Just because Griffin is a plagiarist regurgitator it doesn’t mean bankers did not conspire

Senators Benton and Calhoun on the Bank and money:–
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/benton/benton_list.html

Senator Webster was in the pay of the Bank of the United States:–
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/benton/webster.html

Shylock’s master peice:–
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/walbert/shylock_12.html

Gustavus Myers on JP Morgan and his alleged saving America:–
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/myers/am_fortune/am_fortune_412.html

Gustavus Myers thinks there are curruptly passed financial laws, and the Rothschilds in dictating American financial lwas:–
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/myers/am_fortune/am_fortune_408.html

Senator LaFollette on the story of the 1907 money panic:–
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/lafollette/lf08mar17.html

Christopher Hollis, “Two Nations”:–
“As soon as Independence had been won from Great Britain, the decks were clear for a second fight. That fight, as is usually found after a successful revolution, was the fight to decide whether independence was to be true independence or whether, after the change of names, the financial system was to re-establish over the new government that same control which it had exercised over the old. The protagonist of plutocracy, a surprisingly frank protagonist, was Alexander Hamilton. Among his proposals was one astonishing in its impudence even for the antagonist of such a cause.”
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/hollis/two_14.html#amerika

P.S.:
________
If you happen to be in contact with Gerry Rough would relay this to him:–
If you haven’t seen it yet, the source of the Ikleheimer letter:–
http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/vindication2/vindication2_6.html
It was Rutherford’s book from which the whole thing originated; and the regurgitators ran with it.

Take Iraq, for example, though I’m loath to reopen the debate. Rushing in to depose a Ba’athist tyrant, to both Bushes and most anyone with a shred of common sense, was a very simple, black and white decision. But when the challenge of post-war reconstruction emerged, it was chaos, not order, that followed. Not thinking far enough ahead, or heeding the warnings of those who better understood the complex history of the region, was the consequence of the same political reductionism you’re suggesting. In situations like this, shrinking down the picture can often be far more dangerous than asking the broader strategic questions up front.

More to your point, however, seeing beyond Desert Storm, beyond Iran-Iraq, beyond King Faisal, beyond the British mandate, beyond the Balfour Declaration, beyond Lawrence, beyond the fall of the Ottoman empire, beyond the conquest of the Mamluks, beyond the rushing Mongols, the Persian Abbasids, the Sunni Umayyids, and into the depths of the young Islamic world, can delay and distract us from ever making a choice. In my own life, I’m as guilty of this as anyone; of over-analyzing to the point of inaction. But as a country, sporting an eager and innovative collective consciousness, we should realize that our destiny is shaped by more than the next parliamentary cycle, and that a real plan for the country, regardless of what happens beyond our borders, should be a strategic priority today — both in theory and in action.

But to answer your question — and finally move beyond — I think our role in Afghanistan has been marginalized, and indeed compromised. This isn’t peacekeeping anymore, this is cracking the party (i.e Western Christendom’s) whip. But it does highlight our willingness to participate as a force for “peace” (used lightly) and good governance in the world today. And it also helps to remind us that the life we enjoy here at home is a function of decisions and actions that take place thousands of miles away.

In centuries past, this geographic reality was never the case. Your biggest threat was always your neighbour, and a few of his toughest friends. But the economic virtues of globalization have changed all that forever. They’ve opened the door both to expanded trade, and expanded terror. The same sea routes that have fueled the global marketplace have opened a direct path to the heart of the Western empire. The same internet that furnishes your holiday presents is being used to call fundamentalists into jihad. The same airplane that delivers those gifts is now a weapon in the growing arsenal of militant anti-capitalism.

The only question driving our decision to remain in Afghanistan should be one of both domestic and, more broadly, humanitarian calculus. Are innocent people dying because we’re there? Would fewer die if we weren’t? Will terror follow us home if we go, or will it only get worse if we stay?

I’m neither a historian, nor a military strategist, nor a sociologist by trade, but I know this country has a tremendous amount of promise. Bickering over war budgets and gay marriage and health care is pointless if it isn’t in the service of some greater “utopian” goal (again, used lightly). Our early constitution once provided that prospective framework, but even with all the tweaks and debates along the way, we’re still a 139 year old colony consistently struggling to find its way.

When Afghanistan is over, and the war is lost or won, what should we consider next? What “great issue” will we tackle when our troops finally return home? In my mind, the debate shouldn’t wait until it’s too late for change. The debate should begin right now.