|||Vzdele~Long time, hope all is well.
You're totally right. OF COURSE we only interfere where there's some national interest. If we were REALLY going for Humanitarian reasons, Americans would be REALLY pissed that we were wasting all that money for nothing. In fact, that's the real reason the GOP is all bent out of shape. they see a country with only 2% of the world's oil production, none of which makes it's way to the USA, and they're saying WTF? That and they just have to oppose everything Obama does anyway.
If you want a conspiracy here, let me ask you this: what's causing all the unrest throughout the middle east? are some smoked-filled-room power brokers fomenting revolt to install new democracies or is this the work of the jihadis, hoping to create the islamofacist superstate?
Look, being the conspiracy nut on a forum is a lot of responsibility. it seems like an easy job; you float in, post of incendiary links, make some big claims, stay in character, and have some fun. But no, I remember you accusing bush of pulling off 9-11 with secret federal agents. you can't go downhill from there. Vague references to the matrix and The Empire Strikes Back doesn't a conspiracy nut make. I expect more. I demand more.|||Quote:
If you want a conspiracy here, let me ask you this: what's causing all the unrest throughout the middle east? are some smoked-filled-room power brokers fomenting revolt to install new democracies or is this the work of the jihadis, hoping to create the islamofacist superstate?
Hi Steve, The banker.
Since you called me, I will respond. You left positive impression in my memories.
To create islamofacist superstate?
This scenario is possible, in one hand, it generates endless fear throughout the western world which generates stabile and massive military production. Weapon trade is crucial here; this trade is classified second in terms of World trade turnover, after oil. Drugs are on the third place, which is why you are in Afghanistan. Without the weapon production, dollar would be dead and therefore your economy. It is a very important column of your currency.
Also, you will always have an excuse to bomb and conquer a country by creating and falsifying events. You just say: he did it, and the western sheeple will accept it.
Installing pro-western dictatorships is also a good scenario. They give you cheap resources, they buy your worthless treasury bonds, they support your overall foreign policy, they suppress economic growth of their own country so that westerners could have more, they go along with the Malthusian policy which is excellent population control policy, they accept your shark-loans so that they will always be indebt to you – this also supports your overall global ponzi scheme….etc. Rael-politik as someone here likes to call it.
In any of these two possible solutions: your Usury Lords have a win-win combination.
But that’s not their ultimate goal. As you may no by now, you can always print much money as you like. That’s not what they want. They want power and the ultimate power is to control every human bean on this planet. And the only way to do it, is to pull down all the borders, to get every one in debt, to mix and melt all the nations in one big horde of faceless zombies.
This agenda has one big problem, it’s you, the people living in the West. Americans are their biggest obstacle. You see, in order to create large super-states, such as EU, you need to level their economies. Leveling means pulling someone’s standard of living down so that poor economies could rise up. They have to pull down the West and pump up others. As you can see, that’s happening right now, just look at the markets.
They know that is a hard job to do. You served them well for the last 200 years as you brought them technologies to destroy, to extend life expectancy (for them personally, not for people) and to scientifically control masses. You did this as a relatively free people. This is the only way to boost science and technology frontiers, pure slaves and servants are not capable of doing such things. Now it’s time to put you back where you belong historically. You are going down, in the mud, with the rest of us 3rd world nations. That’s how they see people.
Melting nations is a hard job. They use the tactic of the “boiling frog”, gradually, step by step, so that sheeple won’t wake up. This process is like marriage, rich people don’t want to mix with poor. This is because they know that they will have give up some of their fortune. You see, German people, today, would never accept to live together in one society with …lets say Albania. But if you pull them down gradually, next generation will accept it easily since they down have a lot to loose.
Creating high energy prices will do the job. It’s just one method of bringing you down. Chaos in the Middle East would serve that purpose.
You know that I envisioned this collapse long time ago. Much of you laughed at me. I don't mind, I know that people are not that wise. Historically, it was always that way in every nation. I remember when I advocated here, that you should sell your mortgages and get into renting because they will deliberately destroy the housing market. It was 2004 or 2005…don’t remember. How many of you are under water now?
Here is a clip of a guy who predicted in July 28 2008, that oil will fall from 148 to 50 in advance, in six months (8th minute in the clip). Did the oil fall under 50 in December 2008? He also called in 2007 that the oil will rise above 150 dollars. I also have that clip.
Last October he said: Look at the Middle East in 6 months. Oil will rise again.|||Quote:
As you can see, that�s happening right now, just look at the markets.
To which markets are you referring?
Quote:
He also called in 2007 that the oil will rise above 150 dollars. I also have that clip.
I guess he blew that prediction.
In any case, President Obama has some explaining to do regarding Libya. Is this his idea of hitting the reset button?
Oh, and Gitmo is still open. Shhh...
|||Quote:"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and � more profoundly � our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
I guess it's too bad that the people of Burma don't sell much oil.|||Quote:
I guess it's too bad that the people of Burma don't sell much oil.
You pick and choose quotes that fit your belief instead of changing your belief to fit the facts
you are implying that if Burma had oil that the US would intervene, but you totally all the other statements Obama made
there was a national coalition, NATO and the Arab League and the UN Security Council
do we have ALL of that in regarrd to Burma ?
Obama said other countries would have to share the responsibility and cost, both in money and in putting their soldiers at risk
have other countries been willing to do that with Burma ?
Obama also said he does not want to put US troops on the ground.
Would that be possible in the case of Burma ?
No.
To be effective in Burma would require putting troops on the ground, and greatly increasing the danger to our men and women in the armed forces.
Why don't you listed to the speech without all your preconceived beliefs. Listen with an open mind.
Obama said the US cannot be the police of the world and that we can't spend money and put our soldiers at risk for every human rights violation around the world.
If we could get NATO and Arab countries willing to commit troops and money to help in Burma, if we could help without putting American soldiers in danger, then we would.
But we're not going to do things alone. We're not going to bear the cost by ourselves. We're not going to put troops into another country when we already have troops dedicated to another war. That's the point.|||Quote:
I guess it's too bad that the people of Burma don't sell much oil.
That and the fact that Burma has a big border with China, and the Chinese are known for getting antsy about foreign militaries getting too close. The Chinese were persuaded not to use their security council veto against the Libyan resolution, but do you think the same would be true for a similar resolution against the Burmese regime?
NATO is intervening in Libya because it's perceived as being both worth doing and achievable. It's easy militarily because NATO planes can reach Libya from safe bases in Europe, and it's easy diplomatically because everyone knows Gadaffi is a nutcase and so he has no friends to speak up for him. Europe has a special interest because Libya is just across the Med from Italy, and they don't want boatloads of refugees turning up if they can help it, plus Europe wants to appear to have done something to support the Arab Spring.
All in all, it makes diplomatic sense. Whether it's actually a good idea is another question entirely.|||VZ~
I don't think it'll take a secret cabal to even things out. we're doing a knock up job of screwing everything up on our own.|||Quote:
You pick and choose quotes that fit your belief instead of changing your belief to fit the facts
you are implying that if Burma had oil that the US would intervene, but you totally all the other statements Obama made
there was a national coalition, NATO and the Arab League and the UN Security Council
do we have ALL of that in regarrd to Burma ?
Obama said other countries would have to share the responsibility and cost, both in money and in putting their soldiers at risk
have other countries been willing to do that with Burma ?
Obama also said he does not want to put US troops on the ground.
Would that be possible in the case of Burma ?
No.
To be effective in Burma would require putting troops on the ground, and greatly increasing the danger to our men and women in the armed forces.
Why don't you listed to the speech without all your preconceived beliefs. Listen with an open mind.
Obama said the US cannot be the police of the world and that we can't spend money and put our soldiers at risk for every human rights violation around the world.
If we could get NATO and Arab countries willing to commit troops and money to help in Burma, if we could help without putting American soldiers in danger, then we would.
But we're not going to do things alone. We're not going to bear the cost by ourselves. We're not going to put troops into another country when we already have troops dedicated to another war. That's the point.
If you think the U.S. participated in Libya for any reason other than retaining our role as "major asskickers" than you are mistaken.|||I for one think We would do well get a Tyrant out and then get out ourselves.
It takes year to build another one and I think we may not like the result much but it's better than what in place and you don't give that a second chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment