The march to war is deafening.
But the reasons for it go beyond the elements of military conflict and political intrigue.
Underlying it all, the reasons are economic.
– Mac Slavo
With a nothing-doing economy that has long dragged on the American soul, there is a growing temptation to wipe the slate clean, and launch a wider war – all with the wider aim of igniting a new economic engine.
Theoretically, the economy would spruce up on the same gin that fueled WWII – and not only delivered a victory, but solidified America a prosperous superpower while vanquishing the Great Depression.
The thought is twisted, and perhaps more and more likely everyday. Something like economic gains off of spilling blood – true military industrial complex stuff.
I hope they know what there doing, and that the rest of the country can maintain a strong moral fiber, because if that scenario is green-lighted, things could get pretty grim, pretty quick.
The constant Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com speaks with economist Martin Armstrong, who sees war coming as a result of the bad economy:
Former hedge fund manager Martin Armstrong, who is an expert on economic and political cycles, says, “You have to understand what makes war even take place? It does not unfold when everybody is fat and happy. Simple as that. You turn the economy down, and that’s when you get war. It’s the way politics works.”
Startlingly, there were reports (albeit unconfirmed) in the foreign press back in 2008 – in the immediate wake of the economic crisis – that the RAND Corporation was suggesting that a new world war could be started in order to jump start and revive the economy.
It named Russia, China, Iran or another Middle Eastern country and/or North Korea as potential opponents, though the latter was considered too small time for a real economic boost.
Nine years after that crisis, the economy has not recovered, and remains in the doldrums, it seems that the option for further has gone full-blown. …