"War Is The Health Of The State" - Randolph BourneTime and time again, when a State is in trouble with it's populace, you can be darn-tootin' the first thing they will look to do is to distract the populace and redirect their anger.  Throughout history no method has proven more effective in doing this than to take the country to war.  War was Hitler's solution to the economic troubles of Germany caused by the hyperinflation of the in the period of the  Weimar Republic, just as entering World War II was Franklin Roosevelt's solution the Great Depression.    Contrary to the beliefs of "mainstream economists" like Paul Krugman will like to create.  What war does do is unite the populace around the State, and make them more forgiving of tough economic times.  How many people in the '1940's would have accepted the idea of rationing if it wasn't for the "greater good" of defeating those evil Nazis and Japanese?Of course, the idea that the U.S. government would go to war for less than noble reasons has long been the relegated to the territory of fringe "conspiracy theories" associated with the likes of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.  But the age of information is changing that , as the concept of false flags are becoming more and more accepted as a conspiracy fact.  It is now widely accepted that FDR was indeed well aware of the pending Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor that led to the U.S.'s direct involvement in World War II.  It is also now known that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to the invasion of Vietnam never even happened.Whether they simply "wait" for an event to happen as in the case of Pearl Harbor or completely manufacture it as in the case of the Gulf of  Tonkin, the point remains the same.  When the Government wants a war, they will look for the reasons to get into it. And it only takes one easy step: Provoke, or create, an attack.One would think that in the Age of YouTube, those that would falsely lead us into war would be a bit more careful about what they say and when they say it.  See below the video of  Patrick Clawson, who heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, responding to a question about what should happen if negotiations with Tehran fail.Poor Patrick seems a bit upset that "crisis initiation is very tough".  He then proceeds to name all of the events over time that have justified the United States going to war from the Fort Sumter incident that started justified Lincoln's initiation of the American Civil War all the way up to the aforementioned Pearl Harbor and Gulf of Tonkin incidents.  Clawson goes on to discuss how a war with Iran could be initiated, while trying to do his best Jackie Mason impression:"Sometimes Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that, but I'm just suggesting that this is not a either/or proposition of just sanctions have to succeed or other things.  We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that".Ah, I see. Clawson isn't advocating a false flag, he is merely suggesting that maaaaaybe it might be something to consider before just flat out saying the U.S. is currently using "covert means" to plan such a thing.  What a standup guy!The only way to prevent something like this from occurring is to make people more aware of the possibility.  Because however it starts, a war with Iran will have much broader global implications and many believe it could lead to a Third World War.  With the newly minted 2013 NDAA being prepped to fully legalize a war with Iran coupled with statements like these from people in the know, it's certainly something we need to be wary of.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!