Whitley's Journal

The Coming Election

Let me start by saying that I am not advocating either candidate. Unknowncountry is a website for people of every political persuasion, so we keep our political views to ourselves. However I want to discuss an issue which I feel is the first one we should consider when we decide which candidate we are going to chose, each of us by his own lights.

This issue has not been discussed with adequate clarity. It has come up in the debates, but not with the amount of importance that it actually has. And, for once coming from me, I'm not talking about climate change. It is not health care or the economy, either. It is Iran.

I am not going to tell you what I think should be done. I don't know what should be done, because I obviously don't have access to intelligence about Iran's nuclear program. We must all hope that western governments do, especially ours. What I do know that a geopolitical moment of seminal importance is approaching, that has the potential to fundamentally redefine our world and the way the life of man will unfold for many years to come. If the Iranian regime continues to press for nuclear weapons, at some point Israel and the United States are going to attempt to destroy their nuclear capability using military means.

I am not going to comment on whether or not I think such an action would be right or wrong. Perhaps an Iranian bomb would stabilize the region much as the Indian and Pakistani bombs, and the Russian and American bombs, brought the stability that comes with contemplation of mutually assured destruction. On the other hand, maybe an Iranian bomb would grant them an ascendancy in the middle east that would be destructive of western interests and a continuing challenge to world peace.

It is not for me to decide these things, and I do not wish to pour from the empty into the void by speculating about matters of which I am incompletely informed.

Instead, I am going to start with a little history, but please keep reading. It's interesting and of essential importance in this issue. It is my belief that American foreign policy has suffered greatly over almost its entire span, from the early 19th Century until the present, from a lack, not only of subtlety, but primarily of an awareness of the way that the weight of history bears on the way the current world works. We Americans look toward the future. The past fades away behind us and is disregarded. Our policy emerges out of the present, as if history did not exist. Most of us know little history. In general, our schools confine history education to the facts, and do not explore the really important part, which is the inner dynamics that made things happen as they did, and how they affect and shape the present world in which we live. Always, history is a profound influence, sometimes less and sometimes more.

Had George W. Bush, for example, known what happened to the Emperor Trajan when he conquered what is now Iraq, he might have questioned the assumption that our forces would be received by the Iraqi people with enthusiasm. In 113 AD, Trajan embarked upon an eastward expansion of the empire that included the annexation of Mesopotamia. His troops marched in virtually unopposed. (Sound familiar?) It was so easy that he left just garrison forces in the cities and withdrew his main body. (Sound familiar?) But soon Trajan, who was at Antioch, received the disquieting news that the entire province had erupted and the Roman garrisons were being destroyed. Consumed with his desperate attempt to salvage the situation, he died of a heart attack in 117 AD.

I suggest that if anyone at all in the Bush administration had known this story and respected its significance, we would have handled the Iraq war differently, or not fought it at all. To imagine that this culture has somehow changed over the years is very foolish and very deeply American. We change. We grow. We progress. But that simply is not true of much of the world, where change is far, far slower. We faced precisely the same mentality among modern Iraqis as Trajan did. Unfortunately, we did not understand this, and wasted lives and treasure because we failed to heed the lessons of history.

In the case of Iran, their history is the central, essential influence, and we ignore it to our peril. Our great peril. It has to be understood that these are the same people who Darius ruled, who the Greeks repelled, and who the Romans attempted to conquer. If a Persian of 500 BC was transported to modern Iran, he would not have any trouble adjusting to the culture. Even the food would be reasonably familiar. Family life and, above all, his sense of what his society was and his place in it, would be completely familiar.

The west has a long history of conflict with the whole region, and especially Persia, which is the area now called Iran. In fact, this is our world's fundamental cultural conflict, and the way it has unfolded reflects the essential differences between eastern and western ideas of what a human being is, and what the human experience should be.

This conflict started when the Persians discovered that, by building roads, maintaining communications and organizing a fair and acceptable system of taxes, they could create an empire that its subjects would find acceptable, and even, in some cases, welcome. There was only one catch: they had to recognize the emperor as absolute monarch, and accept his rule in place of their own.

Iran has had a few brief experiments with democracy, but they have all ended badly. The last emperor, the Shah, has been replaced by a new emperor who is actually much more like the old Persian despots, in that he claims the will of God as the source of his right to rule. This is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president, it is Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader.

When the original Persian empire sought to expand into Greece, it was difficult for the emperor to understand why they were so resistant to joining his wonderful new system which was bringing so much prosperity to its subjects.

It was at that point that east and west diverged, and it is at that point that the divide still remains.

Eventually, the Greeks drove the Persians away at the Battle of Salamis in 480 BC. This allowed the development of democratic political processes in Greece, along with what was essentially the discovery of the sanctity of the individual. This is an absolutely fundamental moment of history.

Another fundamental moment came in 379 AD when the Roman emperor Valens was forced to bargain with Goths who had crossed the Danube into Roman Europe rather than drive them out. He had to do this because his army was too heavily engaged in the east. From the moment that the Goths began settling in the empire, to its collapse a hundred years later, there is an unbroken line.

After the Roman Empire fell, the west endured a thousand years of poverty, superstition and ignorance. Only in the fifteenth century did our ancient democratic ideals began to reassert themselves in Italy with the development of republican city-states and in England with the signing of the Magna Carta.

Confrontation with Iran is as serious a military undertaking as the western world can contemplate. It cannot be conquered in any conventional sense of the word. It cannot be subjugated, not easily, or they would already be unwinding their nuclear program, in view of how terribly western sanctions are harming their economy and destroying their currency.

Soon, in one way or another, our country is going to become involved in a confrontation with Iran. Two of our allies cannot afford a nuclear armed Iranian state, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, or come too close to it, no matter which party is in power, we are going to respond to their demands--public on the part of Israel, private on that of Saudi Arabia--and we are going to attack Iran with a view to destroying that capability.

So, a very major question that we must all take with us into the voting booth is this: which candidate do I think is better able to guide our country through such a storm? Each of us must find the answer in the privacy of our own minds.

Of course, there are many other issues to consider, but I can assure you, this will turn out to be the most important one in this election. The fate of nations and the way the future history of humanity unfolds will to an unusual degree turn on what the next president does in regard to Iran, and how he manages the application of American power.

Think about it. Then vote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Question: Does Israel Have an Atomic Bomb?

Election day this year falls at the beginning of Mercury Retrograde...Delays, issues with communications, computers, etc.

To give you a taste: The last election where Mercury was retrograde was between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Remember hanging chads and the Supreme Court? The polls already indicate a very close race, so with Mercury Retrograde coming into play, be prepared. The state of our country is different from that election and in terms of politics we appear to be much more divided than we were back then.

Fasten your seat belts...

Voting for the President that will do the greatest good for the greatest many is the way for me. I think heart felt divine inspirations are needed around the world not just mind logic. Expanded love consciousness in all decisions can break the slavery of cyclical histories. We no longer need to be what we were in the past. History can be a guide but we should aim to go beyond ourselves and the vibrations of divine source is available now for us to reach the stars.

The more different a culture is from our own, the more likely we are to view it as alien. Much of science fiction displays depictions of extra-terrestrials that are essentially human beings from other countries living on other planets. It's hard for us to imagine a form of life so different from us that it would not adhere to the parameters we know as human. That said, in the West, it's hard for us to imagine humans more different from us than those who inhabit the Middle East. This was once true of Russia, and is still very true of large parts of Asia, but learning and understanding has broken down, or at lease lowered, many of those cultural walls.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone, anyone, who will use them, no matter if they live in Tehran or Moscow or Washington. However, no progress is ever going to be made if concerted efforts to learn about and understand each other are not made. This does require effort on both sides, and it is a long and difficult process. While modern Russia is not the enemy that the USSR was of the West during the Cold War, it is also not the friend that would make it an ideal neighbor on a truly civilized planet. Regardless, I trust they hold a similar opinion of us; progress has been made, and we haven't blown each other to Hell yet.

Likewise, treating Iran like a pariah and criminal will do little to advance the cause of a global neighborhood--as alien as they may seem, they are human, too. Crimes against humanity, or, as Whitley puts it, "denial of the right to thrive," must not be tolerated. I just hope that in the pursuit of our own safety, we don't assign criminality where there is none, and deny others that same right simply because we fear them because we do not understand them.

Seems to me that a completely disheartened and subjugated world, of reduced population, (restarted perhaps, after the theatre of a terrible war), under global Islamic society, would suit the international elite/archon-infested bankers very much.

There's nothing funny about those big Top Cats and their alley-Cat scheming.

A 'THX 1138' Islamic society where everyone and everything is controlled absolutely, may very well be the aspiration for the globalists that have sought so long to destroy western culture and the sense of its citizens that they have some control over their own destinies.

Take a look at that movie 'The Hunger Games' and consider the future society that they inhabit.

Increasingly I feel that the only way to have the slightest chance of winning, is not to take part in this dark madness. Therefore, I am looking for an intelligent avenue of escape.

Pay heed.

I agree with some of that, but any armed confrontation will fail. Until Iran feels not threatened by other nuclear powers in the region, they will feel justified in obtaining a nuclear capability. One way or the other, sooner or later, Iran will joint the nuclear club.

I can't read this now. my monitor is acting up and won't let me read withou
constant interruptions.

If someone knows how to change this problem, please let me know.
Thank you,,
Vergie

More than likely it wasn't talked about because the decision has already been made.

I hope I am wrong, I really do... but I think that a war with Iran will be suicide for this country. This war will not be a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, and a walk away..

We are quite likely to see military strikes, here with civilian dead, and a long protracted war, with many times the casualty levels we have seen in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And if Iran does have the bomb it will quickly become a thermonuclear one, with millions of causalities.

It's will be difficult to win a war against a death cult. We have everything to live for, while they have everything to die for. Their deaths are a celebration, ours a tragedy.

It's true we are a society that lives for the future, and one that also believes that death never comes, that its far far away... But it does, come eventually, even to empires.

"It will be difficult to win a war against a death cult...Their deaths are a celebration, ours a tragedy." That really sums up the problem.

I think we need to understand one thing first -we are not locked into the two candidates the media tells us we need to vote for. There are others! A substantial vote towards 3rd party candidates would give a strong message.

I suggest that anyone reading this go to this site:

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

And take the test to see which presidential candidate is most in keeping with your own political views. Then I suggest you vote for that person. And if you want to vote for a 3rd party, don't succumb to the tired old argument that voting for a 3rd party candidate is "just throwing away your vote" because 1.) It sends a message that there is support for more than the two we're being sold on and 2.) Your conscience wil be clear that you voted with your heart and mind.

As for Iran - I don't fear a nuclear one. They will be as hesitant to use the bomb as anyone else with it. We have no right to stop them and it is unrealistic to have a foreign policy that says stop every country that makes scientific progress we don't like - unless we want to give up our own bomb (yeah right). Eventually, every nation on Earth will have nuclear power (and hence access to the Bomb)- just like every nation today has electricty and running water. How can we stop this short of blowing them up and condeming our souls?

Now if we gave up the secrets of Free Energy (assuming we have it) - Iran would not need a nuclear energy program would they? Nor would energy be a reason to go to war any more. That would be the way to a true and lasting peace for all.

Is not our enormous military empire building machine a death cult with a trail of bodies larger than any? With a documented history of doing whatever it takes. We refers to deaths as "collateral damage" so as to minimize human tragedy. Which is the only country to use Nuclear weapons against a population resulting in the deaths of 200,000 mostly civilians? We have the strength and willingness to use nuclear weapons, and it may even become necessary for national defense, but let's not pretend it is because of a moral superiority. If we do it it will be because we can.

I have already voted with my conscience. I pray that man will do the right thing for humanity.

I appreciate Whitlley's broad view of history. A view of post World War II, 20th century history will also explain a lot about the Iranian leadership's feeling toward the U.S. After the war, our CIA coordinated the overthrow of a government supported by the majority of Iranians and installed the Shah. When the Iranian revolution began in the 70's there were many Iranians attending university in the U.S. I knew several and they believed that getting rid of the Shah would lead to a democratic Iran. Unfortunately, the mullahs took over and true democracy was crushed. History was recently repeated to some extent in Egypt where the people forced out Mubarek only to have the Muslim Brotherhood come to power. Among many in the small but growing educated middle classes of both countries there is a desire for freedom and civil liberties similar to the West. They are not all backward looking and thinking people. Unfortunately, the undereducated and poorly informed masses are more easily swayed by religious fundamentalism and authoritarian propaganda. The U.S. should use it's influence to support the growing desire for freedom in these countries and their desire to reach acccomodation with the West. The constant threats of attack only strengthen the hands of the mullahs and their repressive regime in Iran. This does not have to end badly with a war that will ultimately devistate both countries. The west is teetering on the edge of economic collapse. A war with Iran, which us located adjacent of the world's largest oil reserves, will cause a spike in fuel costs that could put the US back into recession and maybe into a full blown depression since the country will be unable to borrow it's way out this time. Is that the plan? Someone mentioned archons. I have no idea if they are real or just a symbol for the dark side of humanity's own greed, desire to control others and narrowminded self interest. But I do agree that a war with Iran would certainly play into such entities' hands by further eroding freedom & civil liberties and greatly increasing their control over of the populations of both Iran and the U.S. We should elect someone who will attempt to navigate us away from this looming worldwide disaster instead of steering us straight toward it.

The Nazis were a death cult too and we, at least superficially, stopped that International movement, even if they ended up the wealthiest political group in post-war Europe.

If Islam goes through a reformation then I see no reason why it should continue to be a source of darkness, rather than a religion existing within a healthy sense of equanimity.

Islam in its current form simply cannot continue. It will be it's own worst enemy, when all is said and done.

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now