible to claim to "stand with Israel" and not defend them from Iran threat?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Crazy talk! Loony conspiracy theory! There is no such thing as the Council on Foreign Relations! Reported! Ban!

(Well, except for the one that tells Hillary Clinton what to do and tells us we need to attack Iran...)

----------


## FrankRep

*War With Iran in the New Year? The CFR Demands It, Washington and Israel Plan For It*


Republic Magazine | William Grigg
28 December 2011

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> What is CFR's plan to protects Americans' daughters, wives, girl friends, sons from these enhanced checks at train stations, shopping malls, sports stadiums, movies, steak houses etc?
> 
> *TX bill banning TSA from touching “anus, sexual organ, breast” is dead*
> 
> Jun 30, 2011 ... Lawmakers in the Lone Star State adjourned their special session Wednesday 
> without passing SB 29, a bill that would have limited ...
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-...breast-is-dead
> 
> ...


Oh thats a great spin..

of course Im sure their response would be that theyre only the council on _foreign_ relations..

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Bonus Round: Which current presidential candidates are members of or have connections to CFR?

----------


## FrankRep

> Bonus Round: Which current presidential candidates are members of or have connections to CFR?




Newton L. Gingrich, Official CFR member.


Source: CFR.org

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Of course, oil will skyrocket and Iran will be blamed, but the companies will be pocketing the extra costs.

----------


## psi2941

now all they need is a false flag like..... 9/11

----------


## RickyJ

It is time to attack the CFR. We need to banish such members from the USA forever, after we prosecute many of them for treason.

----------


## Cowlesy

I subscribe to the magazine and read the entire article.  They really are machiavellians over there.  I think the second to third last paragraph, they state that Israel would basically be doing the USA a favor by NOT intervening, and letting the USA take care of it.

The author's point was to do a strike as soon as possible, "absorb" retaliatory strikes while controlling Iran's arab neighbors from retaliating if they're hit, and once a week goes by it should all be done if the US does it, and tells everyone else to stand back and take a few possible missile hits.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Can a series of invasions really be called a "World War"?   I'd call it "America's war on the world" or something along those lines.

----------


## RickyJ

> Can a series of invasions really be called a "World War"?   I'd call it "America's war on the world" or something along those lines.


No, but if we or Israel attack Iran, WW3 will have begun and the USA will be hit, no doubt about it. Oh, and Israel will be wiped of the map for real.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The CFR also has articles arguing against any attacks on Iran- calling it a "catastrophy" if it did occur. 
http://www.cfr.org/israel/predictabl...strophe/p21585




> An Israeli attack would be an audacious, uncertain, highly destabilizing, and short-term solution. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates predicted that a military strike "would delay the Iranian [nuclear] program for some period of time, but only delay it, probably only one to three years." Nevertheless, given the current trendlines and entrenched positions of the P5+1 *and Iran, an Israeli strike might be the foreseeable catastrophe of 2010*.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...nt_attack_iran



> *Why Israel Won't Attack Iran*


http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2011/12/12...e+Euphrates%29
This one argues in favor of "containment" over military action. 



> So what is the answer?  The Kuwaitis will tell you it isnt war.  Other than a few diehards left in Washington it is unlikely that the United States will try its hand at engagement again.  What was wrong with containment? Somewhere along the line it was declared dead. Yet containing Iran (and Iraq) was relatively cheap and it largely worked.  The Iranians were unable to alter the regional order in its favor.  This failure is, no doubt, the reason why the Iranians are developing a nuclear capacity.   Why cant the United States and its allies contain a nuclear Iran? Didnt Washington contain a nuclear capable Moscow? To be sure, some will say that it is because Iranian leaders have a worldview that makes them uncontainablei.e. that they are irrational.  I dont buy it.  I think they are bad people, but I dont think they are undeterrable and uncontainable.  This isnt a popular position to take in Washington these days, but ask the Kuwaitis.  They dont want to live with the consequences of yet another war on their doorstep.  *Theyd prefer to marshal the resources of the region and the United States to keep the Iranians in the proverbial box.  I am with them*.


Previous articles was from late 2009 but this one is only two weeks old. You can find many different positions in articles and pieces from the Council on Foreign Relations.

----------


## Seraphim

The USA is nothing but a big working mule for Britain and Israel.

Israel and Britain call the shots.

And for the record, I am of the belief that WW3 is well under way.




> Can a series of invasions really be called a "World War"?   I'd call it "America's war on the world" or something along those lines.

----------


## gmc1988

This has the potential to completely destroy the two party illusion. What happens when Obama and his liberal friends in the media begin calling for war? How will the libs justify it?

----------


## Pericles

> Crazy talk! Loony conspiracy theory! There is no such thing as the Council on Foreign Relations! Reported! Ban!
> 
> (Well, except for the one that tells Hillary Clinton what to do and tells us we need to attack Iran...)


In my non RPF life, the local affiliate extended an invitation for me to join, I declined the honor, as I didn't think my blood pressure could take the CFR propaganda.

----------


## Carson

I came across this tidbit a few years back. I'm not totally sure it is true but it seems pretty plausible. Specially when Iraq and Afghanistan were on the list.

_"There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya."_




Also of note:

*U.S. Targets Iran's Central Bank*

----------


## FrankRep

> In my non RPF life, the local affiliate extended an invitation for me to join, I declined the honor, as I didn't think my blood pressure could take the CFR propaganda.


A local CFR affiliate? Which CFR member nominated you?



*CFR Membership*

Membership

Quality, diversity, and balance are the key objectives sought by CFR in the composition of its membership. New members are named twice a year by the Board of Directors, which invites individuals to join based on recommendations by the Committee on Membership. The committee is composed of five members of the Board and a number of other members chosen by the committee chair. To be considered by the committee, candidates must be nominated by a CFR member and seconded by three other individuals (maximum of four).
...

* A candidate for membership must be nominated in writing by one CFR member and seconded by a minimum of three other individuals (maximum of four). It is not required that seconding letters come from current CFR members, but it is strongly encouraged.

----------


## Pericles

> A local CFR affiliate? Which CFR member nominated you?
> 
> 
> 
> *CFR Membership*
> 
> Membership
> 
> Quality, diversity, and balance are the key objectives sought by CFR in the composition of its membership. New members are named twice a year by the Board of Directors, which invites individuals to join based on recommendations by the Committee on Membership. The committee is composed of five members of the Board and a number of other members chosen by the committee chair. To be considered by the committee, candidates must be nominated by a CFR member and seconded by three other individuals (maximum of four).
> ...


Not sure who, but I have suspicions - a lawyer in Dallas who is not that well known. Just got a letter in the mail with the invitation - went straight to the trash.

http://www.dallascfr.org/

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Newton L. Gingrich, Official CFR member.
> 
> 
> Source: CFR.org


That's one of them.

----------


## FrankRep

> Not sure who, but I have suspicions - a lawyer in Dallas who is not that well known. Just got a letter in the mail with the invitation - went straight to the trash.
> 
> http://www.dallascfr.org/


FYI: The Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations is not connected to the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.dallascfr.org/about-dcfr


DCFR is an affiliate of the American Committees on Foreign Relations.

----------


## Pericles

> FYI: The Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations is not connected to the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> http://www.dallascfr.org/about-dcfr
> 
> DCFR is an affiliate of the American Committees on Foreign Relations.



A little cross referencing might be interesting.

----------


## bolil

The messed up thing is that it is within our nature to live in peace.  Nice tidbit bout the banks, guess it's only four countries left now.

----------


## FrankRep

> That's one of them.




Jon M. Huntsman, Jr is a former member of the CFR. Active membership: 1993-1998


Source:

2005: Gov. Jon Huntsman's CFR Membership -- The Rest of the Story
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...M.-Huntsman-Jr

----------


## gmc1988

> I came across this tidbit a few years back. I'm not totally sure it is true but it seems pretty plausable. Specilly when IraQ and Afganistan were on the list.
> 
> _"There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about that!! The five countries that have been attacked the most in the media for their "oppressive regimes" all do not have a central bank? Gee I wonder why.  Don't forget Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez has been working hard to keep international business influence out of his country, and has also been on the brunt end of media propaganda against his government there. This proves that governments are not overthrown because of "human rights violations." They are overthrown because they refuse to follow the globalist agenda. This is why Libya was invaded and why so many people with power want to attack Iran, while nothing is done about other governments that are oppressive, like Saudi Arabia, who is touted as a friend of America.  This is also why China and Russia are being criticized so much, because they pose a threat to the globalists and their push for world government. If we threatened sanctions and war with every country that mistreated its citizens, we would literally be at war with half the world.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> FYI: The Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations is not connected to the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> http://www.dallascfr.org/about-dcfr
> DCFR is an affiliate of the American Committees on Foreign Relations.


Seems they took off their patches at some point, but no doubt still interact:




> In 1995, ACFR was newly incorporated as a nonprofit association dedicated          to facilitating debate on international events--primarily as they relate          to the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy--between          Washington and the heartland(s) of the United States.
> 
>                             In their previous life, the committees were affiliated with the              Council on Foreign Relations, which created them in 1938 to the same              ends that the new association affirms. At present, ACFR is not affiliated              with any other entity, but has productive relations with the broadest              range of government officials (both U.S. and foreign) and foreign              affairs related think-tanks and associations in Washington and beyond.              ACFR's national office is located at historic DACOR Bacon House, just              west of the White House in Washington, D.C.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> How about that!! The five countries that have been attacked the most in the media for their "oppressive regimes" all do not have a central bank? Gee I wonder why.  Don't forget Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez has been working hard to keep international business influence out of his country, and has also been on the brunt end of media propaganda against his government there. This proves that governments are not overthrown because of "human rights violations." They are overthrown because they refuse to follow the globalist agenda. This is why Libya was invaded and why so many people with power want to attack Iran, while nothing is done about other governments that are oppressive, like Saudi Arabia, who is touted as a friend of America.  This is also why China and Russia are being criticized so much, because they pose a threat to the globalists and their push for world government. If we threatened sanctions and war with every country that mistreated its citizens, we would literally be at war with half the world.


Really? Iran does have a central bank.  http://www.cbi.ir/default_en.aspx

Hugo Chaves wants the government in charge of everything. I would not hold him up as any sort of example of libertarianism. He is against free markets and for socialism.  And yes, he does violate peoples human rights there. 

Libya also has a central bank (founded in 1956): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Libya

----------


## FrankRep

> Really? Iran does have a central bank.  http://www.cbi.ir/default_en.aspx
> 
> Libya also has a central bank (founded in 1956): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Libya


The Iran and Libyan Central bank are completely Government owned, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve central bank.

Big difference.

----------


## Shorty Dawkins

> The Iran and Libyan Central bank are completely Government owned, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve central bank.
> 
> Big difference.


Great point, FrankRep. It is that the central banks of these nations are independent, and not a part of the globalist cartel that brings them into the cross hairs. WWIII has started, in case you haven't noticed. "Arab spring"? What a laugh. All the supposed spontaneous uprising was planned and sponsored by globalist surrogate organizations under the guidance of the Anglo-American Elite. Look behind the curtain.

Shorty Dawkins

----------


## FrankRep

> Great point, FrankRep. It is that the central banks of these nations are independent, and not a part of the globalist cartel that brings them into the cross hairs. WWIII has started, in case you haven't noticed. "Arab spring"? What a laugh. All the supposed spontaneous uprising was planned and sponsored by globalist surrogate organizations under the guidance of the Anglo-American Elite. Look behind the curtain.






The Middle East uprisings may have surprised most people in the world, but globalist elites at the Council on Foreign Relations laid the groundwork for the spontaneous events.

*Organized Chaos: Behind the Scenes in the Middle East*


William F. Jasper | The New American 
22 March 2011

----------


## lester1/2jr

I was reading this book called "who holds the power" or something and it talked abuot the CFR's role in getting the US involved in Vietnam. Vietnam had to be "protected". clearly a kind of war that wouldn't have happened a century before and hopefully not a century after. People are going to look back at the 20th century like "people just gave like half their money to the government and gave them all this power and were shocked when they created these huge catastophic disasters"

----------


## FrankRep

> I was reading this book called "who holds the power" or something and it talked abuot the CFR's role in getting the US involved in Vietnam. Vietnam had to be "protected".


*Robert Welch Explains Purpose of Vietnam War*






In 1965, the Vietnam War was being expanded in many of the same ways our wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan War are being expanded today. At the time, the founder of The John Birch Society, Robert Welch tried to educate the American people on the real reason we were at war in Vietnam and why it should be resisted. His insights remain applicable today.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The Iran and Libyan Central bank are completely Government owned, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve central bank.
> 
> Big difference.


The US Central bank is hybred- it is a govenment institution with the directors being nominated and subject to aproval for their jobs but it is independent of the government in its actions. Member banks do own shares in it but those are more membership dues as they cannot be sold and carry no voting preveleges- the member banks have no powers over the Fed either.  I shudder to think how things might be if Congress or the President had control of the US money supply.

The Bank of England- Britain's central bank- was under governmental control until 1997 when it was made independent.

----------


## emazur

> The US Central bank is hybred- it is a govenment institution with the directors being nominated and subject to aproval for their jobs but it is independent of the government in its actions.


Independent in the sense that there's no law that dictates they must do what the federal government tells them to do.  A child _can_ act independently and defy his mother, but if he obeys out of fear to prevent a spanking or doesn't want to be sent to bed without supper, is he really independent?
http://www.nolanchart.com/article823...alignment.html



> For the 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx called for "Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."  The Federal Reserve,  planned by bankers at Jekyll Island in 1910 and created by Congress in 1913, is just such a national bank.  Fed defenders will argue that the Fed is independent and not in the hands of the state, but there is an abundance of evidence to prove otherwise.  In fact, it's economics 101.  An introductory textbook American Government writes "For example, presidents try to influence Federal Reserve Board decisions on interest rates[2]."  Members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors serve 14 year terms with a vacancy every 2 years so that during his four year term no U.S. President can appoint more than 2 members.  Doing otherwise would cause excessive political influence in the Fed.  But since Board members routinely do not serve out their full 14 year terms, the opportunity for political influence abounds.  In his introductory college text Economics, author Steven Slavin writes "All seven members of the Board that was serving in the spring of 2006 had been appointed by President George W. Bush, and five have PhDs in economics[3]."  If that weren't enough to put a few chinks in the armor of Fed's supposed independence, just read this transcript between President Richard Nixon and his new choice for Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns from October 23, 1969:
> 
>     "My relations with the Fed will be different than they were with [previous Federal Reserve chairman] Bill Martin] there.  He was always six months too late doing anything.  I'm counting on you, Arthur, to keep us out of a recession."
> 
>     "Yes Mr. President, Burns said, lighting his pipe.  "I don't like to be late."
> 
>     Nixon continued. "The Fed and the money supply are more important than anything the Bureau of the Budget does. Arthur, I want you to come over and see me privately anytime... I know there's the myth of the autonomous Fed..." Nixon barked a quick laugh. "... and when you go up for confirmation some Senator may ask you about your friendship with the President.  Appearances are going to be important, so you can call Ehrlichman to get messages to me, and he'll call you[4]."
> 
> Time magazine reported the effect of the collusion between President Nixon and Fed Chairman Burns
> ...

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Crazy talk! Loony conspiracy theory! There is no such thing as the Council on Foreign Relations! Reported! Ban!
> 
> (Well, except for the one that tells Hillary Clinton what to do and tells us we need to attack Iran...)





> In my non RPF life, the local affiliate extended an invitation for me to join, I declined the honor, as I didn't think my blood pressure could take the CFR propaganda.


ALl you have to look at is the CFR post disruption operations on Egypt. Some of the very CFR hacks that were in Egypt months before the planned ousting of Mubarak, were courted on every single US/UK Corporate Main Stream Media channels in multiple appearances. Even C-SPAN hosted the CFR hacks.

After Richard Haas' TV whoopin on Washington Journal a year or so ago, he has shown again, it's the rotation of the lower echelons to push the propaganda.

----------


## Snowball

good people in Iran.

----------


## gmc1988

> Great point, FrankRep. It is that the central banks of these nations are independent, and not a part of the globalist cartel that brings them into the cross hairs. WWIII has started, in case you haven't noticed. "Arab spring"? What a laugh. All the supposed spontaneous uprising was planned and sponsored by globalist surrogate organizations under the guidance of the Anglo-American Elite. Look behind the curtain.
> 
> Shorty Dawkins


The same is true with the "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe, which were sponsored by Soros and his allies. They ended Communism, only to bring in globalism. They simply traded one evil for another.

----------


## gmc1988

> Hugo Chaves wants the government in charge of everything. I would not hold him up as any sort of example of libertarianism. He is against free markets and for socialism.  And yes, he does violate peoples human rights there. ]


You are right about Chavez. Chavez is NOT one of the good guys, and does mistreat and oppress his people. I would never want to live under his government. However, Chavez is a nationalist who opposes globalist attempts to take over his country. THAT is why he gets so much bad press, not because he is a tyrant.

----------


## Domalais

> The Iran and Libyan Central bank are completely Government owned, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve central bank.
> 
> Big difference.


Government owned central banks are even more inflationary than privatized central banks.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Government owned central banks are even more inflationary than privatized central banks.


I would not want the President or Congress in charge of the money supply.

----------


## FrankRep

> I would not want the President or Congress in charge of the money supply.


Having unelected international bankers is somehow better?

----------


## Carson

> Government owned central banks are even more inflationary than privatized central banks.



We seem to have sort of a whored out version of a central bank. 

They have managed to privatize the profits and stiff the public with the losses.

If you must have a central bank something that might help would be if they paid capital gains taxes on their, created out of thin air, money. Or if you must, perhaps if we used Imminent Domain to restore possession and every citizen had an account that shared an equal share in the profits. That might reel in some of the gain some are making on us through inflation. Remember. If they double the money supply it takes twice as much to buy the same amount of something like a house or a stock. When you sell even though you've received the same value but twice as many dollars they seem to think you've made a capital gain and cut themselves in by taxing you.

P.S. Welcome to the message boards *Domalais*.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Having unelected international bankers is somehow better?


They are nominated to be on the Board of Directors by the President and subject to aproval by Congress--not chosen by "international bankers". 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...136961066.html



> *President Barack Obama said Tuesday he plans to nominate* a Harvard University finance professor and a private-equity executive to fill the two vacancies on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board.
> 
> The nominees are Jeremy Stein, 51 years old, a Ph.D. economist who did a five-month stint in the Treasury and White House early in the Obama administration, and Jerome Powell, 58, who was undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance under President George H.W. Bush.
> 
> *If confirmed by the Senate*, Mr. Stein would bolster the Fed's academic expertise in both monetary policy and financial regulation. Mr. Powell, who has worked in investment banking in New York and private equity in Washington, D.C., would fill a different niche; the Fed board has been without a Wall Street veteran since Kevin Warsh, a Morgan Stanley alumnus, left in April.

----------


## Carson

> They are nominated to be on the Board of Directors by the President and subject to aproval by Congress--not chosen by "international bankers". 
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...136961066.html


I thought that story seemed funny. I have read they are chosen from a list of candidates provided by the Federal Reserve.

----------


## FrankRep

> Having unelected international bankers is somehow better?





> They are nominated to be on the Board of Directors by the President and subject to aproval by Congress--not chosen by "international bankers".




Actually, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) can push the Federal Reserve around.


*Basel III and Sound Banking*



17 September 2010 | The global regulation of banks took a major leap forward with the conclusion on September 12 of a round of talks held at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. Present were central bankers and regulators from 27 countries, trying to come up with tougher international regulations to prevent another banking crisis like the one we have been enduring for the past couple of years.

The set of rules agreed upon, which are being called the Basel III rules, will give banks until the end of the decade to come into compliance with new global financial standards, including a mandatory reserve of so-called "Tier 1 capital" of six percent (up from four percent) and an additional emergency reserve — a "conservation buffer" — of 2.5 percent. Champions of the new rules, like Jean-Claude Trichet, chairman of the European Central Bank, believed the measures would strengthen the global economy in coming years by — in Trichet's words — leading to a "fundamental strengthening of global capital standards." Others, like Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, pushed for a quicker phase-in and for still higher capital standards. Banks themselves, especially cash-strapped large European banks, were relieved at the long phase-in, which they hope will buy them time to get their financial houses in order.

At root, Basel III is an attempt to harmonize across international boundaries the most critical feature of modern fractional-reserve banking: the fraction of total assets required to be held in reserve for a bank to be deemed "sound" by those that regulate it.
...

Not only does Basel III perpetuate this fraud, it also sets further precedent for the international regulation of banking and finance, and for the further dilution of American financial sovereignty. It is yet another step toward a future in which finance and banking have become completely globalized, with a global central bank, a global currency, and global financial regulatory bodies eclipsing national banks, currencies, and regulators altogether.
...


*More Information:*

*2010: The Emerging Global Federal Reserve*

As powerful as the Federal Reserve is, just imagine how much more powerful a global Fed would be in terms of its ability to control the global economy and an emerging world currency. By Alex Newman
*2010: Waking up to a World Currency*

If global financial elites have their way, America will move quickly toward accepting a planetary fiat currency (a currency not backed by a precious commodity like gold) issued by a world central bank. by Alex Newman
*2010: IMF Report Promotes Global Fiat Currency, World Central Bank*

An April report from the International Monetary Fund promoting a world central bank and a global fiat currency went totally undetected by the global press for months, but after a blog post earlier this month, it is now in the media spotlight. By Alex Newman
*2010: IMF as the Global Federal Reserve: G20's Agenda Behind the Agenda*

A main component of the G20 Summit in Toronto was the continuing push to promote the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the new Financial Stability Board (FSB)as the global regulators and the global Federal Reserve in the new economic order. by William F. Jasper
*2009: Global Fusion: The G20, IMF, and World Government*
The goal of the G20 is to transform the IMF into a global Federal Reserve, moving us closer than ever to the creation of a world government under the United Nations. by William F. Jasper
*2009: G20 Advances New World Order, Media Admit*
The G-20 Summit advanced more international government control of the global economy in what the world media called a New World Order. By Alex Newman
*2009: The G20 Push to "Supersize" the International Monetary Fund*
The 20G push to “supersize” and transform the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into a global Federal Reserve System has been developing in elite political and economic circles for months. By William F. Jasper


Your move Zippyjuan.

----------


## FrankRep

*Council on Foreign Relations Calls for Bombing Iran*






In this weekly news update for January 16-22, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses why the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants the U.S. to bomb Iran; and how Mitt Romney surrounds himself with CFR members, while Newt Gingrich is himself a CFR member.

----------


## Simple

When Ron Paul says "they" want a war with Iran, now would be a good time to identify the "they" as the CFR.

----------


## Carson

> When Ron Paul says "they" want a war with Iran, now would be a good time to identify the "they" as the CFR.


*They* do seem to be one of the outside influences that hold the reins of our government, but I'm not sure they are the only element. One thing certain is that we no longer control our government, our borders, or our military. I seems a global problem. It also seemed clear the way global control didn't miss a beat in the change over during the last election cycle. 

Ron Paul appears our only chance to regain control.

----------


## FrankRep

*Fellow CFR member, John Bolton:* 


*Iran closer to bomb than world realizes?*
Warning: 1-year prediction may be too optimistic


World Net Daily
Jan 15, 2011


A report that Iran is about a year away from having the capability to build a nuclear bomb may be too optimistic, contended John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

===





*The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline*


Does America have a hidden oligarchy? Is U.S. foreign policy run by a closed shop? What is the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House. But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for? Why do the major media avoid discussing it? What has been its impact on America's past - and what is it planning for the future? (2008, 272pp, pb)

----------


## FrankRep

*The Case For Regime Change in Iran*


Foreign Affairs / CFR
January 17, 2012

----------


## Zippyjuan

CFR article: http://www.cfr.org/iran/think-before-acting-iran/p27083
*Think Before Acting on Iran*




> Author: Leslie H. Gelb, President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow
>  January 16, 2012 
> 
> We're doing this terrible thing all over again. As before, we're letting a bunch of ignorant, sloppy-thinking politicians and politicized foreign-policy experts draw "red line" ultimatums. As before, we're letting them quick-march us off to war. This time their target is Iran. And heaven knows Iran's leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things. But if we've learned anything, anything at all, from plunging into war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is this: we must have a public scrubbing of fighting rhetoric before, not after, the war begins.
> 
> Sure, there are risks in acting so sensibly. It does signal hesitation, even weakness, to the adversary. But to me, the far greater risk lies in not hesitating. The real risk is not fully, thoroughly, and publicly laying bare the case for war. In every major war of the last decades, the public assumed the government and the experts knew what they were talking about and proposing to do. But after a year or so, that faith collapsed. Except for those who would bless the sound of the cannon wherever it led, everyone soon realized the terrible truth: that government leaders had little or no idea what they were doing, what the invaded country was really like, and what could and could not be accomplished at what cost. By then, it was too late. Once our truly precious troops had been sacrificed and our prestige had been cast upon the waters, patriotism and politics overwhelmed reason.

----------


## FrankRep

> CFR article: http://www.cfr.org/iran/think-before-acting-iran/p27083
> *Think Before Acting on Iran*


It's called war strategy. The author isn't arguing against the war, they want to make sure the war is done effectively and making sure we know what Iran might do to retaliate.

Nice try Zippy.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It certainly isn't arguing for the war- pointing out mistakes we made by getting into past wars like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.  It says let's NOT rush off to war which is a counter position to the other piece you posted which was taken to say we should do it now.  

The end of the article:



> The Senate Foreign Relations Committee or some public commission has to pose the tough questions here: Do we really know enough to hit and destroy the key underground targets? If not, why go ahead? How long will it take for Tehran to rebuild the facilities and make them less vulnerable? What’s the potential for collateral damage on oil prices and lives? If Washington doesn’t use force, will Israel go it alone, and will Tehran regard this as a quasi-American attack anyway? If Iran actually acquired nukes, why wouldn’t prospects of an overwhelming Israeli or American attack in a crisis deter it? *Iranian leaders haven’t acted like crazy Hitlers. They’ve been pretty cautious, forever issuing threats and making trouble behind the scenes, which suggests they’re deterrable.* Would war on Iran trigger worldwide terrorist attacks? Is it in the overall interests of the United States, given our worldwide security needs and economic weaknesses, to enter another war? And don’t fool yourselves, this would be war.
> 
> 
> As is our tragic pattern, almost all these tough questions are unasked and unhonored. All one hears is the familiar boasts and threats. They are rarely probed by our media stars.
> 
> 
> Senator J. William Fulbright’s brilliant hearings on Vietnam and the James Baker/Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group both came far too late to save us. But there’s still time now for a full-scale, nonpartisan, and systematic examination of policy. Don’t let the usual hawks stop us with the argument that we’d be giving away too much information and signaling weakness to the enemy. *What we’d truly be giving away if we heeded these hawks is not our military plans, but our constitutional and democratic rights to freely and openly debate whether our sons and daughters once again must fight and die.*

----------


## Cowlesy

> It certainly isn't arguing for the war- pointing out mistakes we made by getting into past wars like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.  It says let's NOT rush off to war which is a counter position to the other piece you posted which was taken to say we should do it now.  
> 
> The end of the article:


Annnd then there is this counter article, which argues for very little short of a ground invasion, and most certainly regime change, which is quite far beyond just hitting nuke sites.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...iran?page=show


Edit: I see Frank already posted a link to this article, but it doesn't hurt reposting the link here.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Yep- it isn't unusual for them to have articles on both sides of issues. Both are from this month.

----------


## FrankRep

*Americans talk about an Israeli strike on Iran, but prepare own offensive*

*Less than One-Fifth of All Americans Favor Military or Covert Action Against Iran*

*Globalist Dennis Ross Admits Iran Attack Possible*

----------


## Zippyjuan

Ah citing InfoWars. They love to over-hype things. Anything better for sources?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

CFR can kiss my butt.

----------


## FrankRep

U.S. admiral says forces prepared to confront Iran as officials step up threats to close Strait of Hormuz 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ront-Iran.html

Iran 'steals Iraqi oil to beat sanctions'
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/...tions_999.html

Iran denies responsibility for embassy attack | Sheer Lies
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...189141,00.html

Iran says Israel attacked its own embassies
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol...aspx?id=257658

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> This has the potential to completely destroy the two party illusion. What happens when Obama and his liberal friends in the media begin calling for war? How will the libs justify it?


By saying they saved 200 Gazillion lives by pre-emtively killing those in Iran. The same way Obama and the left claim to have saved a Gazillion jobs in the U.S. by having the bailouts.

or,

perhaps it's to save the planet and is actually an environmentally sustainable necessity.

----------

