Barney Frank Wants All Troops Home From Iraq: 'What The Hell Are They Doing There?'

This is good news and Rep. Frank is possibly more thorough in what he said than perhaps any other holder of high political office I've read about so far. However, there're a couple of things he neglected to say or add, which makes his words a little less than [thorough].

He rejected the notion that America is "the indispensable nation," that it must be a global cop that responds to trouble all across the globe. "People've gotta learn to dispense with us," he said, adding that if it could be shown that U.S. involvement across the globe is beneficial, he would reconsider the position, but, in general, he said, U.S. intervention only backfires.

He's right about "U.S. intervention only backfires", but not only does it backfire, for U.S. interventions, military and often or usually political interventions, are always rogue, extremely criminal, and the military ones are always supreme international crimes of aggression.

Backfiring is comparatively minor, especially when considering that even legitimate interventions that are legally and morally supportable can backfire. Crimes of aggression, however, are the real problem with U.S. so-called interventions, which really never are about intervention, such as intervening in problems or disputes; except when it's criminal intervention. The U.S. is not a moderator; it's tyrannical, rogue, supreme aggressor, and never acts in other countries for any reasons of good will or politics.

The defense budget, he said, "ought to be cut very substantially," suggesting that basing 15,000 Marines in Okinawa is no longer necessary and a "cultural legacy of the Cold War."

He's right, but to be added are Guam; Colombia and possibly other South American countries, as well as Mexico, if there are U.S. troops there; African countries (I believe to have read that there are some); Diego Garcia; Eastern Europe; Asia, or simply Eurasia; and other places, which could or should include Puerto Rico and Hawaii.

And the U.S. basing in Okinawa is not really a "cultural legacy of the Cold War" as much as it's part of the long-term agenda for trying to establish global dominance for, of and by the top ruling elites of the U.S.

Greenspan:

What Rep. Frank said about Alan Greenspan's words is certainly interesting, considering who that financial criminal is. He's right that reducing military spending would result in a much better economy in the U.S., if the spending was properly, honestly rechanneled. But it's a little surprising to learn of this view coming from financial con Greenspan. Otoh, Greenspan could only be saying this because while it's true and he knows that it's true, he also knows that it's not going to happen and he can then safely say this to try to make himself and the Federal Reserve liked by the general population, which should have demanded that he be jailed for the financial criminal that he is, and for the Fed to be either abolished or made part of the federal government, long ago.

That's according to what I have learned about his doings, anyway. And the Fed definitely needs to be removed from private sector banksters, who Greenspan works for. These powerful banksters surely have plenty invested in the MIC, I believe; but they're money-men, aka "money masters", and if military spending was shifted to productive purposes that would help boost the economy, then they surely would still make a lot of profit. Yet, if U.S. militarism on a global scale was drastically reduced, then maybe the total profits from this would be difficult to make up for with shifting military spending to the economy in the U.S. The U.S. then would not be able to have or gain control of the highly profitable natural resources the U.S. wars for, for the top ruling elites of the U.S.

Hi-tech would become considerably more expensive than it is today, because the people of the countries being robbed of their mineral resources would be fairly compensated, instead of genocided. For the prices of electronics to not rise or not seriously rise, hi-tech companies would have to accept diminished profits, or would need to succeed in reducing wages of their employees, or would need to offshore more hi-tech jobs to cheap-labor countries, which definitely would not help the economy in the U.S., f.e. The owners of these companies have no intention of accepting these conditions, except for trying to lower employee wages and offshoring jobs to cheap-labor countries, of course.

Iow, it's surely not the banksters controlling the Fed and for or with whom Greenspan works who are going to seriously think that U.S. military spending will be seriously cut and shifted to the economy in the U.S. They're highly responsible for the economy being the way it is today. They continue a long-historical tradition, say, of the rich and powerful financial elites. Greenspan knows who he works for and with, and they're all extreme financial criminals.

See the documentary, "The Money Masters", www.themoneymasters.com for the DVD, or the full-length copy at Google. The really full copy at Google is around 3hrs and 35min., a single clip.

There also are plenty of articles about the Fed, and other high elite groups in the U.S., in the (probably) economics index of articles at www.globalresearch.ca, but one well known author is Ellen Brown.

Nevertheless, Rep. Barney Frank certainly seems to have spoken well for a politician.