Interesting...I hadn't thought about the debt/fiat money is this way.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id209.html
January 4, 2006 ? On November 10th 2005, the Muckraker Report published an article that described one of the unspoken reasons why the United States had to invade Iraq; to liberate the U.S. dollar in Iraq so that Iraqi oil could once again be purchased with the petrodollar. See The liberation of the U.S. Dollar in Iraq
In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for its oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in its U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely.
Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country?s accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Global U.S. dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession which the United States endured began and ended within the same time frame as that during which Iraq was trading oil for euros. Whether this is a coincidence or related, the American people may never know.
In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq?s switch to the petroeuro to new heights by launching a third oil exchange. The Iranians have developed a petroeuro system for oil trade which, when enacted, will once again threaten U.S. dollar supremacy far greater than Iraq?s euro conversion. Called the Iran Oil Bourse, an exchange that only accepts the euro for oil sales would mean that the entire world could begin purchasing oil from any oil-producing nation with euros instead of dollars. The Iranian plan isn?t limited to purchasing one oil-producing country?s oil with euros. Its plan will create a global alternative to the U.S. dollar. Come March 2006, the Iran Oil Bourse will further the momentum of OPEC to create an alternate currency for oil purchases worldwide. China, Russia, and the European Union are evaluating the Iranian plan to exchange oil for euros and giving the plan serious consideration.
If you are skeptical regarding the meaning of oil being purchased with euros versus dollars and the devastating impact it will have on the economy of the United States, consider the historic move by the Federal Reserve to begin hiding information pertaining to the U.S. dollar money supply starting in March 2006. Since 1913, the year the abomination known as the Federal Reserve came to power, the supply of U.S. dollars was measured and publicly revealed through an index referred to as M-3. M-3 has been the main staple of money supply measurement and transparent disclosure since the Fed was founded. In his report, What?s the Fed up to with the money supply?, Robert McHugh writes, ?On November 10, 2005, shortly after appointing Bernanke to replace Greenbackspan, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006.? (To learn more about Robert McHugh's work, please visit https://www.technicalindicatorindex.com/Default.asp)
Is it mere coincidence that the Fed will begin hiding M-3 the same month that Iran will launch its Iran Oil Bourse, or is there a direct threat to the stability of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. economy, and the U.S. standard of living? Are Americans being set up for a collapse in our economy that will make the Great Depression of the 1930?s look like a bounced check? If you cannot or will not make the value and stability of the U.S. currency of personal importance, if you are unwilling to demand from your elected officials, an immediate abolishment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the fiat money scheme that the banking cartel has used for nearly a century now to keep our government and our people in a state of perpetual debt, than you are faced with but two alternatives, abject poverty, or invading Iran.
The plans to invade Iran are unspoken, but unfolding before our very eyes. The media has been reporting on Iran more often, and increasingly harshly. For the U.S. government to justify invading Iran, it must first begin to phase out the War in Iraq, which it is already doing. Next, it must portray the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a threat to the region and the world. Finally, once naive American people are convinced the ?weapons of mass destruction? that were to be found in Iraq are actually in Iran, coupled with the almost daily media coverage of Iran?s nuclear power / weapons program aspirations, and what we will soon have on our hands is another fabricated war that will result in tens of thousands of civilian lives being lost, all because the political elected pawns in Washington DC lack the discipline to return our currency to a gold or silver standard, end the relationship with the foreign banking cartel called the Federal Reserve, and limit the activities of the U.S. government to those articulated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
When a wayward and corrupt fiscal policy and fiat currency, coupled with runaway government spending, forces a nation to only be able to sustain the value of its currency with bullets, the citizenry of the country involved in wars primarily to sustain its currency have historically first became slaves to their government, and then to the nations that finally conquer them. If you question the validity of such a premise, or whether it could happen to the United States of America, study the fall of the Roman Empire. If you read the right books on the subject, you?ll quickly discover that towards the end of the Roman reign, the Roman Empire was doing exactly what America is doing today; attempting to sustain a failed fiat money system with bullets.
Understanding fiat money is not an easy task, and the Federal Reserve, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund have purposely made it that way. They do not want the American people to realize that the money in their wallet loses its value with each new dollar that they print. They do not want people to understand that our money does not become money until it is borrowed. When the Federal Reserve has money printed, when it is in uncut sheets of paper, it is not yet money. After it is cut, bundled, and placed into the Federal Reserve vaults, it still is not money. It only becomes money once it is borrowed. Consequently, if all debt were to be paid, if the United States didn?t have an $8 trillion national debt and the American people were debt free, and if all loans of U.S. dollars made to foreigners were paid in full, there would be exactly zero U.S. dollars in circulation because it will have all been returned to the vaults of the Federal Reserve. This might seem hard to fathom, but it is the gospel of fiat money.
The major news media in the United States, fed by Washington DC which in turn is fed by the Federal Reserve, literally, has already begun conditioning the American people for invading Iran. Media accounts of Iran?s nuclear ambitions along with amplification of the potential instability and core evilness of Iran?s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is setting the stage to spring the invasion of Iran on the American people. There does appear to be a direct correlation between the winding down effort underway in Iraq and the increase of anti-Iran rhetoric. How American soldiers ultimately arrive in Tehran is uncertain at this time, but it is reasonable to expect that if the Iran Oil Bourse opens for business in March 2006 as planned, it will only be a matter of time before the United States will have to blow it up.
If the United States invades Iran, or if Israel starts military actions by launches missiles at Iran?s nuclear power facilities, which then opens the door for the United States to intervene, most Americans will believe that our military actions in Iran will be to defend freedom and liberty while spreading democracy, when the truth is that we?ll be fighting a war in Iran because of our nation?s relationship with the Federal Reserve, a so-called bank that is not owned by the federal government, maintains no reserve, and isn?t a bank at all, but a cartel. Just like our war in Iraq, Americans and foreigners will die in battle so that the historical power bankers and brokers; cartel members such as Rothschild, Morgan, Lehman, Lizard, Schrader, Lobe, Kuhn, and Rockefeller to name a few, can continue collecting interest on every single U.S. coin and dollar bill in circulation, while controlling the U.S. Congress to the extent that the U.S. taxpayer becomes the collateral and lender of last resort to cover bad loans and unpaid debts that these institutions create by loaning money to third world countries, some of which are devout enemies of the United States. Remember the $400 billion savings & loan bailout approved by the U.S. Congress during the Reagan Administration? America is still paying for it ? you and me, and so will our children and grandchildren.
It is well overdue for Americans, every American, to do whatever it takes to fully understand the relationship between the United States and the Federal Reserve, along with the grave consequences of our current fiat money system. For even if the United States wanted to continue to sustain the supremacy of the U.S. dollar with bullets, it is historically, impossible. When bullets become the commodity to secure a currency, it is a clear sign of devastating calamity looming. To ignore the warning signs is to suffer like you have never suffered before, or to die. Harsh words, but true.
Ed Haas is a freelance writer and author originally from Mt. Penn, Pennsylvania. He currently resides in beautiful Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. To learn more about Ed's work, please visit craftingprose.com. http://www.craftingprose.com
Yes, very interesting.
Here is a relevant story, I think anyone should read it who's interested in the Federal Reserve: http://www.americaondebt.com/earthplusfive.html
This is an old theory and could definitely be one of the reasons Iraq was invaded.
"See? This is what will happen to you if you stop accepting US dollars."
If we do a civil disobedience event in which we refuse to accept US dollars, perhaps we'll be hit by a guided missile. That would be in line with their prior reactions. :o
Quote from: Michael Fisher on January 12, 2006, 12:00 PM NHFT
If we do a civil disobedience event in which we refuse to accept US dollars, perhaps we'll be hit by a guided missile.
That would be hard to do simply because someone would have to complain to the government that you are not accepting fiats. If you just sit outside a building selling candy and everyone buys them using gold or something they probably won't do anything because you can't shown that you are refusing to accept fiats.
Which brings me to my next point, refusing to accept fiats is probably the easiset thing any business owner can do (granted s/he has a big enough client base that will pay in alternative currency) without too much trouble since the likelyhood that someone would go through the trouble to call the cops on you for not accepting fiats is pretty slim.
I dono, just a thought.
Don't worry. There will be minimal civilian casualties.
Refuse to accept your tax refund check in $s since they are losing value too quickly. :)
Quote from: russellkanning on January 12, 2006, 02:40 PM NHFT
Don't worry. There will be minimal civilian casualties.
LOL, I can see them now... talking about it before pushing the red button.
The hype about Iran is beginning to intensify. More and more stories in the press sounding the dire warning about Iran having nukes. ???
I'm guessing that while the U.S., Europe and the UN diddle around with this, Israel will take care Iran's nuclear attempts.
GDI >:(
I don't WANT to be a declining Roman.
Bush, Merkel Urge U.N. Action on Iran
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
President Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood together Friday in urging U.N. intervention if
Iran does not retreat from a resumption of its nuclear program.
ADVERTISEMENT
The world needs to "send a common message to Iran that their behavior ... is unacceptable," Bush said.
Merkel used similar words, and she also condemned statements by Iran's leader challenging
Israel's right to exist. "We will not be intimidated by a country such as Iran," she said.
At a joint White House news conference, Bush rejected a plea by Merkel that the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, be shut down. He called the four-year-old camp "a necessary part of protecting the American people."
It was one of the few disagreements the two leaders voiced after their White House meeting. It was the German leader's first visit to the United States since taking office last November.
Iran threatened earlier Friday to block inspections of its nuclear sites if confronted by the
U.N. Security Council over its atomic activities. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his country's intention to produce nuclear energy.
Bush assailed what he called Iran's efforts "to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon, or using the guise of a civilian nuclear weapon program to get the know-how to develop a nuclear weapon."
Taking the matter to the Security Council, as Germany, France and Britain recommended on Thursday, is the logical next step, Bush said.
"We want an end result to be acceptable, which will yield peace, which is that the Iranians not have a nuclear weapon in which to blackmail and-or threaten the world," Bush said.
On Guantanamo, Merkel said she raised the issue with Bush, and she described it as one of the differences between the United States and Germany. Germany opposed the war in
Iraq.
"There sometimes have been differences of opinion. I mentioned Guantanamo in this respect," Merkel said.
Bush said, "I can understand why she brought it up because there's some misperceptions about Guantanamo."
He disputed reports that detainees there have been mistreated.
Bush said the prison camp would remain open "so long as the war on terror goes on, and so long as there's a threat."
Ultimately, the U.S. courts will have to decide whether terror suspects can be detained in Guantanamo or must be processed through the U.S. judicial system, he said.
On another subject, Bush said he had "no idea" about the possible truth of reports that German intelligence agents actively helped U.S. forces in Iraq at the start of the war.
It was a reference to German television and newspaper reports that the government of then-Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder, an outspoken opponent of the war, helped identify a bombing target in Iraq.
Germany's Federal Intelligence Agency said the reports were "wrong and distorted," although it did confirm that it had two agents in Iraq before and during the war.
"You did say 'secret intelligence,' right?" Bush said to the German reporter who asked the question. "The chancellor brought this up this morning, I had no idea what she was talking about. First I heard of it was this morning, truthfully."
On Thursday, Germany, Britain and France, backed by the United States, said talks with Iran had reached a dead end and urged that the issue be referred to the Security Council.
Trying to line up support, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice spoke by telephone Friday to Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. But at the
United Nations, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said referring Iran to the Security Council might toughen Tehran's position on its nuclear program.
What kind of sanctions the council might consider remained in dispute.
Both Bush and Merkel said they discussed Iran at length.
In two years of difficult negotiations between European nations and Iran, "Iran refused every offer we made," Merkel said.
"It's very important for non-transparent societies to not have the capacity to blackmail free societies," Bush asserted.
Merkel took power last November after an extremely close and protracted race with Schroeder.
Bush jokingly likened that race, which took almost two months to resolve, to his own victory in 2000 over Democrat
Al Gore, which was decided only after weeks of suspense by a Supreme Court decision.
"We didn't exactly landslide our way into office," Bush said.
Eschewing the motorcade that usually transports world leaders to the White House, Merkel made the short trip to the White House from the Blair House guest quarters across the street on foot.
She and her sizable entourage walked through the White House gates trailed by empty black limousines and a fleet of silver German-made BMWs.
Schroeder's opposition to the U.S.-led war that deposed Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein so damaged the German's relationship with Bush that the president refused at times to speak to Schroeder on the telephone.
Merkel, by contrast, is more in tune with Bush's conservative politics.
Merkel also was to meet with members of Congress and planned to attend a ceremony at the newly renovated headquarters of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Despite her calls for a partnership with Washington, she has demonstrated a strong streak of independence, including her criticism of the Guantanamo Bay camp.
Germany rebuffed an appeal by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales not to release a terrorist accused of killing a Navy diver in a 1985 airplane hijacking.
Quote"We didn't exactly landslide our way into office," Bush said.
Is Bush using the royal "we" now?
Bush said the prison camp would remain open "so long as the war on terror goes on, and so long as there's a threat."
....and they have told us that that will be forever.
Serendipity. :)
Through an odd chain of coincidences, I just read a 22-year-old article by Carol Moore on the subject of trade exchanges. It's kind of dry and technical, but check out this excerpt:
Quote(6.) Perhaps the greatest single cause of war, economic inequality, and poverty is governments? monopoly over the money supply. Government control of money results in the inability to get sufficient money into the system except through inflationary government spending (which is too often war spending) and the inability of individuals or corporations without substantial assets or government connections to get the investment money they need.
A MORAL FRAMEWORK
Finally, this entire discussion should A be put within a moral framework. Any successful alternative to government money could be quickly crushed or co-opted by government. It can only succeed in the context of a movement which emphasizes that the end does not justify the means, that fraud, theft, and violent coercion, private and public, are morally wrong. Also, no financial system can be a ?fail-safe? system immune from human corruption and incompetence. In the end, it is not in gold or government or trade exchanges we trust, but in other human beings.
With this in mind, I urge readers with an interest in financial alternatives to investigate credit money and trade exchanges. I believe convincing others that government cannot create money or prosperity, that only our own efforts and our own trade creates money, is an important way of bringing them over to the true cause of peace and freedom.
Anyone care to recommend a trade exchange? (Don't say Liberty Dollar, that's not a trade exchange, that's an alternate form of commodity currency, which is not the same thing.)
We were discussing such a thing. I really like the idea of expanding the little trading we all do now. As it grows we can come up with cool tools on the internet to help make it work even faster.
We would be better off cutting out the government and the bank from parts of our lives. :)
Definitely a good direction to go in. Becoming less dependent on Government and their lackeys is my goal.
When the shit hits the fan, we need to be ready.
Still more anti-Iran stuff building.
Quote from: russellkanning on January 17, 2006, 12:07 AM NHFT
Still more anti-Iran stuff building.
So,... we have Iran momentum building, along with Syria. N. Korea is in the wings, also. They have to keep the military out of the country as much as possible to pull this off. Plus wars whip up patriotic hysteria. Then tank the economy at the opportune moment and institute sweeping powers, and Presto! a complete dictatorship of, by, and for the Powerful Elite. >:D I should write for the movies. ;D
I am going to bed now, and have a few nightmares. ;)
Have Peace Activists Ever Stopped a War?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wittner/wittner17.html
IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on
Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."
"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.
"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."
The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether
Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading
Iraq and toppling Saddam.
ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.
Military Orders Suggest Iran Attack
Newsmax | September 18 2006
Two recent orders by the American military have led some observers to conclude that the U.S. is preparing for an attack on Iran.
One order was a "Prepare to Deploy" command sent to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters, telling the ships? commanders to be ready to move by Oct. 1.
The other was a request from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for a fresh look at long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf.
The orders created a buzz within the military because there are few places in the world where minesweepers could be significant ? chief among them, the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, where about 40 percent of the world?s oil passes each day.
"Coupled with the CNO?s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed ? but until now largely theoretical ? prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran,? according to a special report in Time magazine.
The U.S. military routinely makes plans for many different scenarios, and the vast majority of them will never be carried out.
"And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran ? over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region ? may be impossible to avoid,? Time reports.
The magazine?s reporters interviewed dozens of experts and government officials to find out what an attack on Iran would consist of ? and what its repercussions might be.
First of all, most observers believe the attack would not involve ground forces and would instead be a massive air campaign against Iran?s 18 to 30 nuclear-related facilities.
But many of the targets are hardened, and would have to be struck repeatedly to ensure that they were destroyed or severely damaged. Some sites are in populated areas, and civilian casualties would be a certainty, according to Time. And there would be no guarantee that the strikes would destroy all nuclear-related sites, because some sites could be undiscovered.
What?s more, the attacks would spark retaliation from Iran that could include ordering a Hezbollah attack on Israel and stepping up the funneling of money and weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq.
The likelihood that Iran would also seek to close the Strait of Hormuz is high, and a disruption of the oil supplies flowing through the strait could send oil prices skyrocketing. That in turn could spur a stepped-up military effort by the U.S. that could even include the "worst case? use of ground forces in an effort to topple the Iranian regime, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni told Time.
For that reason, Zinni believes an attack on Iran is a "dumb idea.?
And that is why the U.S. has sought to emphasize a possible diplomatic solution, Time concludes. One Bush administration official told the magazine:
"Nobody is considering a military option at this point. We're trying to prevent a situation in which the President finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."
Retired Colonel: ?We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now. The Evidence Is Overwhelming.?
Think Progress | September 19 2006
Just now on CNN, Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) said, ?We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming.?
Gardiner, who taught at the U.S. Army?s National War College, has previously suggested that U.S. forces were already on the ground in Iran. Today he added several additional new points:
1) The House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense Department officials to testify on whether U.S. forces were in Iran. The officials didn?t come to the hearing.
2) ?We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step.?
3) ?The plan has gone to the White House. That?s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we?ve gone to a different state.?
Watch it here (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/)
The guys who came to our anti-torture rally today were talking about this. They said the timing was also the same for the new moon. The moon chart I looked up (strangely enough on the military's website) said new moon on Oct. 22nd. Ships scheduled to arrive Oct. 21st. Do these guys start bombing on the new moon?
War Signals?
Dave Lindorff
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff
This article was updated Sept. 27 to clarify the timing of the shift in deployment of the US Naval strike force. While the Eisenhower was nearing a scheduled deployment following nuclear refueling, its departure from Norfolk was recently moved forward so that it can reach the Iran region before November.
As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.
As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."
According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 05, 2006, 05:54 PM NHFT
Do these guys start bombing on the new moon?
Yes. The US has a substantial advantage in night vision technology, hence it makes the most sense to begin an aerial campaign on the darkest night available.