TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- truth.
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

Damn MisterOpus1, your posts are LONG, lol.

OK, I'm going to try and answer one for a change;

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 No, but for almost 6 years they had a Republican majority in Congress do their bidding for them. And whatever laws they didn't like, they simply added an illegal signing statement to bend it to their will.

It's still not enough to allow them to orchestrate grand conspiracies...as JC would have you believe.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 While I would contend that there are a number of Democrats that are easily corruptible by the same powers, I think you know why Dems. cave so easily on such issues - they're completely spineless and all it takes is for Bush to say, "aiding the terrorists" which is the equivalent of "BOO!!!!" and they scamper and cower to his wishes.

Not anymore, these days. In fact, I think many Democrats call attention to those kinds of automatic Republican assertions as a reason to doubt them from the get-go...but it is for this reason that I also think Republicans are being more judicious then ever in calling for any more anti-terrorism measures. All in all, I think there is balance in this area. I'm not worried about it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmm, so you would agree that it was a mistake for Bush Sr. to begin closing down bases and sizing down the military after the Cold War was over during his term, to which Clinton followed suit?

Newer weapons systems are constantly in development that are making the need for large bases and larger numbers of troops, unnecessary. It's called; "Economy of Force". You've probably heard of it. Today's military can get a LOT more done, for a lot less money and with fewer people. For example;

The newer aircraft carriers have a compliment of something like 1,000 to 1,500 fewer people that are needed to operate one than previous models.

"Smart" weapons, while expensive individually, are allowing single aircraft to take on multiple targets and hit them all, as compared to nearly a couple of decade ago, when launching a whole wing of planes to accomplish the same task with "dumb" bombs was the norm. In the end, it costs less to use smart weapons and there is less risk for crews.

The list goes on of the benefits for a technologically more advanced and hence, "smarter" military. Doing the same job with fewer people is one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don't have the figures with me, but while I agree with some of your premise, war has historically help keep a slumping economy from crashing to a certain degree, and this one was no different.

Yes, like I said; Being prepared for a quick war is economically viable and is smart; Long, drawn out "Policing" wars (like what's going on now in Iraq) can ultimately bankrupt us. I hope they can get in under control over there eventually...we'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This made absolutely no fucking sense. And nice try in these attempts to tie bin Laden and al Qaeda to Saddam, which according to the Duelfer Report had "no operational ties" between them. Good grief.

Tsk, tsk...so much vulgarity.

Well, I never said there were "operational ties". My post was clear. The facts are there, as to why we were attacked by Al Queda. You can find it for yourself, I'm sure...you're good at finding quotes.

But will you hear anyone in our government admit that this is why we attacked Iraq? Of course not. They're not about to admit that;

A.) Al Queda hit us in a way that we can't really ever defend against (Terrorism), so we needed to remove their motive for attack.

B.) The world oil situation had changed in the decade since the first Gulf War, and having Saddam control Iraqi oil wasn't going to work for us, or for any of our allies, anymore.

A government can never concede defeat. It's bad for public psyche...for its people's perception of their government. A lot of people, for example, still think Russia just "chose" to back down when Kennedy started the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Truth is; He cut a deal to pull our nuclear missiles out of Russia's close neighbor Turkey, in return for Russia taking theirs out of nearby Cuba.

And look at the way in which we attempted to put the best face on ending the Vietnam War. Nixon spoke of ending the war, but only if we could get "Peace with Honor." We couldn't just cut and run. Hence, it tooks YEARS to extricate ourselves from that mess.

To this day, many people in the Muslim world recall how we cut and run under Clinton's watch in Somalia. Many of the powers that be in this country feel that it sent the wrong message and potentially has caused irreparable harm to future military operations. Maybe that's even part of why we're having such a hard time in Iraq now? Who knows? I'm sure that the Insurgents are hoping we'll give up at some point, if they can out-last our tolerance for war.

In the end, the world has been and always will be about showing strength to your adversaries. As soon as they perceive you're weak in any way, they'll attack you (example; The way the expansionist Japanese did in WW2, believing that we were a divided country of "Isolationists" who didn't have the stomache for war). It's part of why we can't and shouldn't give up in Iraq.

Oil is the other part of why we won't. And it won't matter which political party is in office. We're in Iraq for the long haul. There's just no getting around our oil needs.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What the fuck do you mean "what was he hiding"?!?! ... Every fucking intelligence report that's come out since then. Where ya been all this time, champ?...

Again with the language! Bad Opus1, bad!

Anyway; Why is it that everyone trusts intel reports when they favor their P.O.V.? The reports that said WMD's were there appear to have been proved wrong. But now these intel reports that prove that they never were are suddenly accurate? Who knows, maybe one day they too will be proven inaccurate?

All I'm saying is that Saddam had time to dispose of those weapons if he chose to. He still has loyalists fighting for him, even though he's dead! Maybe a loyalist whistle-blower has yet to come forward? I think anything is possible over in that mess of a country, where Americans are not really liked very much.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Neither was Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans. Great show. Da hell does this pertain to anything?

Not much, when you take it out of context like you did

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmm, must have been why we invaded Saudi Arabia, given the fact that there's so much oil there, 15 out of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from there, yep, thank goodness we invaded them and turned them into a democracy too.

The Saudi Royal Family is friendly with us. No need to invade. They're willing to do business with us...maybe in part because they have a weak military, who knows? Besides; There is that little thing called "world perception" and supposed free market. We can't be exactly seen as trying to control ALL of the world oil supply. That would be grounds for starting World War Three in the eyes of the rest of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Wait..... What in God's green earth makes you think that corporates have YOUR best interests in mind at all? What compels you to believe that?

Go back and re-read my post. I said I'd rather have Corporate America looking out for me, versus our economic and political adversarias. Why is it that more Liberal Americans always make the assumption that given the chance, these nations would treat us better if they had the power in their hands, than corporate America would? What "on god's green earth" makes you believe such a thing?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Funny, I thought both political parties were trying to get us off of foreign oil? And I could have sworn a healthy portion of Democrats wanting to invest in alternative fuels so this whole oil argument would become a moot point?

World population is growing by absurd leaps and bounds. Water, food, housing, land, etc...it's all going to become more expensive. The last thing we'll be able to do is turn our backs on oil, when it's still relatively cheap and abundant comparatively, and when the infrastructure to support its use is well in place.

"Pie in the Sky Idealism"...that's all alternative fuel talk is for now.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco It's still not enough to allow them to orchestrate grand conspiracies...as JC would have you believe.

I never implied that I did believe such a conspiracy to the level that JC has shown, and if I did lead you or anyone else to believe I am giving credence to his argument by disagreeing with many of your points then I hope it's understood now.

quote:

Not anymore, these days. In fact, I think many Democrats call attention to those kinds of automatic Republican assertions as a reason to doubt them from the get-go...but it is for this reason that I also think Republicans are being more judicious then ever in calling for any more anti-terrorism measures. All in all, I think there is balance in this area. I'm not worried about it.

I wouldn't be too worried about it either if I were a Conservative or GOP supporter either, but the problems are there nonetheless. The biggest example I can discuss (and I have discussed it at length here) is the FISA Amendments. All Bush has to say is that the Democrats are aiding terrorists, and Reid jumps so high he capitulates to anything Bush wants despite the apparent discrepancies in Bush's actions and the current 1978 law. Nevermind the fact that the telecom industries took the government so seriously themselves when they cut off the FBI from their wiretaps because the Feds couldn't pay their bills on time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110...aid_phone_bills

But that's not slowing Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who is currently pushing for retroactive immunity for the telecom industries for aiding Bush in his illegal wiretaps, which directly counters the wishes of most Democrats and the netroot supporters as the issue is continuing to traverse in the courts.

Torture is another issue with the latest torture MCA Amendment to which the Dems. caved instantly once the threats came out about aiding terrorists.

So I disagree with your thoughts based on two terrorist themes purported by this Administration to which the Dems show absolutely no spine to fight with.

quote:

Newer weapons systems are constantly in development that are making the need for large bases and larger numbers of troops, unnecessary. It's called; "Economy of Force". You've probably heard of it. Today's military can get a LOT more done, for a lot less money and with fewer people. For example; The newer aircraft carriers have a compliment of something like 1,000 to 1,500 fewer people that are needed to operate one than previous models. "Smart" weapons, while expensive individually, are allowing single aircraft to take on multiple targets and hit them all, as compared to just over a decade ago, when launching a whole wing of planes to accomplish the same task with "dumb" bombs was the norm. In the end, it costs less to use smart weapons and there is less risk for crews. The list goes on of the benefits for a technologically more advanced and hence, "smarter" military. Doing the same job with fewer people is one of them.

I don't disagree, however can you see what you just said here contradicts your earlier statement about a larger budget on the military to which I was originally responding to?

quote:

Yes, like I said; Being prepared for a quick war is economically viable and is smart; Long, drawn out "Policing" wars (like what's going on now in Iraq) can ultimately bankrupt us. I hope they can get in under control over there eventually...we'll see.

Aside of withdrawing troops in some way or fashion, how would you propose this could get under control at the current state of affairs? Consider we are starting to withdraw the SURGE! troops now and will be back to pre-SURGE! troop levels by the summer, and though the reduction of violence is evident much of what is needed to take place, i.e. the political reconciliation, has not occurrred. This will entail our troops to remain until this happens, or until we leave on our own (which I would contend would put pressure on the Iraqi gov't to move a bit faster on their own, but I digress). So given this scenario, and given how our Administration (and yes our Democratic majority-led Congress) continues to sign over so much $, what else could be done to curtail the flow of (and unaccounted for) money to this war?

quote:

Tsk, tsk...so much vulgarity.

You expect any different from me since I've been here for over 7 years now?

quote:

Well, I never said there were "operational ties". My post was clear. The facts are there, as to why we were attacked by Al Queda. You can find it for yourself, I'm sure...you're good at finding quotes.

It wasn't your quick summary on al Qaeda I had disagreed with, rather your leap of logic to Saddam. You made a rather strange connection to him that I think you need to clarify further.

quote:

But will you hear anyone in our government admit that this is why we attacked Iraq? Of course not. They're not about to admit that; A.) Al Queda hit us in a way that we can't really ever defend against (Terrorism), so we needed to remove their motive for attack. B.) The world oil situation had changed in the decade since the first Gulf War, and having Saddam control Iraqi oil wasn't going to work for us, or for any of our allies, anymore.

How in any way does A) lead to B)? Again I agree somewhat with your quick summary as to why al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. That's been well-documented. But to go from that to saying we invaded Iraq because of oil is again a very big leap of logic that I think you'll need to support this assertion a bit better.

And you might also want to state why we were led to believe something else entirely different by this Administration as to why we were invading, as well as justifying the "means to an end" implication you seem to be getting at by Bush's motivations for invasion by lying to Americans, lying to the world, to Congress, etc. about ties to al Qaeda and his prior knowledge on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

One other thing needs to be mentioned - if al Qaeda was truly the enemy we needed to focus on(and I believe they are), for whatever reasons you propose whether it be for oil, threats to our economy, our lives, etc., then why the fuck did we abandon going after them in Tora Bora when we had those bastards on the run, so we can invade a country that had nothing to do with the bastards that attacked us on 9/11? Because I would hope that anyone can see that if they are such a true threat, taking them out and taking their leader out when we had the chance instead of abandoning that attack to corrupt Afghan warlords would seem to be the most logical and tactical action instead of invading another country that had nothing to do with them altogether.

We wouldn't be playing oil games with them at all, if I were to follow your logic via invasion of oil regimes in the Middle East. We'd simply just kill them. Rather neat, simple, and a bit more logical.

quote:

A government can never concede defeat. It's bad for public psyche...for its people's perception of their government. A lot of people, for example, still think Russia just "chose" to back down when Kennedy started the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Truth is; He cut a deal to pull our nuclear missiles out of Russia's close neighbor Turkey, in return for Russia taking theirs out of nearby Cuba. And look at the way in which we attempted to put the best face on ending the Vietnam War. Nixon spoke of ending the war, but only if we could get "Peace with Honor." We couldn't just cut and run. Hence, it tooks YEARS to extricate ourselves from that mess. To this day, many people in the Muslim world recall how we cut and run under Clinton's watch in Somalia. Many of the powers that be in this country feel that it sent the wrong message and potentially has caused irreparable harm to future military operations. Maybe that's even part of why we're having such a hard tie in Iraq, now Who knows? I'm sure that the Insurgents are hoping we'll give up at some point, if they can out-last our tolerance for war.

I hope you do realize that it wasn't Clinton who wanted to withdraw from Somalia. Rather, it was Congress who voted to cut the funding for it, which forced Clinton's hand. Folks like McCain:

quote:

�Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm�s way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not.� http://www.noiraqescalation.org/press/?id=0103

and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

quote:

"The narrow issue before us tonight is simply how do you leave? We are leaving, we all agree on that. � The only issue here tonight is how we leave and, in my judgment, the Byrd amendment better defines the proper exit for the United States in this most unfortunate experience in Somalia, at least since May." http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00314

voted in favor of the Amendment to strip the funding. It's not that I don't disagree with you entirely on this point, but I did want to point out the obvious ironies between now and then, and much of it seems to be attributed to political maneuvering rather than noble causes. Otherwise you'd see consistency in the message over time, which is clearly not the case here.

quote:

In the end, the world has been and always will be about showing strength to your adversaries. As soon as they perceive you're weak in any way, they'll attack you (example; The way the expansionist Japanese did in WW2, believing that we were a divided country of "Isolationists" who didn't have the stomache for war). It's part of why we can't and shouldn't give up in Iraq.

I think you're argument and example is a bit overly simplistic. Surely you don't believe this was the only reason why the Japanese attacked us? That speaks of nothing as to the tactical opportunism involved with attacking us at Pearl Harbor. It wasn't merely a means of attack simply because they viewed us as "weak", and I think you know that.

Now again I can't disagree entirely with your premise about showing strength, but it is a bit overly simplistic on world views, especially in lieu of our current debacle in Iraq. While I can agree that there's a certain element of pride, masculinity, whatever the hell you want to call it as to why this Administration doesn't want to back down when things are not moving forward as they should, eventually common sense will have to prevail should the current situation continue, in the similar manner as it prevailed with Nixon and Kissinger having to back out of Vietnam once he realized it was a no-win situation.

Forcing democracy with a gun in the mouth works only for so long, but it completely undermines the whole idea of democracy in the first place. Wars are great for self-defense and invasion, but they do very little to help install democratic governments, ESPECIALLY in regions that have very little to no understanding what democracy means.

Only through diplomacy and through that foreign government picking itself up and moving itself along towards those goals can democracy flourish. And in the current situation where we have provided nearly all the security and have allowed the Iraqi political process to stall without true motivation to move forward, this simply will not happen for them. Eventually the next Administration will understand this (if they don't already), and will take appropriate action.

quote:

Oil is the other part of why we won't. And it won't matter which political party is in office. We're in Iraq for the long haul. There's just no getting around our oil needs.

Again I find it strange how our Administration seemingly left out this apparent rationale for our invasion. Guess it wouldn't have sold very well to the American people, Congress, and to the rest of the world, would it? Funny how global threats of WMDs and al Qaeda connections took center stage instead, ain't it?

quote:

Again with the language! Bad Opus1, bad!

You seriously not used to this from me yet? Guess you haven't been to the PDD for a while.

quote:

Anyway; Why is it that everyone trusts intel reports when they favor their P.O.V.?

Because they were the most objective reports from unbiased sources we could possibly use? Strange concept, huh?

And it wasn't just from one report, BTW, but from all of them. Hard to consider nonpartisan reports being so biased.

quote:

The reports that said WMD's were there appear to have been proved wrong.

There was intelligence that showed WMDs were nonexistent or at least nowhere near what the Administration bolstered. However those were largely ignored through the stovepipe (as those links I gave demonstrate).

It was also known and stated in such reports, i.e. Duelfer, Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence, Robb-Silberman, 911 Commission, etc. that intelligence made by those agencies that Bush utilized was not particularly strong on its merits. Operation Curveball immediately comes to mind (and examined in one of the links I gave previously).

quote:

But now these intel reports that prove that they never were are suddenly accurate? Who knows, maybe one day they too will be proven inaccurate?

Yeah, and perhaps the Easter Bunny might be real someday too?

I prefer to go on the best available evidence we currently have, rather than make decisions and assertions on idle speculation.

But that's just my own personal preference.

quote:

All I'm saying is that Saddam had time to dispose of those weapons if he chose to.

How could he dispose of weaponry that he did not have? Again I would encourage you to examine the Duelfer Report in detail. It explains all of Saddam's capabilities, when he had those capabilities, when he hadn't such capabilities, etc.:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/index.html

quote:

He still has loyalists fighting for him, even though he's dead! Maybe a loyalist whistle-blower has yet to come forward? I think anything is possible over in that mess of a country, where Americans are not really liked very much.

See above.

quote:

Not much, when you take it out of context like you did

Simply demonstrating your speculation has no substantive merit, especially when weighed against the well-known evidence we have now.

quote:

The Saudi Royal Family is friendly with us. No need to invade. They're willing to do business with us...maybe in part because they have a weak military, who knows? Besides; There is that little thing called "world perception" and supposed free market. We can't be exactly seen as trying to control ALL of the world oil supply. That would be grounds for starting World War Three in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Hmmm, interesting. All this time I thought a "free-market" entails we allow businesses/countries to compete against each other with a hands-off approach, which is consented by both the consumers and sellers. And in such an environment, buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html

One would hardly say such an approach was taken by us, if we are to go by your premise as to why we invaded Iraq.

And calling the Saudis "friendly" is rather insulting, especially in lieu of their financial support of the Sunni insurgents who are killing our troops in Iraq.

Furthermore, I do hope you realize that our Administration does some rather interesting business with other dictators and countries that could hardly be called, "friendly" to us. Yet we do not invade them for their commodities, nor do we undermine your premise of a free-market with one country but not another simply because the former is more "friendly" to us.

IOW, your rationale of a "free-market" is rather selective and holds little merit.

quote:

Go back and re-read my post. I said I'd rather have Corporate America looking out for me, versus our economic and political adversarias. Why is it that more Liberal Americans always make the assumption that given the chance, these nations would treat us better if they had the power in their hands, than corporate America would? What "on god's green earth" makes you believe such a thing?

It's not that I don't agree with you to a minor extent, and I certainly don't want the opposite to occur which is some totalitarian regime in control of my country either. But I must say I find it rather striking and ironic that such countries like the ones you mentioned just so happen to have us by the balls financially given how much $ we owe them, thanks in large part to our current Administration's spending and tax cut habits which have put us in the red on government revenue. Their actions have given our next generation a birth tax that has to be paid off to these socialist/totalitarian regimes across the world. Kinda sickening, really.

quote:

World population is growing by absurd leaps and bounds. Water, food, housing, land, etc...it's all going to become more expensive. The last thing we'll be able to do is turn our backs on oil, when it's still relatively cheap and abundant comparatively, and when the infrastructure to support its use is well in place. "Pie in the Sky Idealism"...that's all alternative fuel talk is for now.

Only because no one in this Administration (and admittedly in previous Democratic Administrations) have moved forward with such plans to successfully wean us all foreign oil dependence yet. Now admittedly this is speculation on MY part as to what would occur if such actions were taken, simply because they haven't been taken yet. But at the current rate it's hard not to want an alternative, even with the arguments of environmentalism and global warming put aside. Strictly from an economic perspective this current usage of oil simply can not last, and the sooner we move forward from a discussion to action towards those alternatives, the better we will be prepared.

I don't agree with Pat Buchanan too often, but his point about American imperialism and our debt to these totalitarian and dictator regimes goes well with one of my earlier points:

quote:

To stave off recession, the Fed appears anxious to slash interest rates another half-point, if not more. That will further weaken the dollar and raise the costs of the imports to which we have become addicted. While all this is bad news for the Republicans, it is worse news for the republic. As we save nothing, we must borrow both to pay for the imported oil and foreign manufactures upon which we have become dependent. We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy. We borrow from the nations we defend so that we may continue to defend them. To question this is an unpardonable heresy called "isolationism." http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24464

Again, put aside the environmental/global warming arguments aside for a moment (even though I'd contend they go hand in hand with the economic one), economically speaking this current policy of foreign oil dependence is just not sustainable whatsoever. It's too shortsighted to believe we can continue down this path. We have to start putting more efforts into alternative sources, and the sooner we start the better.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Again, put aside the environmental/global warming arguments aside for a moment (even though I'd contend they go hand in hand with the economic one), economically speaking this current policy of foreign oil dependence is just not sustainable whatsoever. It's too shortsighted to believe we can continue down this path. We have to start putting more efforts into alternative sources, and the sooner we start the better.

So true +1

We need a president who like JFK will announce a plan like, "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade."

If I was president (and I wish I was), I would announce a plan to become an energy exporter by 2020.

Bush Pardon's HIMSELF for 9/11 warcrimes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

Please AMERICA. Stop being a good Democrat, stop being a good Republican, and start being a GOOD AMERICAN.

http://del.icio.us/toolman667/truth

I have numerous links to research I have collected.. you need to read thru ALL of it, to argue whether or not I am crazy. The picture is painted only when freeing your mind.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell


Please educate yourself, and stop taking everything that the BOOB TUBE tells you, as truth. The internet is out there. Open your minds. If you are interested, please search for Aaron Russo, and look into interviews with him, read about Benjamin fulford the Forbes investigative journalist, read into Greg Palast, and then make conclusions for yourself.

Re: Bush Pardon's HIMSELF for 9/11 warcrimes

quote:

Originally posted by toolman667 Please educate yourself, and stop taking everything that the BOOB TUBE tells you, as truth. The internet is out there. Open your minds. If you are interested, please search for Aaron Russo, and look into interviews with him, read about Benjamin fulford the Forbes investigative journalist, read into Greg Palast, and then make conclusions for yourself.

we've done all that mate, and we think you're crazy. stop accusing us of lack of knowledge or research simply because we disagree with you

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

"In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."

"In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."

"It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning."

"Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals."

"Many people genuinely do not want to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings."

"Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness."

"Myths which are believed in tend to become true."

"Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception."

"On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time"

"Part of the reason for the ugliness of adults, in a child's eyes, is that the child is usually looking upwards, and few faces are at their best when seen from below"

"Patriotism is usually stronger than class hatred, and always stronger than internationalism."

"Progress and reaction have both turned out to be swindles. Seemingly, there is nothing left but quietism robbing reality of its terrors by simply submitting to it."

"Society has always seemed to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice."

George Orwell


peace.

"random and irrelevant platitudes are not a substitute for real intellectual discourse"

-pkcRAISTLIN.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."


-Good Ol' insight from George Orwell

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN "random and irrelevant platitudes are not a substitute for real intellectual discourse" -pkcRAISTLIN.

"Obama Takes on Homophobia, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia in Speech at MLK's Church"


http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/sp...=815418#c815418


"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." -George Orwell

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell

http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml

Does america want this?

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

WE ALL remember this. Lets apply it to current knowledge of whats going on around us.

quote:

Originally posted by toolman667 Does america want this? http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf WE ALL remember this. Lets apply it to current knowledge of whats going on around us.

Aparently yes.

eschelon is a US initiative and it has been around for years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...111499-idx.html

To be honest, if you thought that the internet has any safe corners you're rather mistaken.

It's best to assume that everything you do on line can be (is) monitored if it's done in English (and likely farsi too).

This is probably going to be one of the bigger challenges about the next decades, people are going to have to get used to having less privacy. We're still no where near the French Identity cards or the British level of CCTV monitoring.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Aparently yes. eschelon is a US initiative and it has been around for years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...111499-idx.html To be honest, if you thought that the internet has any safe corners you're rather mistaken. It's best to assume that everything you do on line can be (is) monitored if it's done in English (and likely farsi too). This is probably going to be one of the bigger challenges about the next decades, people are going to have to get used to having less privacy. We're still no where near the French Identity cards or the British level of CCTV monitoring.

Ya. I've read into echelon.


But I disagree with you on the internet. Considering my background into the field, and what I have learned using the technologies involved in building a website. It is illogical that the internet is being controlled currently in its current form. Certain "web sites" are controlled by different interests, but if you've taken any of the red pill, its easy to identify... Try to find out how easy it is to build your own webserver with free software, then putting it on the internet is easy, no one controls that. But corporations seem to be the unbelievable ones these days. So personal human webpages, and gathering of thoughts becomes the answer. blogging is a huge step.

This is not to say it cant change, and become controlled. Governments/corporations are trying to do so currently, and people need to exercise their "civil disobedience" to speak up against it. If you look for groups out there that are for the freedom of the internet, and stopping Internet censoring, and the freedom of information, they have quite a following, with the right idea. Altho, most MSM goons think that no one is talking about it, so therefore have no idea its a huge thing.

Opus's Veggie Rice bowl:

Ingredients:

1 Yellow squash
1 Zucchini
1/2 Onion (yellow, white, or Red)
1/2 Red Pepper
1 Poblano Pepper (can also use Anaheim or any other mild Pepper)
Bag of sliced Mushrooms (optional)
Olive oil
1 12 oz can of Black Beans
2 Cups of uncooked White Rice
Jalape�o Peppers
Salsa (your choice)
Sour cream or guacamole (or both!)
Sharp Chedder Cheese

Rub:
1 Tablespoon Cumin
2 Tablespoons Chili Powder
2 Tablespoons of Paprika
1 Teaspoon of ground Mustard seed
1 Tablespoon of Garlic Powder
Pinch of Allspice
Pinch of Celery Seed
1 Tablespoon of Salt
Pinch of Pepper

Instructions:
1. Combine the Rub mixture together and set aside
2. Heat the outside grill (or inside grill) to medium-high heat.
3. Prepare the rice per instructions on the back of the bag/box.
4. Cut the squash, zucchini, and onion into 1/4 inch slices . Cut the peppers into 1 inch slithers. Brush these veggies with olive oil on both sides. Once brushed with olive oil, lightly coat both sides with rub.
5. Once the grill is heated, place the veggies on top and cook for about 4-5 min. Flip over and cook the other side. Remove once veggies are fully cooked through.
6. If cooking the mushrooms, cook in a skillet until soft and darkened.
7. Mix the rice and black beans together. Place the cooked veggies on top as desired. Top with jalape�os, cheese, sour cream/guac, and salsa as desired.

It's also terrific with chicken. Just use the rub in the same manner like the veggies. Enjoy!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Opus's Veggie Rice bowl: Ingredients: 1 Yellow squash 1 Zucchini 1/2 Onion (yellow, white, or Red) 1/2 Red Pepper 1 Poblano Pepper (can also use Anaheim or any other mild Pepper) Bag of sliced Mushrooms (optional) Olive oil 1 12 oz can of Black Beans 2 Cups of uncooked White Rice Jalape�o Peppers Salsa (your choice) Sour cream or guacamole (or both!) Sharp Chedder Cheese Rub: 1 Tablespoon Cumin 2 Tablespoons Chili Powder 2 Tablespoons of Paprika 1 Teaspoon of ground Mustard seed 1 Tablespoon of Garlic Powder Pinch of Allspice Pinch of Celery Seed 1 Tablespoon of Salt Pinch of Pepper Instructions: 1. Combine the Rub mixture together and set aside 2. Heat the outside grill (or inside grill) to medium-high heat. 3. Prepare the rice per instructions on the back of the bag/box. 4. Cut the squash and zucchini into 1/4 inch slices. Cut the onion in 1/4 inch slices as well longways. Cut the peppers into 1 inch slithers. Brush these veggies with olive oil on both sides. Once brushed with olive oil, lightly coat both sides with olive oil. 5. Once the grill is heated, place the veggies on top and cook for about 4-5 min. Flip over and cook the other side. Remove once veggies are fully cooked through. 6. If cooking the mushrooms, cook in a skillet until soft and darkened. 7. Mix the rice and black beans together. Place the cooked veggies on top as desired. Top with jalape�os, cheese, sour cream/guac, and salsa as desired. It's also terrific with chicken. Just use the rub in the same manner like the veggies. Enjoy!

yum! now that's the kind of truth i can swallow!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don't disagree, however can you see what you just said here contradicts your earlier statement about a larger budget on the military to which I was originally responding to?

I'm not advocating bloated military budgets. I'm just defending the one will already have. It's worked so far for a reason.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Aside of withdrawing troops in some way or fashion, how would you propose this could get under control at the current state of affairs? Consider we are starting to withdraw the SURGE! troops now and will be back to pre-SURGE! troop levels by the summer, and though the reduction of violence is evident much of what is needed to take place, i.e. the political reconciliation, has not occurrred. This will entail our troops to remain until this happens, or until we leave on our own (which I would contend would put pressure on the Iraqi gov't to move a bit faster on their own, but I digress). So given this scenario, and given how our Administration (and yes our Democratic majority-led Congress) continues to sign over so much $, what else could be done to curtail the flow of (and unaccounted for) money to this war?

I don't have any proposal. It's a mess. All we can do is keep toughing it out until we hopefully wear down the enemy and come out on top... with the assistance of our new Iraq Allies, of course.

Cross your fingers and hope!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It wasn't your quick summary on al Qaeda I had disagreed with, rather your leap of logic to Saddam. You made a rather strange connection to him that I think you need to clarify further.

Really? He's been a thorn in the world's oil-dependent side since the first Gulf War. If we couldn't close those bases in Saudi Arabia because he was still a threat, what's the next logical step then to removing the threat? Answer; Remove him from power.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 How in any way does A) lead to B)? Again I agree somewhat with your quick summary as to why al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. That's been well-documented. But to go from that to saying we invaded Iraq because of oil is again a very big leap of logic that I think you'll need to support this assertion a bit better.

Well, I also believe that times had changed by 2002, as far as the world oil situation was concerned. Keeping Saddam in his own yard with embargoes and a military presence in S.A. was no longer good enough. He had to go. His oil was needed. By us and by the rest of the free world. And I for one don't have a problem with that. It's either empower a Dictator (by letting him control that oil and rebuild his Army with the funds from said oil sales, so that he can expand out and grab even MORE oil from his neighbors, and build an even larger army, etc...you can see where this all ends, no?), or empower my government. I'll take my team over Saddam's any day...as would much of the planet.

From beginning to end, it's been about oil. 9-11 was really just a side-show. An unintentional bi-product of religious extremists attaching themselves to a cause (to eradicate us from the Holy Land), born out of a much larger concern on our part to control world safety and economy, via middle-east oil. They are related only by coincidence, not by any sort of direct association or "grand conspiracy". Why do they have to be linked for you to believe this?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And you might also want to state why we were led to believe something else entirely different by this Administration as to why we were invading, as well as justifying the "means to an end" implication you seem to be getting at by Bush's motivations for invasion by lying to Americans, lying to the world, to Congress, etc. about ties to al Qaeda and his prior knowledge on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

I've said it in other threads, and I'm sure that you've read it, but I feel confident they thought the WMD's were there, they just had bad intel. It would make no sense to claim there were WMD's, KNOWING in fact then that there were none, only so they could be criticized for going to war for "lying" once we got in there and the truth about WMD's came out.

But the reason why you can't just tell the Average American (or for that matter, ANY of the people's of the world) that you're fighting for THEIR oil, is because most adults are like illogical children. They think the world is all puppy-dogs and ice-cream and they are just not REALISTIC about their conspicuous oil needs, as Consumers who are totally responsible for all of this fighting. They're not unlike many people who eat steak; They love eating meat and they're not going to ever stop, but don't want to talk about the realities of the cow's suffering which brought them the meat!

The world has been and always will be about SURVIVAL. We're all eating each other and the things around us in order to live. It's nature's way. We shouldn't apologize for it. It is what it is! It's "Natural".

But as the most complex animal on the planet, we humans have some wide and unusual consumption needs. Without oil, we're set back DRAMATICALLY in terms of safety and simple survival. Should the oil of the world be traded freely? Yes, I believe that it should be and that it will be now. But it wouldn't have been under Saddam or Dictators like him. What's worse is that he'd have used it to attempt to control the entire world if he could have.

Look, when I say "us" and "we" in terms of controlling the oil, I mean "us and our allies". But NO ONE in the world gets to control it ALL. That's a simple fact. The balance in this world comes in the form our enemies not allowing us to create that kind of power imbalance...much the way we would not let Saddam create his power imbalance. We're not about to try and run it all ourselves, because we don't want or need a war with the rest of the world. As the Godfather himself would say; "Wars are bad for business". Very true!

So at the end of the day it comes down to a simple question; Who do you want controlling world oil supplies? Us? Or people like Saddam?

Not a hard choice to make, no?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 One other thing needs to be mentioned - if al Qaeda was truly the enemy we needed to focus on(and I believe they are), for whatever reasons you propose whether it be for oil, threats to our economy, our lives, etc., then why the fuck did we abandon going after them in Tora Bora when we had those bastards on the run, so we can invade a country that had nothing to do with the bastards that attacked us on 9/11? Because I would hope that anyone can see that if they are such a true threat, taking them out and taking their leader out when we had the chance instead of abandoning that attack to corrupt Afghan warlords would seem to be the most logical and tactical action instead of invading another country that had nothing to do with them altogether.

Al Quada, as I said before, is a threat, but they're not the MAIN threat, as far as the U.S. Government is concerned. By most accounts, we have the threat relatively contained at the moment and are working on wiping it out (all over the world).

We most definitely screwed up at Tora Bora though, I grant you that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 We wouldn't be playing oil games with them at all, if I were to follow your logic via invasion of oil regimes in the Middle East. We'd simply just kill them. Rather neat, simple, and a bit more logical.

Other countries of the world would perceive us as a dangerous and an out of control threat, and we'd be in a world war in no time. Not a good plan. Not to mention public opinion would never stand for it here...oh, and also not to mention that it's way fucking wrong!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I hope you do realize that it wasn't Clinton who wanted to withdraw from Somalia. Rather, it was Congress who voted to cut the funding for it, which forced Clinton's hand.

Mmm...in the immediate after-math of the black-hawk down incident, we could have done more. In the long run, it really doesn't matter which party in the government was most responsible; Cutting and running like we did was probably a mistake. This country suffers a lot still form "Vietnam-itus"...maybe rightly so, but we need to pick our battles more carefully over-all, IMHO. Vietnam=never should have gone there. Somolia was nothing like Vietnam. We just chose to cave to our fears. But look at what happens in countries where we don't intervene, due to Vietnam-repeat fears...countries like Rwanda for example.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think you're argument and example is a bit overly simplistic. Surely you don't believe this was the only reason why the Japanese attacked us? That speaks of nothing as to the tactical opportunism involved with attacking us at Pearl Harbor. It wasn't merely a means of attack simply because they viewed us as "weak", and I think you know that.

I said the "EXPANSIONIST Japanese"...I think that made my point clear what their first intentions were. Their presumption of our lack of fortitude merely fit in with their expansionist goals, see?



Damn dude, your posts kill me, they're so LONG, lol.

I'll try to get to the rest later. I have to go out and try to have a life now, lol

C 'yah soon!

quote:

The House of Rothschild from �Descent into Slavery� by Des Grifin Ch 6 January 24th, 2008 by PatriotG @ http://www.restoretherepublic.org/ �Crown� refers to the owners of the Bank of England. Their identities are an offical secret. According to E.C. Knuth, the �international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric �Crown� as its symbol of power and has its headquarter in the ancient city of London�the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution� is not subject to regulation by the British parliament and is in effect a sovereign world power.� (The Empire of the City, p. 59) The powerful conspirators are made up largely of the international bankers, and the Illuminati, which is a super-rich organization, which controls the mainstream media, workforce, education system, companies, banks, energy supplies and governments. They are controlled by the richest people in the world such as the super-rich Rothschild and Rockefeller families. They also hide behind many organizations such as the United Nations, the WTO and the Council on Foreign relations. There seems to be little doubt that the Rothschilds continue to influence the world economy, and it is known that they are squarely behind the movement to unite all the western European nations into a single political entity which is just another step towards one-world government. THE CITY When people think of England such terms as �Great Britain,� �The When people hear of �The Crown� they automatically think of the King or Queen; when they hear of �London� or the �The City� they instantly think of the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official residence. To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define our terms: When we speak of �The City� we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile �Greater London� area. The population of �The City� is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of �Greater London� (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million. The �Crown� is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or �The City.� �The City� is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world. The City, which is often called �the wealthiest square mile on earth,� is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britian�s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd�s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds. TWO MONARCHS The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in �London�, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: �The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.� It certainly is and certainly does ! When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits �the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no furhter than service uniforms.� The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city. The reason should be clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject ! The monarch always leads the way. The subject always stays a pace or two behind ! The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britian is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These �fronts� go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D�israeli wrote: �So you see� the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes� (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233). This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen�s book: �The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget Director] is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will [back-fire]� it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador complained to me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. �The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden� launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor�s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard� (p. 18). History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the �invisible and inaudible� force centered in the City. The City calls the tune. The �visible and audible leaders� are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite. HISTORY of the �CITY� From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth century the British Monarchs ruled supreme - their word was law. They truly were Sovereign in every sense of the word. As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in the City also grew - only at a faster pace. In 1694 the privately owned Bank of England (a central bank) was established to finance the profligate ways of William III. The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used William Paterson as a �front.� The names of the founders have never been made public. It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to dominate and control the affairs of Britain. Their influence and wealth grew in leaps and bounds in the century that followed. �The Illustrated Universal History,� 1878, records that �Great Britain emerged from her long contest with France with increased power and national glory. Her Empire was greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased� But with all this national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in extreme wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the struggle of the previous twenty years. It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control of the British economy, the Bank of England and the City - and, through their other branches, control of the other European nations. Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the far-flung reaches of the globe. During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all international trade was carried in British ships. Other shippers had to pay the Crown royalties or commissions for the �privilege� of doing business on the high seas. During these years �Britannia Ruled the Waves� through the domination of the mostmodern and powerful navy known up to that time. TWO SEPARATE EMPIRES To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire. All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign - i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the British Empire. All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Eqypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Sinapore, Hong Kong and Gilbraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks) were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them. They were privately owned and ruled by a private club in London, England known as the Crown. The Crown�s representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and death over all the people under his juristiction. There were no courts and no method of appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the representatives of the Crown. Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown colony was subject to the Crown law. He couldn�t appeal to British law as it didn�t apply. As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown�s supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met with terrible retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown. The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn�t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the British aristocracy who were part of the �City� machine accumulated vast fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and standing in British Society. Had the wealth been spread out among all the people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of the British people were barely making ends meet. Many were impoverished to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendor. The poor British peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action. Simon Haxey in �England�s Money Lords,� drew his readers� attention to the �total disregard or open contempt displayed by the aristocracy� towards the British people. He also asked, �What part do the colonial people play in the battle for democracy when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such rights� (pp. 114,115) David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the City and its total contempt for the �wretches� who were not part of the �club.� In a 1910 speech he stated: �We do most of the business of the world. We carry more international trade - probably ten times more - than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that wretched foreigner. I�m taxing the foreigner for all I know� You�ve heard a good deal of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more� We get the foreigner in four ways by that. The first way we leave to Lord Rothschild�� (�Better Times�, published 1910). About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that ��financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts� Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation�s welfare but soley in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich� This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which �it would not be in the public interest to divulge��� (E.C. Knuth, �Empire of �The City��, p. 65). All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and 84 of �Pan Germanism,� written in 1913: �The London and Paris bankers [the international bankers] control the available resources of the world at any one moment, and can therefore practically permit or prevent the undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million dollars actual value�� The international bankers �own probably the major part of the bonded indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in London or Paris. Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers. In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world�s enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The world itself, in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still wealthier.� In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: �The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence. Obligated to show action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted and outwaited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served them well, have also profited well�. (�Empire of �The City,�� p. 65). How did they do it? That�s the recurring question in Niall Ferguson�s formidable The House of Rothschild, a history of the legendary European-Jewish banking family. �There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild,� said a French journalist in 1841, giving voice to the popular suspicion that the dynasty and its money held sway over the affairs of nations. The globalists are centred on the Rothschild-dominated Bank of England, MI-6 and the secretive Round Table society, which spawned the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The American branches include the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA and the Rockefeller foundations which all ensure the American people continue to finance and enforce one-world tyranny. The Bush family has owed its prominence to this cabal ever since grandfather Prescott Bush helped arrange financing for Nazism. They also will use the attacks to gain control of the few nations in the world who don�t allow Rothschild central banks and so less than one month after these attacks, US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who don�t have a Rothschild controlled central bank. Ancient Babylon, I mean Iraq, is now one of six nations left in the world who don�t have a Rothschild controlled central bank. There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. 1998: The European Central Bank is set up in Frankfurt, the city from which the Rothschilds originate. 2001: On September 11th the attack on the World Trade Center is orchestrated by Britain, America and Israel under the orders of the Rothschilds as a pretext for removing the liberty of people worldwide in exchange for security, just as they did with the Reichstag fire in Germany where the citizens were lied to in order to give up liberty for security. They also will use the attacks to gain control of the few nations in the world who dont allow Rothschild central banks and so less than one month after these attacks, US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who dont have a Rothschild controlled central bank. The Labour Party leader and likely next Prime Minister of the UK is Tony Blair, a Bilderberger and Elite �chosen one�. Blair attended the 1993 Bilderberg meeting in Greece with his �opponent� Kenneth Clarke. During his 1996 visit to the United States, Blair met a series of Elite frontmen, including Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve and George Soros, the global financial manipulator who operates under orders from the House of Rothschild. All of them are Bilderbergers. Behind the creation of the European Union is the Bilderberg Group, the deeply secretive cartel of leading bankers, heads of transnational corporations, politicians, academics and �opinion formers�, media bosses and military chiefs. The Bilderberg Group is part of a network including the Royal Institute of International Affairs (UK), the Council on Foreign Relations (USA) and the Trilateral Commission (USA, Europe, Japan). All work to the same agenda. The European Union we see today has been designed from the very beginning by those who control the Bilderberg Group - the House of Rothschild, the Rockefellers, and the �blue blood� families (tribes) of Europe. The transformation of Europe into a massive centralised dictatorship is only a strand of the global web of deceit I detail in �And The Truth Shall Set You Free� , but it is a key part of the New World Order agenda for centralised control of the planet. The Elite who dominate the global financial and political systems are seeking to impose a world government, central bank and currency which would oversee and dictate the policies of three groupings of superstates. A small number of extremely wealthy people, descendants of wealthy families in Europe and the U.S, own a major part of the material wealth of the world. This power is concentrated in London which is the centre of the world banking system. The control they exercise is kept within the original families and passed down from generation to generation. They are highly organised, operating in secret through a web of �private� organisations. This group is known as the Global Elite. Their wealth is accumulating on a compound basis. They determine the course of history, through virtual control of the world economy. The Bretton Woods conference also structured Anglo-American hegemony over world oil supplies and led to the creation of the all-powerful International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) which, under the control of the US Federal Reserve System, since then, deliberately and ruthlessly, have put most of the so-called Third World into extreme debt. It has been said that the WB and IMF �have arguably done more harm to more people than any other non-military institutions in history.� As Jesse Jackson put it in 1993: �They no longer use bullets and ropes. They use the World Bank and the IMF.� Between 1982 and 1990, debtor countries paid back more than $1,300 billion but began the nineties 61 percent more in debt than they were in 1992. Sub-Saharan African debt alone increased by 113 percent.� In 1993, for every one pound given in aid, rich nations took back 3 pounds in debt payments. Nigerian writer and environmentalist, Ken Saro-Wiwa, roundly condemned the World Bank�s position: The IMF was never designed to help the Third World or end poverty. It was established by the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 to restore economic and financial order to the Western world. There was no element of compassion for humanity in its formulation. The Fund�s aim is first and foremost to assure the interests of developed countries. We make or break human life every day of every year as probably no other force has ever done in the past or will ever do again. Coupled with these two exceptionally powerful organisations are the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), formulated shortly after the WB and IMF, and finally signed in 1993, and the new World Trade Organisation (WTO) of 1995. This quadruplet is now able to enforce throughout the world the doctrine of corporate libertarianism - a transnational corporate bill of rights - and God help any country that gets in the way. That the Rothschilds are Jewish and that their commitment has always been fully towards Judaism is of no doubt. Reports of Mayer Amschel Rothschild consulting and debating the Talmud on a regular basis with Orthodox Rabbis are recorded in Rothschild history, and subsequently, the Rothschilds became the primary moving force behind world Zionism (see the �Balfour Declaration�). Furthermore, in addition to all of the above, the pattern of historical Zionist successes in the 20th century clearly proves that the Rothschilds and their conspirators and collaborators are in control of the plan of the Illuminati for one-world government under the New World Order, and are the prevailing influence in the world since the beginning of the 19th century. And what better government to control could there be in the world for intrepid international financiers such as the Rothschilds and their conspirators and collaborators. Check out this AP story, archived on an Arnold Schwartzenegger fan website, which documents Arnold�s and Buffet�s 2002 meeting in the Rothschild ancestral home. Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, �Give me control over a nation�s currency and I care not who makes its laws.� All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the nation�s money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the Bank of England. How are all of the following individuals and organizations connected? Freemasonry, The Federal Reserve, The Rothschild�s, The Rockefeller�s, The Carnegies, The Council On Foreign Relations, The United Nations, the Bilderbergers, The Club of Rome, The Trilateral Commission, Lucis Trust,The World Constitution and Parliament Association, Ted Turner, the Jesuits, and the Illuminati. All of your questions about GLOBALIZATION, which began with these organizations and individuals will be answered in this detailed, informative expose. LUCIFERS NETWORK Masters Of The New World Order connects individuals, banks, oil cartels, foundations, organizations, corporations, and the main ringleaders who have NETWORKED the world into a MASTER PLAN for a NEW WORLD ORDER OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. Unlike other books about GLOBAL CONSPIRACIES, Sunstar#65533;s work is detailed, thorough, and will answer questions you have been asking about concerning CONSPIRACY THEORIES surrounding GLOBALIZATION. Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today�s dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years! Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservativer ange of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise: $1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)

Let's start with the basics, a premise of your post is that the Bank of England is privately owned.

quote:

The Bank�s relationship with Parliament Big BenAs a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank�s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee. * Through regular hearings on the Bank�s Inflation Report at which Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) members give evidence * Through appointment hearings for new MPC members in order to satisfy itself that they meet the criteria of professional competence and independence The Treasury Committee has no statutory power of veto on MPC appointments but it does report to Parliament on its assessments of appointees. In 2001 the House of Lords appointed the Select Committee on Economic Affairs following the conclusion of the work of its predecessor, the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Although this Committee has a wide-ranging remit, it announced that it would continue to monitor the MPC and the monetary policy framework. Click on the links to find out more about the UK Parliament, details of committee hearings and publications. While the Bank appears before other select committees from time to time on a number of different issues, it is its engagement with committees of both Houses on monetary policy that is the principal feature of the relationship. The key piece of legislation is the Bank of England Act 1998.

Source

That it is privately owned is obviously a lie. We can be reasonable in assuming that the rest of the piece is plagued with other inaccuracies and ambiguities in other to loosely tie up pieces that really don't fit together.

Lol, you post "evidence" from the banks own website. Can you not see the problem with that?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.