If you will go to http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/, one of my favorite sites, you can D/L a DIVX movie,(for free) called, (Sir,No Sir!) about the GI rebellion during Vietnam. I was part of that movement and really stress the need for people to view this film. It is eyeopening and informative.
Why is this film relevant to members of this Forum. Simply because it shows the beginnings of the repression and tyranny and lies that became the status quo of the American Government after Nov. 22, 1963.
And for those that have a functioning brain, it will also show why the James Files story is so important and why the government fights so hard to repress it and discredit it.
Also, pay attention to the fact that how after 1968, the struggle of the GI became even more widespread. Why?? Our last hope had just been gunned down in LA. A lot of us baqck then supported RFK and really had a lot of hopes pinned on him. John & Martin were already gone and Bobby was our last hope.
IMHO, the most important agenda that citizens of the world have on their plate right now, is the spreading of Jimmy Files story and how we can come together as 1 people to get him immunity and expose the deadly cancer that has been festering and growing in the governments of the world since 1963.
The James Files story is NOT about selling books and dvd's and making money, but rather a means to an end which will finally expose the powers that send our young people to die, create economic recessions to satisfy their own greed, ( big oil) and keep the majority of the world in a prison made up of lies and untruths.
Thanx for letting me rant & rave.
bobwc
TRUTH & SUPPRESSION
-
john geraghty
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
I agree with Bob about Sir! NO Sir!
I saw the film last week, there was a screening organised by John Judge here on Capitol Hill. Another screening is being organised in the coming weeks.
The film gives me hope that members of the military are indeed against the war in Iraq and that they can do something about it should they choose to do so.
We had a brief discussion after the showing also in which John Judge described the tactics used by the military against infantry men in order to keep them in the army and to make sure they did not step out of line.
Its a great film and I think that it is essential viewing for any of you wondering what can be done by the people in response to this illegal war in Iraq.
John
I saw the film last week, there was a screening organised by John Judge here on Capitol Hill. Another screening is being organised in the coming weeks.
The film gives me hope that members of the military are indeed against the war in Iraq and that they can do something about it should they choose to do so.
We had a brief discussion after the showing also in which John Judge described the tactics used by the military against infantry men in order to keep them in the army and to make sure they did not step out of line.
Its a great film and I think that it is essential viewing for any of you wondering what can be done by the people in response to this illegal war in Iraq.
John
-
Dave Cannon
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Dear Mr. John Geraghty,
I have been trying to stay out of the discussion because I believe that this forum should be about who and why JFK was killed. Yes, I know that Bush was involved with Alpha 66, but you have to remember that the United States will protect itself despite what any country might think.
Why do you say the Iraqi war is illegal? The congress voted to fund the war with Iraq in the beginning and they recently voted to stay until the job is finished. What illegal about that?
If you have been investigating the JFK assassination, you must know that you need to look at both sides of the issue and look at credible evidence.
I disagree with you that members of the "military should step out of line if they think that they need to" and that the members of the military are indeed against the war.
According to what I have read and by the many members of the military, both infantry and officers, they are for completing the mission in Iraq, and so is congress. Their mission is to eliminate a threat to the United States and its Allies, and start a new Democracy. If you talk to the average Iraqi citizen, the US is making a big difference and there lives are not perfect and we made many mistakes, but they are better off now and will be in the future if we complete the mission. Under Hussein 30,000 people were killed a year as opposed to less than 3,000 per year now. Did you know it is more dangerous in Bermuda, New York City, Baltimore, and Washington DC than Baghdad?
If you believe that the war in Iraq was for Bush's political gain and because the US's need for oil for financial reasons, then I believe you are mistaken. The war in Iraq is to eliminate a threat to the United States and its Allies, just like the US was planning on doing to Castro in the late 50's and early 60's. The result is that it might have gotten JFK and RFK killed.
All I am saying is look at both sides from credible sources. Understand how the media and politicians can influence you and their motives and then decide for yourself what the truth is. But don't make false statements like "this illegal war".
Now if you want to talk about the Kennedy’s plotting to kill Castro as illegal, while using the CIA and members of the Mafia and financing their plot(s) illegally than lets talk.
Respectfully,
Dave Cannon
.
I have been trying to stay out of the discussion because I believe that this forum should be about who and why JFK was killed. Yes, I know that Bush was involved with Alpha 66, but you have to remember that the United States will protect itself despite what any country might think.
Why do you say the Iraqi war is illegal? The congress voted to fund the war with Iraq in the beginning and they recently voted to stay until the job is finished. What illegal about that?
If you have been investigating the JFK assassination, you must know that you need to look at both sides of the issue and look at credible evidence.
I disagree with you that members of the "military should step out of line if they think that they need to" and that the members of the military are indeed against the war.
According to what I have read and by the many members of the military, both infantry and officers, they are for completing the mission in Iraq, and so is congress. Their mission is to eliminate a threat to the United States and its Allies, and start a new Democracy. If you talk to the average Iraqi citizen, the US is making a big difference and there lives are not perfect and we made many mistakes, but they are better off now and will be in the future if we complete the mission. Under Hussein 30,000 people were killed a year as opposed to less than 3,000 per year now. Did you know it is more dangerous in Bermuda, New York City, Baltimore, and Washington DC than Baghdad?
If you believe that the war in Iraq was for Bush's political gain and because the US's need for oil for financial reasons, then I believe you are mistaken. The war in Iraq is to eliminate a threat to the United States and its Allies, just like the US was planning on doing to Castro in the late 50's and early 60's. The result is that it might have gotten JFK and RFK killed.
All I am saying is look at both sides from credible sources. Understand how the media and politicians can influence you and their motives and then decide for yourself what the truth is. But don't make false statements like "this illegal war".
Now if you want to talk about the Kennedy’s plotting to kill Castro as illegal, while using the CIA and members of the Mafia and financing their plot(s) illegally than lets talk.
Respectfully,
Dave Cannon
.
-
john geraghty
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Hi Dave,
I thank you for your thoughtful and well intentioned post as I know that these debates can be somewhat heated at times. I'm glad that you are level head and are good at making a point.
With regards to the war being illegal. I was referencing the fact that under international law there was no basis for the invasion of Iraq. There was no sanction or 'ok' from the UN. The war was of course voted for by the senate and the house. Alas these fine institutions do not have the final say with regards to international law.
There was no real justification for either US or UK entry into Iraq. You can of course argue that it was the right thing to do in hindsight. This does not however explain the lies told by both messers Blair and Bush about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the manipulation of intelligence reports (see the writings of former intelligence advisor Richard Clarke, who adamantyl states that Cheney and Rumsfeld were pushing Iraq into the fray following 9/11)
The military ground troops. I do not deny that a lot of the troops are dedicated to finishing the job. The only problem is... they were given no plan by their government as to how to ensure peace following the toppling of Sadam. There is still no definite framework that they are working from to effectively rebuild Iraq.
Check out the case of Kevin Benderman, a career officer who filed as a conscientous objector, who was convicted on trumped up charges because he did not want to serve in Iraq, having previously been involved in desert storm. The GIs against the war movement is gathering momentum, with several organisations, books and movies being made representing their objection to the war, which they should have the right to do.
Oil. There are countless examples of Iraq being put on the table pre-9/11 due to several reasons, its geogaphical importance, its oil and the fact that the mission was not accomplished first time around.
Here is one such example provided by the BBC, which details the deals between oil companies and the government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 354269.stm
The book 'The War on Truth' by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed provides other fascinating examples of how the war in Iraq was planned pre 9/11 and was made to seem as part of the global 'war on terror' (Its debatable how you can have a war on terror when terrorism is a concept, not an organisation).
I would not say that Baghdad is safer than New York, Baltimore and other cities, perhaps statistically it may be so, though I have not seen anything detailing this (perhaps you could provide me with some info). The fact of the matter is that in New York and Baltimore there are not daily bombings in the streets, in places of worship or upon queues of people signing up for the police force.
The most conservative estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq are placed somewhere near 30,000 people since 2003, that would suggest more than 3,000 a year. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Hussein was a brutal dictator, who was previously backed by the US. Iran was also backed by the US before the Islamic Revolution. The fact of the matter is that the US did business with Hussein while he was using chemical weapons against Iranians. ( Its also worth noting that the Iranians possessed similar weapons but chose not to use them during this conflict).
I agree that we must know how the media and politicians influence people. That is why I don't trust a fact unless I find its source.
This war is in fact illegal and it has not been proven to be legal, that is why so few other nations took part in the invasion. France helped out in the first Gulf War when there was good reason given for the invasion, their refusal this time around was not simply apathy towards the situtation in the middle east, it is because there was no legal basis for the war, nor was their adequate intelligence to suggest that WMDs existed in Iraq or that the Hussein regime was linked to Al Qaeda or any islamic Jihadist group.
I'm from Ireland Dave. The US military uses my country as a stopover for military personnel and also, according to the council of Europe, the CIA also used it for the illegal transportation of detainees.
Under Irish law no other country can use Irish airports or airspace for the purposes of carrying out military operations. The US has violated Irish neutrality. There is another example of an illegal, unsanctioned action by the US government, but this time it is thrust upon a friendly nation.
Sadams regime resulted in the deaths of many Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis, at times with the backing of the US government (see photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam). Only time will tell whether the numbers of the dead under Saddam will be surpassed by the turmoil created by the current climate of Jihadism gripping Iraq, carried out by foreign terrorist groups. After all was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi not Jordanian?
If you ask the reporters on the ground in Iraq who the locals say are carrying out these attacks they will say 'foreign people'.
The CIAs National Intelligence Council even says that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the worlds primary centre for terrorist training. This shows that before the war it was not a center for terrorist congregation and this scenario was created follwoing the destabilisation of the country following the invasion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
The assassination plots against Castro were indeed illegal, I am not debating that and I feel that it is largely irrelevant .
This article in the nation states that a recent poll states that 29% OF GIs want immediate withdrawl. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/parenti
This amount want 'immediate' withdrawl, how many more want withdrawal within a years time? It also describes how the military uses unit cohesion to prevent some from breaking ranks.
These are some of mybliefs and my feelings about the war, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I have come to these conclusions by staying objective and trying to get a grasp of both sides of the issue. I understand the position you take Dave as it is understandable, I do however feel that this is a more romantic and unrealistic way of viewing the war and the reasons it happened. Politics is much more complicated than just fighting for whats right. People have money to make and objectives to be fulfilled through war, I don't like it so I make my feelings known.
Thats my two cents for now.
I hope that I have portrayed myself in a balanced way and do not come accross as attacking your views, as that is not my intention.
If you have anything to add or rebut please do so as debates like these are good for both of our understanding.
All the very best,
John Geraghty
I thank you for your thoughtful and well intentioned post as I know that these debates can be somewhat heated at times. I'm glad that you are level head and are good at making a point.
With regards to the war being illegal. I was referencing the fact that under international law there was no basis for the invasion of Iraq. There was no sanction or 'ok' from the UN. The war was of course voted for by the senate and the house. Alas these fine institutions do not have the final say with regards to international law.
There was no real justification for either US or UK entry into Iraq. You can of course argue that it was the right thing to do in hindsight. This does not however explain the lies told by both messers Blair and Bush about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the manipulation of intelligence reports (see the writings of former intelligence advisor Richard Clarke, who adamantyl states that Cheney and Rumsfeld were pushing Iraq into the fray following 9/11)
The military ground troops. I do not deny that a lot of the troops are dedicated to finishing the job. The only problem is... they were given no plan by their government as to how to ensure peace following the toppling of Sadam. There is still no definite framework that they are working from to effectively rebuild Iraq.
Check out the case of Kevin Benderman, a career officer who filed as a conscientous objector, who was convicted on trumped up charges because he did not want to serve in Iraq, having previously been involved in desert storm. The GIs against the war movement is gathering momentum, with several organisations, books and movies being made representing their objection to the war, which they should have the right to do.
Oil. There are countless examples of Iraq being put on the table pre-9/11 due to several reasons, its geogaphical importance, its oil and the fact that the mission was not accomplished first time around.
Here is one such example provided by the BBC, which details the deals between oil companies and the government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 354269.stm
The book 'The War on Truth' by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed provides other fascinating examples of how the war in Iraq was planned pre 9/11 and was made to seem as part of the global 'war on terror' (Its debatable how you can have a war on terror when terrorism is a concept, not an organisation).
I would not say that Baghdad is safer than New York, Baltimore and other cities, perhaps statistically it may be so, though I have not seen anything detailing this (perhaps you could provide me with some info). The fact of the matter is that in New York and Baltimore there are not daily bombings in the streets, in places of worship or upon queues of people signing up for the police force.
The most conservative estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq are placed somewhere near 30,000 people since 2003, that would suggest more than 3,000 a year. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Hussein was a brutal dictator, who was previously backed by the US. Iran was also backed by the US before the Islamic Revolution. The fact of the matter is that the US did business with Hussein while he was using chemical weapons against Iranians. ( Its also worth noting that the Iranians possessed similar weapons but chose not to use them during this conflict).
I agree that we must know how the media and politicians influence people. That is why I don't trust a fact unless I find its source.
This war is in fact illegal and it has not been proven to be legal, that is why so few other nations took part in the invasion. France helped out in the first Gulf War when there was good reason given for the invasion, their refusal this time around was not simply apathy towards the situtation in the middle east, it is because there was no legal basis for the war, nor was their adequate intelligence to suggest that WMDs existed in Iraq or that the Hussein regime was linked to Al Qaeda or any islamic Jihadist group.
I'm from Ireland Dave. The US military uses my country as a stopover for military personnel and also, according to the council of Europe, the CIA also used it for the illegal transportation of detainees.
Under Irish law no other country can use Irish airports or airspace for the purposes of carrying out military operations. The US has violated Irish neutrality. There is another example of an illegal, unsanctioned action by the US government, but this time it is thrust upon a friendly nation.
Sadams regime resulted in the deaths of many Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis, at times with the backing of the US government (see photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam). Only time will tell whether the numbers of the dead under Saddam will be surpassed by the turmoil created by the current climate of Jihadism gripping Iraq, carried out by foreign terrorist groups. After all was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi not Jordanian?
If you ask the reporters on the ground in Iraq who the locals say are carrying out these attacks they will say 'foreign people'.
The CIAs National Intelligence Council even says that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the worlds primary centre for terrorist training. This shows that before the war it was not a center for terrorist congregation and this scenario was created follwoing the destabilisation of the country following the invasion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
The assassination plots against Castro were indeed illegal, I am not debating that and I feel that it is largely irrelevant .
This article in the nation states that a recent poll states that 29% OF GIs want immediate withdrawl. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/parenti
This amount want 'immediate' withdrawl, how many more want withdrawal within a years time? It also describes how the military uses unit cohesion to prevent some from breaking ranks.
These are some of mybliefs and my feelings about the war, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I have come to these conclusions by staying objective and trying to get a grasp of both sides of the issue. I understand the position you take Dave as it is understandable, I do however feel that this is a more romantic and unrealistic way of viewing the war and the reasons it happened. Politics is much more complicated than just fighting for whats right. People have money to make and objectives to be fulfilled through war, I don't like it so I make my feelings known.
Thats my two cents for now.
I hope that I have portrayed myself in a balanced way and do not come accross as attacking your views, as that is not my intention.
If you have anything to add or rebut please do so as debates like these are good for both of our understanding.
All the very best,
John Geraghty
There have been some well thought out posts here. Here's my two cents. First, I do believe that the Iraq war is related to the JFK assassination. Why? Because those who took power that day are still pushing forward their agenda. It may not be the exact same people, but the political movement of those involved in the coup is the same today. The war in Iraq was wanted by the Bu$h administration from the first day Bu$h walked into the White House. The neocons wanted this badly. The former Secretary of the Treasury said that the invasion of Iraq was discussed at the very FIRST cabinet meeting. Then after 9/11 (by the way Dave, please see "Loose Change" regarding this) Bu$h, Cheney and Rumsfeld are desperately trying to connect Saddam to the "attack". Richard Clarke said he was pressured into finding a link. Then why did we go to war? First Bu$h said it was WMDs. Oops! Wrong! Then we were told it was because Iraq had the ability to use nuclear weapons. Oops. Wrong again! Then Bu$h and company kept making inferences to 9/11 and Saddam's possible involvement. Oops. Wrong yet again! Now the Bu$h administration is playing the democracy card. Yeah, Iraq really is looking like a democracy. Let's call Iraq what it is...an occupied country in the beginning stages of a clerical civil war. In terms of Congress supporting this war, we are talking about the most corrupt Congress in history, just like this administration. The poster child is Tom Delay. Then you have "Duke" Cunningham. And there are more to come as the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal widens. This is a Republican led Congress that has rubber stamped almost everything for Bu$h. Yes, some Democrats voted for the war as well, some like Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards. At least Kerry and Edwards have come out and said their vote was a mistake. Speaking of scandals, what about Plamegate? The White House purposely "outed" a CIA agent just to keep it's lies about going to war under cover. So why did the U.S. invade Iraq? To me it's simple. Just like Vietnam. This war is about GREED, not need. I have said this a thousand times, but look at the Bu$h family modus operandi. It goes back FOUR generations. It's called war profiteering. It's also called TREASON. Look at Cheney's secret energy council. The one that took place before 9/11. At those secret meetings, Cheney assembled all the big shots from big oil (who later LIED to Congress about this and were caught) and people like Ken Lay from Enron. One of the things discussed at these meetings was securing the oil fields in Iraq. Again, this is BEFORE 9/11. Speaking of Cheney, what company was he CEO of before he became VP? Halliburton you say. Hmmm. The company that won a NO BID contract and is raking in billions from this war. What about the Carlyle Group and other defense contractors that are linked to the Bu$h family that are also making HUGE profits. What about the profits of the oil companies recently? Exxon made $10 billion last quarter alone. No Dave, this isn't a noble attempt by the Bu$h administration to create democracy. This is all about making money and increasing power. So far at the cost of over 2,500 American lives and several thousand more badly wounded or maimed. Also, eight U.S. Generals have come out against the way this war has been fought. EIGHT!!! Some estimate the Iraqi dead to be over 100,000. But we have seen this before with the Bu$hes. Samuel Bu$h sold arms to the Germans in WWI while the U.S. was fighting in that conflict. Prescott Bu$h supported Hitler in WWII and profited handsomely because of it. He and his partners were charged with trading with the enemy in 1942 by the U.S. government. George H.W. Bush was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. That assassination led to the escalation of the Vietnam war. Then when Bu$h was VP under Reagan, we had Iran/Contra and also the arming of a couple of guys by the names of Saddam and Osama by that administration. See, they were "friends" back then. They are now conveniently enemies, even though the bin Laden family and the Bu$hes have been business partners for decades. Then we have George W. Bu$h. Under his watch we have seen energy prices soar. What's his background again? Oil? Hmmm. We have also seen 9/11 (Dave, look up Operation Northwoods) and the war in Iraq. And scandal after scandal after scandal. The United States is quickly becoming a fascist state under this administration. Our phone records, computer activity, bank records etc. are all there for the Bu$h administration to look through at their leisure. We have a President who once said the constitution is just a "God damn piece of paper". And he is treating it just like that. Most legal scholars say that the NSA spying for instance was illegal. But Bu$h says no. He has the powers to do WHATEVER he wants. Bu$h is not a President. He was NEVER fairly elected. He is a King that was twice coronated. And a King that is the WORST leader the United States has ever had.
-
Dave Cannon
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Bob and John,
Thanks for the response. Of course, I respectfully disagree with allot you say, but I am not going to debate you because I won’t change your mind. I will be open an honest with you and try to explain how I feel about it. If you don’t care then don’t read it. Again I am not trying to change your opinions I am just explaining my point of view here this once about Bu$h (Ha) and Iraq. I feel the US’s policy in Iraq should be another forum not emphasized here.
The United Nations
You have to remember that most Americans do not respect the UN. I don’t believe they done anything positive since their existence? Iraq was in violation of international law for many years and what did the UN about it? More non-affective sanctions? I believe the UN had sanctions against Iraq and Hussein was not in compliance for many years.
After Kuwait, the USS Cole, the Twin Towers bombing and 9/11 I think the US had enough and felt that we needed to end that threat. Now we have a problem because people are impatient and believe that setting up a democracy where people can live free happens in a few years. The problem with Bush’s policy in Iraq, IMO the Bush administration did not have an effective plan or foresight to develop an effective plan to establish a government quickly. In addition, it has been a more difficult job than he thought. To complicate matters his adversaries are too impatient. It will take time to do the job right.
Who is more corrupt?
What about the “Oil for Food programâ€
Thanks for the response. Of course, I respectfully disagree with allot you say, but I am not going to debate you because I won’t change your mind. I will be open an honest with you and try to explain how I feel about it. If you don’t care then don’t read it. Again I am not trying to change your opinions I am just explaining my point of view here this once about Bu$h (Ha) and Iraq. I feel the US’s policy in Iraq should be another forum not emphasized here.
The United Nations
You have to remember that most Americans do not respect the UN. I don’t believe they done anything positive since their existence? Iraq was in violation of international law for many years and what did the UN about it? More non-affective sanctions? I believe the UN had sanctions against Iraq and Hussein was not in compliance for many years.
After Kuwait, the USS Cole, the Twin Towers bombing and 9/11 I think the US had enough and felt that we needed to end that threat. Now we have a problem because people are impatient and believe that setting up a democracy where people can live free happens in a few years. The problem with Bush’s policy in Iraq, IMO the Bush administration did not have an effective plan or foresight to develop an effective plan to establish a government quickly. In addition, it has been a more difficult job than he thought. To complicate matters his adversaries are too impatient. It will take time to do the job right.
Who is more corrupt?
What about the “Oil for Food programâ€
-
M.C.Newton
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
In my opinion (and pardon the late participation in the discussion but I don't have the internet at home and cannot post as regularly as I wish), it would appear that Dave's view on the current administration is more of a "faith based" take on politics. I say this not as a partisan jab, as I personally feel that both parties are using two different angles to achieve the same goal (a corporatocracy if you will) though the current "conservative" view is a more blatant and forceful one. Dave states in his first post that "If you believe that the war in Iraq was for Bush's political gain and because the US"s need for oil and for financial reasons, then I believe you are mistaken." I think that the facts are pretty clear at this point and I believe that all the "hard evidence" points completely in this direction, i.e. WMD's - no, Al Qaeda connections - no, so then settle on "liberation" a subjective term that can be applied and is hard to disprove as you would have to prove that in the Administrations collective mind that this is not what they want. Every single bit of evidence which was provided to the American public was proven to be completely false (red flag), there is proof (Downing Street Minutes) that Bush was prepared to invade Iraq well before he stated that he wanted to and also while he was publicly telling the general public that that he was "trying" to resolve the situation diplomatically (alarm bells should be going off). Bush forced out weapons inspectors before they could complete their job. The list really does go on and on supporting this "side" of the argument. Meanwhile in order to look at the other side there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Bush had any "legal", or "moral" reasoning to go to war, Iraq has been proven to not have any weapons that were a threat to the United States or it's Allies for that matter (look into Scott Ritter who was a career Marine and part of a weapons inspection team in Iraq for I believe on and off about 12 years, who came out and said, before the war, that the weapons didn't exist, and was then promptly painted a pedophile). The fact is that sanctions had done their job however horrific the consequences for the Iraqi population (500,000 deaths from malnutrition is considered a middle of the road estimate), nonetheless the sanctions prohibited Iraq from once again arming themselves (which the first time around was done by the US handing over weapons of mass destruction as it fit in with the political agenda in Washington at the time). But the fact is that the only "proof" that is out there that Bush had any noble causes to go to war come only from his mouth, which is why I say that you have an apparent faith based view on the current political situation. For me at least proof comes in the form of saying something, (i.e. smoking gun = mushroom cloud, can launch weapons in 45 minutes) and then finding the physical evidence to support it (i.e. finding the weapons that can produce the mushroom cloud, finding the sites that can launch the weapons in 45 minutes). Proof for me doesn't lie in the rhetoric, freedom being on the march, staying the course, the world is a better place without Saddam, for me it comes from the fact that this administration has been proven to be, well quite frankly, full of shit. And as far as looking at both sides is concerned this is a classic example of Orwellian doublethink, as there can only be one absolute truth, there can only be one absolutely just side, there can only be one absolutely "credible" side. Now the question is do you think that politics are a game of "faith" or a game of facts?
In the end people will believe what they want to believe, they will see what they want to see, and the politicians will pretend to be what you wanted them to be.
Now on to the Oil for food program. if I can remember correctly the amount of people and money being illicitly distributed was a list that stretched no farther than you can count on your hands, and the amount of money was no more than a sixth grader could calculate. Obviously these are rhetoric as I write this I am offline and can't search out the actual statistics. But to compare the "Oil for Food Program" to the government of the United States government is akin to that terribly misguided politician whom recently made the claim that Iraq is statistically safer than Washington DC (which is misleading because he is comparing a WHOLE COUNTRY many parts of which are small towns in the middle of the desert and relatively isolated, to DC which is one of the poorer places (outside of the marshmallow center) in the country. Now why I wonder didn't he compare DC to say Fallujah, where somewhere near the order of 36,000 homes were destroyed, and 9,000 businesses? Where upon surrounding the city of 350,000 people they didn't allow for men between the ages of 18 to 65 to leave and then used "White Phosphorous" and Napalm, which are weapons that aren't exactly precise, but I digress. Anyway the corruption of the government at large far exceeds anything that the OFFP ever could come close to. Just in "lobbying" (read bribing) alone. I know it's OK because huge corporations have the G*D given RIGHT as all us PEOPLE do to petition the government.
Then comparing "Desert Storm" with the "Bay of Pigs" is a pretty good stretch I think. Comparing a full on military action to that of a covert CIA planned coup is at best misleading to the ill informed. I don't remember reading anything of Kennedy telling the Cubans to rise up and overthrow Castro and then when they did, do nothing but let them be slaughtered, as Bush I did with the Shiites when telling them that we would stand with them if they rose up.
Now if you look at the question of "Why did GW Bush start war?" As it has cost him politically and cost the American taxpayer financially? I would say that if you look at the overall big picture, it doesn't really matter the cost politically as he was "elected" for a second term and has no obligations to anyone but himself and the larger agenda that is being largely pursued. For me the issue of the 4 "super-bases" being constructed in Iraq should be commanding a hell of a lot more public attention then they are obviously getting, as I believe that they show that a reason for invading was certainly not liberation, but permanent presence in the region (once again alarm bells should be going off). Also the "Super-Embassy" bigger than Vatican City should be shooting red flags up in the collective conscience of the American public. The fact is that politicians come and go but ideas live on and as there are permanent bases in the region and the "Neo-Conservatives" if they can get someone else through somewhere down the line '08, '12, '16,.... will act upon the foundation built by this administration and take America down the path of war and outright domination. So for me it's just that a foundation being built for the future of neo-conservatism.
As far as the "Miami 7" which the media immediately christened these guys down in Liberty City (which is quite convenient to give them a name that the public can easily grasp and repeat ad nauseam). The evidence in this case shows a bunch of guys from the poorest city in America, who didn't like their place in the world and who had no money whatsoever, and allegedly hated the government. If you look at the evidence that they wanted to destroy the Sears Tower. All that they were able to accomplish was videotaping and photographing the tower with a camera that was purchased for them by the FBI informant, saved onto a memory stick purchased by the FBI informant while wearing boots that were purchased by the FBI informant. One of the crimes committed by the "terrorists" was that they had "pledged their allegiance to Al Qaeda" where and to whom did they pledge this allegiance? Whom administered the oath? Could it possibly have been the same FBI informant that purchased the things they needed? It's also interesting that the very same day that these guys were arrested for apparent "thought crimes" at least a couple of high ranking officials were giving speeches (Cheney) about the threat of home grown terrorism. If this doesn't seem like a case of PR, or a PSYOP program for partisan ends then I don't know what does. The fact is that these guys were flat broke had no resources to draw from and were then used to achieve political ends. Now I'm not saying that the potential was not there for them to become dangerous, if say one of them won the lotto or inherited a bunch of money, but at the time of arrest they were not a threat. This is a situation where you simply watch these guys and if they happen to join another group with resources then you bust in and get yourself a lot more than 7 poor guys, the fact that they didn't do this and has charged them with "thought crimes" is perhaps evidence that there are political motives here.
I really do hope that at no point in history will the United States be governed by the UN or any other outside force. But I think the evidence is there to suggest that unless the American People wake up and realize that living in a representative Republic/ Democracy, is about a lot more than voting once every couple of years. It's about taking to the streets protesting, the things that matter the most, (net neutrality is a HUGE issue that everyone cares about whether they realize it or not and yet not a soul will take to the streets, write congress, or do anything except for bitch when sites like this one are considerably slowed down or completely blocked by the ISP's) People have let there political affiliations stand in the way of seeing the truth, which is the saddest thing. America will be railroaded into the NEW WORLD ORDER, uh oh did I say that, well guess that takes any legitimacy from everything I've said. I guess I should ignore all evidence and take off my tin foil hat now and just sit in the corner while American Idol erodes my mind. But seriously America is in major trouble and people need to see past party lines in order to right this ship. I don't understand how absolutely no one has any clue about the Federal Reserve, and the system of credit in this country. Anyone I talk to knows nothing. Isn't that strange that the public can't even see the noose as it's being put over their heads. Sad.
While this may read like a liberal tirade on all that is wrong with Republicans and the right wing in general I can assure you that once the Democrats and left come around they will be scrutinized as well. But I think that the facts show that beyond a reasonable doubt that this administration is clearly a bunch of liars, war mongers, and criminals of the highest order.
If anyone cares you can see my tirade with many more evidences of criminal and immoral behavior in my post in the thread of "Deeper Skull and Bones Connections..." I apologize if this came off as "bashing" Dave that is certainly not my intention and any refutations or anything else is of course welcomed. Just my 36 dollars and 2 cents. Thanks for lending me your eyes.
In the end people will believe what they want to believe, they will see what they want to see, and the politicians will pretend to be what you wanted them to be.
Now on to the Oil for food program. if I can remember correctly the amount of people and money being illicitly distributed was a list that stretched no farther than you can count on your hands, and the amount of money was no more than a sixth grader could calculate. Obviously these are rhetoric as I write this I am offline and can't search out the actual statistics. But to compare the "Oil for Food Program" to the government of the United States government is akin to that terribly misguided politician whom recently made the claim that Iraq is statistically safer than Washington DC (which is misleading because he is comparing a WHOLE COUNTRY many parts of which are small towns in the middle of the desert and relatively isolated, to DC which is one of the poorer places (outside of the marshmallow center) in the country. Now why I wonder didn't he compare DC to say Fallujah, where somewhere near the order of 36,000 homes were destroyed, and 9,000 businesses? Where upon surrounding the city of 350,000 people they didn't allow for men between the ages of 18 to 65 to leave and then used "White Phosphorous" and Napalm, which are weapons that aren't exactly precise, but I digress. Anyway the corruption of the government at large far exceeds anything that the OFFP ever could come close to. Just in "lobbying" (read bribing) alone. I know it's OK because huge corporations have the G*D given RIGHT as all us PEOPLE do to petition the government.
Then comparing "Desert Storm" with the "Bay of Pigs" is a pretty good stretch I think. Comparing a full on military action to that of a covert CIA planned coup is at best misleading to the ill informed. I don't remember reading anything of Kennedy telling the Cubans to rise up and overthrow Castro and then when they did, do nothing but let them be slaughtered, as Bush I did with the Shiites when telling them that we would stand with them if they rose up.
Now if you look at the question of "Why did GW Bush start war?" As it has cost him politically and cost the American taxpayer financially? I would say that if you look at the overall big picture, it doesn't really matter the cost politically as he was "elected" for a second term and has no obligations to anyone but himself and the larger agenda that is being largely pursued. For me the issue of the 4 "super-bases" being constructed in Iraq should be commanding a hell of a lot more public attention then they are obviously getting, as I believe that they show that a reason for invading was certainly not liberation, but permanent presence in the region (once again alarm bells should be going off). Also the "Super-Embassy" bigger than Vatican City should be shooting red flags up in the collective conscience of the American public. The fact is that politicians come and go but ideas live on and as there are permanent bases in the region and the "Neo-Conservatives" if they can get someone else through somewhere down the line '08, '12, '16,.... will act upon the foundation built by this administration and take America down the path of war and outright domination. So for me it's just that a foundation being built for the future of neo-conservatism.
As far as the "Miami 7" which the media immediately christened these guys down in Liberty City (which is quite convenient to give them a name that the public can easily grasp and repeat ad nauseam). The evidence in this case shows a bunch of guys from the poorest city in America, who didn't like their place in the world and who had no money whatsoever, and allegedly hated the government. If you look at the evidence that they wanted to destroy the Sears Tower. All that they were able to accomplish was videotaping and photographing the tower with a camera that was purchased for them by the FBI informant, saved onto a memory stick purchased by the FBI informant while wearing boots that were purchased by the FBI informant. One of the crimes committed by the "terrorists" was that they had "pledged their allegiance to Al Qaeda" where and to whom did they pledge this allegiance? Whom administered the oath? Could it possibly have been the same FBI informant that purchased the things they needed? It's also interesting that the very same day that these guys were arrested for apparent "thought crimes" at least a couple of high ranking officials were giving speeches (Cheney) about the threat of home grown terrorism. If this doesn't seem like a case of PR, or a PSYOP program for partisan ends then I don't know what does. The fact is that these guys were flat broke had no resources to draw from and were then used to achieve political ends. Now I'm not saying that the potential was not there for them to become dangerous, if say one of them won the lotto or inherited a bunch of money, but at the time of arrest they were not a threat. This is a situation where you simply watch these guys and if they happen to join another group with resources then you bust in and get yourself a lot more than 7 poor guys, the fact that they didn't do this and has charged them with "thought crimes" is perhaps evidence that there are political motives here.
I really do hope that at no point in history will the United States be governed by the UN or any other outside force. But I think the evidence is there to suggest that unless the American People wake up and realize that living in a representative Republic/ Democracy, is about a lot more than voting once every couple of years. It's about taking to the streets protesting, the things that matter the most, (net neutrality is a HUGE issue that everyone cares about whether they realize it or not and yet not a soul will take to the streets, write congress, or do anything except for bitch when sites like this one are considerably slowed down or completely blocked by the ISP's) People have let there political affiliations stand in the way of seeing the truth, which is the saddest thing. America will be railroaded into the NEW WORLD ORDER, uh oh did I say that, well guess that takes any legitimacy from everything I've said. I guess I should ignore all evidence and take off my tin foil hat now and just sit in the corner while American Idol erodes my mind. But seriously America is in major trouble and people need to see past party lines in order to right this ship. I don't understand how absolutely no one has any clue about the Federal Reserve, and the system of credit in this country. Anyone I talk to knows nothing. Isn't that strange that the public can't even see the noose as it's being put over their heads. Sad.
While this may read like a liberal tirade on all that is wrong with Republicans and the right wing in general I can assure you that once the Democrats and left come around they will be scrutinized as well. But I think that the facts show that beyond a reasonable doubt that this administration is clearly a bunch of liars, war mongers, and criminals of the highest order.
If anyone cares you can see my tirade with many more evidences of criminal and immoral behavior in my post in the thread of "Deeper Skull and Bones Connections..." I apologize if this came off as "bashing" Dave that is certainly not my intention and any refutations or anything else is of course welcomed. Just my 36 dollars and 2 cents. Thanks for lending me your eyes.
-
Dave Cannon
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
So what should the US do about terrorism if anything?
How did Tony Blair profit finacially and politically?
If Bush did not have plan in place then he would have been critized also for that. Every administration should have hypothetical plans in place. You need to think ahead. I think Bush's plan for after trhe invasion has been flawed.
JFK had plans in place for the removal of Castro early 1963. Codenamed AMWORLD-The plan for a Coup in Cuba, also known as the Judas Project. (Ultimate Sacrifice, 2005) The diifference between Bush's plan and JFK's plan is that he was killed before he carried it out.
Dave Cannon
How did Tony Blair profit finacially and politically?
If Bush did not have plan in place then he would have been critized also for that. Every administration should have hypothetical plans in place. You need to think ahead. I think Bush's plan for after trhe invasion has been flawed.
JFK had plans in place for the removal of Castro early 1963. Codenamed AMWORLD-The plan for a Coup in Cuba, also known as the Judas Project. (Ultimate Sacrifice, 2005) The diifference between Bush's plan and JFK's plan is that he was killed before he carried it out.
Dave Cannon
-
David Octopus
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
In the words of former senior CIA analyst Ray MacGovern the Iraq operation summary:
It's simple as O.I.L.
O for peak oil
I for Israel
L for logistics (permanent presence in ME)
the religious factor is just a media/propaganda charade for the republican voters base
The war on terror is a hoax carried out as series of false flag operations 9/11 NYC 7/7 London:
http://www.911blogger.com/
It's simple as O.I.L.
O for peak oil
I for Israel
L for logistics (permanent presence in ME)
the religious factor is just a media/propaganda charade for the republican voters base
The war on terror is a hoax carried out as series of false flag operations 9/11 NYC 7/7 London:
http://www.911blogger.com/
-
M.C.Newton
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
I think what the government of America should do about terrorism is #1 Stop creating it. #2 Stop taking away Constitutional rights of American Citizens to help fight it. #3 Stop starting wars with countries which had nothing to do with terrorism and thus see #1.
Tony Blair doesn't benefit politically obviously as I think it was somewhere around 90% of the population was opposed to military action in Iraq immediately before the war (until he bludgeoned them with 7/7 and made them fall in line), but this has never been about representing the people. I don't have the slightest idea about Blair's financial holdings or investments or anything like that so I can't comment on that. But on the flip side there was surely some economic incentive given to the British government, maybe BP benefitted by getting some of the contracts for the oil fields, etc.. But for Blair it's exactly the same advancement of the global agenda, getting western companies into the middle east securing contracts and just overall globalisation.
For me though this all starts at 9/11 which was the impetus for all that was wanted to be achieved. If someone cannot look at the questions being raised by good intelligent American citizens along with citizens from everywhere, and have at least one or two alarm bells and red flags go up then you really have to question whether or not you are following blindly or not. Just look at the fact that this administration was installed by the Supreme Court in 2000. Red Flag? So he gets installed as president, we get attacked on an unprecedented scale, we start a war with a country to whom we gave (I believe) over 200 million dollars in aid the previous year, then we go to war with a country that has WMD's, Al Qaeda ties, and is a threat to the region and the world, but then that is all disproven and then it's spreading freedom, the patriot act is passed Constitutional Rights are usurped (and this is the most troubling one of all right now the government can and is tracking your phone calls if not listening directly in, monitoring your internet traffic, and as has now been revealed tracking your banking transactions, it would seem you could put together a pretty good profile of who does and does not fit in with their idea of a "good citizen".)
And after they got into Iraq they didn't need a plan, gettin in was the tricky part. Just look at the 4 super bases and the Vatican City sized embassy. Leaving was never an option. So maybe they do have a plan and that is a PERMANENT PRESENCE.
Tony Blair doesn't benefit politically obviously as I think it was somewhere around 90% of the population was opposed to military action in Iraq immediately before the war (until he bludgeoned them with 7/7 and made them fall in line), but this has never been about representing the people. I don't have the slightest idea about Blair's financial holdings or investments or anything like that so I can't comment on that. But on the flip side there was surely some economic incentive given to the British government, maybe BP benefitted by getting some of the contracts for the oil fields, etc.. But for Blair it's exactly the same advancement of the global agenda, getting western companies into the middle east securing contracts and just overall globalisation.
For me though this all starts at 9/11 which was the impetus for all that was wanted to be achieved. If someone cannot look at the questions being raised by good intelligent American citizens along with citizens from everywhere, and have at least one or two alarm bells and red flags go up then you really have to question whether or not you are following blindly or not. Just look at the fact that this administration was installed by the Supreme Court in 2000. Red Flag? So he gets installed as president, we get attacked on an unprecedented scale, we start a war with a country to whom we gave (I believe) over 200 million dollars in aid the previous year, then we go to war with a country that has WMD's, Al Qaeda ties, and is a threat to the region and the world, but then that is all disproven and then it's spreading freedom, the patriot act is passed Constitutional Rights are usurped (and this is the most troubling one of all right now the government can and is tracking your phone calls if not listening directly in, monitoring your internet traffic, and as has now been revealed tracking your banking transactions, it would seem you could put together a pretty good profile of who does and does not fit in with their idea of a "good citizen".)
And after they got into Iraq they didn't need a plan, gettin in was the tricky part. Just look at the 4 super bases and the Vatican City sized embassy. Leaving was never an option. So maybe they do have a plan and that is a PERMANENT PRESENCE.