What you didn't know about the dollar

I think its pretty hilarious that you keep refering to them as Arabs in caves. I'll bite on your norad documentation. I look around on google for a little while and I'm guessing you're going to cite reports from the 9/11 commission. I looked at them briefly and the explanation does seem cyclical, the problem of notification and/or response time, but I would have to see previous response times or more evidence.

Not so much NORAD documents as anyone that knows how NORAD works should know that any scheduled plane that flies off course is surrounded by fighter jets within the half hour. One way or another the fighter jets bring the plane down. In order for NORAD to stand down and let a plane go off course is with the approval of someone very high up. Or a supposed training excercise by someone high up. As long as you know how something is supposed to work you shouldn't need documents telling you why it doesn't work.

It's more about the big picture. I was referrring to documents released after 9/11 within a month or so after very long documents. Documents that rape civil liberties. The same liberties seem to be getting taken away in other countries not just the US.

I post news articles as I find them for those interested in the more news based section of this forum. Also posted Victory Act and Patriot Act 2 in this section to download for people to see what could happen if they don't stand up.

Geez guys, you give the conservatives too much credit. Sorry, I don't exactly know what a "neo-conservative" is.

Talking about the elder Bush's, New World Order; I don't think he tried to hide any conspiracies, so by definition, they could not be a conspiracy. Now, if you ask about how the US, and conservatives in particular would wish things to turn out, that is different. Surely they do have ideals and wishes. As do most other countries and parties.

But I find it humerous that nobody seems to think about the goals of Europe and the rest of the world, and the struggle that has come about concerning the US and the middle east. Can it be possible that the US alone is the bad guy?

No conspiracy concerning Europe and Iraq. It is fairly plain and simple. Saddam bought off France, Germany, Russia, and possibly China, with "oil for food" money and illegal oil shipments, so that he could stay in power, and continue his wicked ways, as well as continue to get rich. Those countries exchanged morality for money. Didn't work so well for them, did it? But why is that never brought up? I forgot, the US is the bad guy.

I do remember the US and UK as being the only countries trying to enforce the trade restrictions and no fly zones against Iraq, under UN sanction. Many other countries, some named above, seemed to only want to violate the sanctions. But the US is the bad guys. I forgot again.

And it is not just about the bribes they took to affect the UN security council. Also of concern were the BILLIONS of dollars in oil contracts, service contracts, and Iraqi debt owed. Saddam was their boy, and they wanted him to stay in power because of financial reasons. To them, it was irrelevant what kind of threat he was, or what he was doing to his own people. But the US is the bad guys. I must remember that.

So then, they try to destroy Bush, get him out of office, because he fucked up their party. Never in history have foreign nations attempted to affect a US election to that extent. Perhaps they could have rebuilt their little scheme with Kerry in office.

So, the BS about "no stockpiles of WMDs" is spouted. But the history of Saddam was too ingrained for the majority of voters to buy that crap. Everyone fully understood what Saddam was about. So there were no stockpiles, he could make more. He had the means, the knowledge, and obviously the willingness to use them. Plus the threat of giving them to terrorist organizations. The only question I have is, where did the stockpiles go, and where and when are they going to show up again? As David Kay said, Saddam was more dangerous at the time of invasion than ever before. Europe and the democrats do not ever seem to remember that part.

I guess all of this is not a conspiracy, because it is out in the open. But it is damn funny. Bush survives and thrives.

As far as other countries that the US has jacked with, I do not see a lot of problems. The South American stuff worked out pretty good. So far. Panama? The US built the damn canal, no invasion, everything legal, and then gave it to Panama. Noreiga? You want to defend that goon? Then defend Milosevic also.

How about the Phillipines? They asked us to leave, and we left. Now they are suffering economically. In fact, can anyone point out a country the US has gone into, and stayed without the hosts asking us to stay? And of the countries we have pulled out of, how have they done after we left? What about Iraq? Bush has stated, if they ask us to leave, we will leave.

And of the folks saying that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, why do they never call for reinstating Saddam as ruler? Why, if the invasion was illegal, then this is black and white! Saddam must be the true ruler of Iraq.

Has the US attempted to affect parts of the rest of the world? Of course we have. It is in our national interest to do so, and our leaders would be derilict in their duty if they did not act. Especially in countries with oil reserves. At least for the present time. As hydrogen as a fuel comes available, that will change to an extent. But for the most part, I truly believe the leaders of the US have tried to do the right thing. I think Bush surely has.

Oh, and about NORAD, why do you think they would even have their radar pointed into the continental US, rather than pointed out? Why would they be concerned with domestic travel, at that point in time. That was the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Bigger

Since it was the jurisdiciton of the FAA I must ask why NORAD was asking why they were told to stand down for a CIA training mission where the possibility of planes flying into buildings would be one of the excercises. I have this interview on video but you would say it was staged anyways.

Europes goal is of concern to me but in order for anything to go into motion, the US has to be put under martial law. Hence the word WORLD in new world order.

Just because something is out in the open doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy it just takes the theory part out of it.

Since I learned long ago not to even bother arguing anymore, for anyone really interested in gaining a broader knowledge, get this. http://www.aobs-store.com/reviews/tah.htm Those interested will seek knowledge, those interested in arguing will only seek to aggravate you.

nordic_rage said:

Since I learned long ago not to even bother arguing anymore, for anyone really interested in gaining a broader knowledge, get this. http://www.aobs-store.com/reviews/tah.htm Those interested will seek knowledge, those interested in arguing will only seek to aggravate you.

Click to expand...

True enough my friend.

I will just post news articles relating in one way or another to what I speak of. They can say the news is staged if they so please.

It's truly amazing though how people can feel they are part of something that is breaking them down. I'm not saying all government is bad but as history teaches us sooner or later criminals slither their way into the highest levels of government and try to impose tyranny. They constantly do this through terrorist attacks to make the people feel like they are not safe. They then give up their rights to the government in hope for security but they get enslavement.

Your average person feels that if they live in the country with the strongest government or superpower nation, that makes them better than someone living in another nation. This arrogance creates ignorrance and the false illusion of being one with your government is created. They would rather argue their neighboor. Call him a leftest if he dislikes the leader who is on the right. Call him a radical right winger if he exposes the leader who is on the left. All of this is more important than questioning the actions of the government. If there was really a left and right all leaders who are on both left and right (presidents, governors etc.) wouldn't be implementing the same laws.

The Democrats get on the TV and tell you it is the Republican's who wanted the National ID and implementation of Patriot Act 2. They tell you it is because you voted for Bush and he is the root of all evil. Being dumbed down by constant years of learning all knowledge from your TV this misleading information is believed. What they don't tell you is that they only ones voting against these acts belonged to the Republican Party. But you never learn that info because it doesn't reach your TV.

People need to stop labelling (Left, Right, Conpsiracy Theorist) and stop denying. If what all I had to say was theories I wouldn't have news articles and documents that I took the time to dig out and post here for you to download.

Read the articles I post before saying or implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't want to read them (Truth is always stranger than Fiction) then don't. But to say someone doesn't know what he/she is on about before reading all info presented by them is denial.

The problem with most of the stuff, out of the mainstream media, is that it does not pass the bullshit test. Most of it simply does not make sense.

Like the Saddam and WMD crap. He had the weapons, but did not wish to prove he did not have them? Did not want to allow comprehensive inspections? Did not want to provide evidence of the destruction of known weapons? So, rather than cooperate, he allowed his country to be invaded, and allowed himself to be pulled out of a rathole? How does that make sense?

There are many other examples of this. When I hear or read some story, whether from the mainstream or not, I try to use my mind to think about it, run through the possibilities, and test them. Most of the time, the conspiracy theories simply do not wash. Like the NORAD story, or the WMD story.

But, many people simply love to search for the dirt, or if they cannot find any, make it up. And that is fine. Sometimes, they actually find something. But usually, it is a waste of time and effort.

At any rate, history is still the best teacher. Over the decades, the US has proven itself over and over. How many times could the US have attempted to take over the world, with good chance of success? How about when the US was the ONLY nuclear power?

It is really funny when you think about it. During the WWII period, Japan attacked us. Germany did not. But the US put our lives and treasure on the line to free the residents of Europe. I wonder why nobody questioned why it was any of the US business then? Then, we came up with the Marshall plan to help rebuild Europe. Then, we spent the next forty plus years, protecting Europe from the Soviet threat. Who was in the Fulda Gap? The US. But then, today, nobody in Europe seems to remember that.

What is really funny is, it is only after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the declining risk of invasion, that the European nations began to belittle the US. Until the fall of the Berlin wall, the US could do no wrong. US nukes in Europe? Great, bring them all! As long as European safety was at risk, the US was the hero. Now, we are after world domination? Gimme a break.

I cannot wait to see the day when Putin's foot gets a little itchy, and he stamps it a couple of times. It will scare the shit out of western Europe. I would bet that suddenly, Europe finds the US pretty good friends again. So sad.

There are hundreds of other examples of the kindness and spirit of the US. Perhaps our ideals and goals are not always the same as those of Europe. And surely the ideals and goals of Europe are not always the same as our own. But I believe the amounts of dollars we have spent over the world, trying to help others, shows where the hearts and minds of our citizens lie. You can try to deny or re-interpret history, but you can never actually change it. What has happened, has happened.

Perhaps the government of the US arranged all of the terrorists acts in order to unite the country in a military effort. OK, let's just assume they did. So now, we invade Afghanistan. Wow, looky what we have now. A bunch of dirt and rocks. Then, we invade Iraq. Now we're talking. We have a bunch of oil reserves! So what is next? Are we going to steal the oil? How does that work? Kind of hard to hide. Where is the sense?

Or did we spend a few hundred billion liberating a country, so that our oil companies could have just a few billion dollars in oil contracts? Where is the sense? Trade hundreds of billions and lives, for a few billion?

So then, the next logical step is to insert our own hand-picked dictator to run the country, and insure favored treatment for the US, right? But wait! We did not do that. We have promoted democracy, all over the middle east, attempting to allow the people of each country to pick their own leaders. How dastardly! There must be an evil plot in there somewhere.

But, we still have the puppet royal family in Saudi Arabia, right? That dictatorship will always be under the US' control. But wait! They just had local elections. And Bush just called on the dictators to allow national elections in SA and Egypt. Hmmm, surly there is a plot somewhere.

I think I have it. Bush has determined that if all of the middle east, nay all of the world is democratic, the people of the world will elect him ALL-MIGHTY-WORLD-LEADER! That's it! There is your conspiracy. Yeah, right.

I surely wish someone would connect the dots. They hand pick dots, but never seem to connect them.

At any rate, I will put on my tinfoil hat, and try to enjoy the posts.

Bigger

thewalabe said:

Hey, I'm not really making any comparisons here. I'm just pointing out the simple fact that things aren't always as they seem or as they're explained. Any inteligent american should dispise moore. I'll admit that I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself but I find it almost impossible to believe some of these things, and its not simply because I'm a conservative or voted for Bush. I just don't think there is really anyone smart enough in the u.s. to have pulled off such an impressive hoax.

Click to expand...

What does someone that falls under the rest of the 99% of a country's population in terms of income have to do with any of such matters? It doesn't matter about what politcal party you associate yourself with either when it comes to the bigger picture. The only thing that really matters anymore is how much money/influence you have.

Bib said:

Geez guys, you give the conservatives too much credit. Sorry, I don't exactly know what a "neo-conservative" is.

Talking about the elder Bush's, New World Order; I don't think he tried to hide any conspiracies, so by definition, they could not be a conspiracy. Now, if you ask about how the US, and conservatives in particular would wish things to turn out, that is different. Surely they do have ideals and wishes. As do most other countries and parties.

But I find it humerous that nobody seems to think about the goals of Europe and the rest of the world, and the struggle that has come about concerning the US and the middle east. Can it be possible that the US alone is the bad guy?

No conspiracy concerning Europe and Iraq. It is fairly plain and simple. Saddam bought off France, Germany, Russia, and possibly China, with "oil for food" money and illegal oil shipments, so that he could stay in power, and continue his wicked ways, as well as continue to get rich. Those countries exchanged morality for money. Didn't<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>so well for them, did it? But why is that never brought up? I forgot, the US is the bad guy.

I do remember the US and UK as being the only countries trying to enforce the trade restrictions and no fly zones against Iraq, under UN sanction. Many other countries, some named above, seemed to only want to violate the sanctions. But the US is the bad guys. I forgot again.

And it is not just about the bribes they took to affect the UN security council. Also of concern were the BILLIONS of dollars in oil contracts, service contracts, and Iraqi debt owed. Saddam was their boy, and they wanted him to stay in power because of financial reasons. To them, it was irrelevant what kind of threat he was, or what he was doing to his own people. But the US is the bad guys. I must remember that.

So then, they try to destroy Bush, get him out of office, because he fucked up their party. Never in history have foreign nations attempted to affect a US election to that extent. Perhaps they could have rebuilt their little scheme with Kerry in office.

So, the BS about "no stockpiles of WMDs" is spouted. But the history of Saddam was too ingrained for the majority of voters to buy that crap. Everyone fully understood what Saddam was about. So there were no stockpiles, he could make more. He had the means, the knowledge, and obviously the willingness to use them. Plus the threat of giving them to terrorist organizations. The only question I have is, where did the stockpiles go, and where and when are they going to show up again? As David Kay said, Saddam was more dangerous at the time of invasion than ever before. Europe and the democrats do not ever seem to remember that part.

I guess all of this is not a conspiracy, because it is out in the open. But it is damn funny. Bush survives and thrives.

As far as other countries that the US has jacked with, I do not see a lot of problems. The South American stuff worked out pretty good. So far. Panama? The US built the damn canal, no invasion, everything legal, and then gave it to Panama. Noreiga? You want to defend that goon? Then defend Milosevic also.

How about the Phillipines? They asked us to leave, and we left. Now they are suffering economically. In fact, can anyone point out a country the US has gone into, and stayed without the hosts asking us to stay? And of the countries we have pulled out of, how have they done after we left? What about Iraq? Bush has stated, if they ask us to leave, we will leave.

And of the folks saying that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, why do they never call for reinstating Saddam as ruler? Why, if the invasion was illegal, then this is black and white! Saddam must be the true ruler of Iraq.

Has the US attempted to affect parts of the rest of the world? Of course we have. It is in our national interest to do so, and our leaders would be derilict in their duty if they did not act. Especially in countries with oil reserves. At least for the present time. As hydrogen as a fuel comes available, that will change to an extent. But for the most part, I truly believe the leaders of the US have tried to do the right thing. I think Bush surely has.

Oh, and about NORAD, why do you think they would even have their radar pointed into the continental US, rather than pointed out? Why would they be concerned with domestic travel, at that point in time. That was the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Bigger

Click to expand...

Where did I defend Noriega? It was in fact a unilateral move. But of course what did that matter? There's nothing that says what the U.S. did there was wrong. Thousands of civilians weren't killed. No it was about 200 like it was reported. But then again I'm guessing not that many U.S. citizens could really answer about how many Iraqi citizens have perished in this go around either. But like our heads of defense we don't really concern ourselves in knowing that. No one claims that the rest of the world's leaders are saints either. The point is that the U.S. is like any other country in that it looks out for its most powerful and most resourceful assets FIRST. The people that stand to gain the most are...fill in the blank. What do they do again? What are their jobs? How do they affect the country and the world? The reasons for our conquests/atrocities given to this public is BULLSHIT rhetoric. Period. How many people are there that actually believe Saddam had the capability to even have one weapon capable of doing anything to the U.S? (One of the reasons given) I am pretty sure you could round up thousands of buyers of this regime's crap. Men like Cheney and Bush I and Bush II who stand to make billions of dollars in the deaths of thousands and reconstruction, and dependency in oil should be enough to make anyone sick. The world is filled with these kind of people. The U.S. just happens to be the leader of the pack right now.

Bib said:

Geez guys, you give the conservatives too much credit. Sorry, I don't exactly know what a "neo-conservative" is.

Talking about the elder Bush's, New World Order; I don't think he tried to hide any conspiracies, so by definition, they could not be a conspiracy. Now, if you ask about how the US, and conservatives in particular would wish things to turn out, that is different. Surely they do have ideals and wishes. As do most other countries and parties.

But I find it humerous that nobody seems to think about the goals of Europe and the rest of the world, and the struggle that has come about concerning the US and the middle east. Can it be possible that the US alone is the bad guy?

No conspiracy concerning Europe and Iraq. It is fairly plain and simple. Saddam bought off France, Germany, Russia, and possibly China, with "oil for food" money and illegal oil shipments, so that he could stay in power, and continue his wicked ways, as well as continue to get rich. Those countries exchanged morality for money. Didn't<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>so well for them, did it? But why is that never brought up? I forgot, the US is the bad guy.

I do remember the US and UK as being the only countries trying to enforce the trade restrictions and no fly zones against Iraq, under UN sanction. Many other countries, some named above, seemed to only want to violate the sanctions. But the US is the bad guys. I forgot again.

And it is not just about the bribes they took to affect the UN security council. Also of concern were the BILLIONS of dollars in oil contracts, service contracts, and Iraqi debt owed. Saddam was their boy, and they wanted him to stay in power because of financial reasons. To them, it was irrelevant what kind of threat he was, or what he was doing to his own people. But the US is the bad guys. I must remember that.

So then, they try to destroy Bush, get him out of office, because he fucked up their party. Never in history have foreign nations attempted to affect a US election to that extent. Perhaps they could have rebuilt their little scheme with Kerry in office.

So, the BS about "no stockpiles of WMDs" is spouted. But the history of Saddam was too ingrained for the majority of voters to buy that crap. Everyone fully understood what Saddam was about. So there were no stockpiles, he could make more. He had the means, the knowledge, and obviously the willingness to use them. Plus the threat of giving them to terrorist organizations. The only question I have is, where did the stockpiles go, and where and when are they going to show up again? As David Kay said, Saddam was more dangerous at the time of invasion than ever before. Europe and the democrats do not ever seem to remember that part.

I guess all of this is not a conspiracy, because it is out in the open. But it is damn funny. Bush survives and thrives.

As far as other countries that the US has jacked with, I do not see a lot of problems. The South American stuff worked out pretty good. So far. Panama? The US built the damn canal, no invasion, everything legal, and then gave it to Panama. Noreiga? You want to defend that goon? Then defend Milosevic also.

How about the Phillipines? They asked us to leave, and we left. Now they are suffering economically. In fact, can anyone point out a country the US has gone into, and stayed without the hosts asking us to stay? And of the countries we have pulled out of, how have they done after we left? What about Iraq? Bush has stated, if they ask us to leave, we will leave.

And of the folks saying that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, why do they never call for reinstating Saddam as ruler? Why, if the invasion was illegal, then this is black and white! Saddam must be the true ruler of Iraq.

Has the US attempted to affect parts of the rest of the world? Of course we have. It is in our national interest to do so, and our leaders would be derilict in their duty if they did not act. Especially in countries with oil reserves. At least for the present time. As hydrogen as a fuel comes available, that will change to an extent. But for the most part, I truly believe the leaders of the US have tried to do the right thing. I think Bush surely has.

Oh, and about NORAD, why do you think they would even have their radar pointed into the continental US, rather than pointed out? Why would they be concerned with domestic travel, at that point in time. That was the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Bigger

Click to expand...

Bib, why does the U.S. go anywhere? Oil. "Hey we'll help you build up your economy and help make cities if you give us permission to build here and drill for oil. Oh yeah and you'll be needing a massive loan too that you won't even be able to pay. Thanks."

> But then again I'm guessing not that many U.S. citizens could really answer about how many Iraqi citizens have perished in this go around either. But like our heads of defense we don't really concern ourselves in knowing that. No one claims that the rest of the world's leaders are saints either. The point is that the U.S. is like any other country in that it looks out for its most powerful and most resourceful assets FIRST.<

You would think so. But as I have pointed out, many times, the US actions do not follow this path. Very curious.

>The people that stand to gain the most are...fill in the blank. What do they do again? What are their jobs? How do they affect the country and the world? The reasons for our conquests/atrocities given to this public is BULLSHIT rhetoric. Period. How many people are there that actually believe Saddam had the capability to even have one weapon capable of doing anything to the U.S? (One of the reasons given)<

Me. That's one. And the mechanism is: Sell or give weapons to terrorist organizations to be smuggled into the country, and used in a large city. Saddam had shown the inclination to fund terrorsts, $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber in Israel. Plus, proven talks with reps of Al Quada. A much easier conspiracy to prove than those alleged against the US.

>I am pretty sure you could round up thousands of buyers of this regime's crap. Men like Cheney and Bush I and Bush II who stand to make billions of dollars in the deaths of thousands and reconstruction, and dependency in oil should be enough to make anyone sick. The world is filled with these kind of people. The U.S. just happens to be the leader of the pack right now.<

But wait, these guys are already wealthy. So, where is the motivation? That is my question. If this is all a big conspiracy, what is the motive, and how is it manifested? You seem to indicate it is money or power? Correct? So, how does this come about and why? Bush is already the most powerful man in the world. And he is attempting to GIVE power to the Penis EnlargementOPLE of the middle east by assisting democracy. How is this a power grab? Plus, he will be out of office in four years. Not much time in the grand scheme. It would make much more sense if he had attempted to install a puppet dictator.

Then, let's concentrate on the money aspect. How does he, or anyone else get it, the money. You say oil. So, let's see the mechanism for this money grab. Do they steal the oil? How does that work. It would require the cooperation of thousands of people, most in the host nation. Or have they spent hundreds of billions in order to grab a few billion in oil service contracts? How does that make sense? Further, how much could actually be made?

So, perhaps it is simply wanting the US to control the entire region. But wait, how is trying to make the entire region democratic going to control it? We still need that puppet dictator.

Another question: If the conspiracy of money and power were true, how come Saudi Arabia did not flood the market with oil, lowering the pump prices in the US, and insuring Bush's re-election?

If the US goal was more oil on the market, why were we only one of two (UK being the other) to even attempt to enforce the UN sanctions against Saddam? All the while other countries were blatantly violating the sanctions. Once again, where is the sense?

I can see where limiting the oil output of Iraq for ten years could make the scheme look good, a good cover for the ultimate goal of free oil flow:

But wait: Then, why has the coalition inserted democracies that will probably lead to Iraq joining OPenis EnlargementC in order to get the best price? How are we going to control a democratic nation? Further, if we wanted to control Iraq economically, why did Bush fight so hard to make all of the reconstruction money gifts, rather than loans as the democrats wanted? Once again, where is the sense?

If a person is going to throw out conspiracy theories, and suggest evil intentions, it would seem only prudent to be able to show a motive, and the mechanism by which these evil ideas would be manifested.

>Bib, why does the U.S. go anywhere? Oil. "Hey we'll help you build up your economy and help make cities if you give us permission to build here and drill for oil. Oh yeah and you'll be needing a massive loan too that you won't even be able to pay<

So, you should be able to site examples of where this occured, right? Perhaps South Korea, where we have been protecting that country, spending billions for fifty years. What exactly are we getting out of that again?

Or the Philipines. We were there for a long time, asked to leave, and we left. Took their oil with us. Oh wait, they don't have any oil. Hmmmm

How about reconstructing Japan and Germany. Surely we were repaid for that, and stole their oil? No oil, and no payment. Hmmmm.

Let's see: Saudi Arabia? Nope. Russia? Nope. Venzuela? Nope. In fact, I cannot think of a single country with or without oil reserves, where what you postulated has occured. In fact, for at least the last two decades, forgiving debt of foreign nations has been the norm for the US. But I will surely be happy to investigate any that you come up with.

Bigger

Bib said:

> But then again I'm guessing not that many U.S. citizens could really answer about how many Iraqi citizens have perished in this go around either. But like our heads of defense we don't really concern ourselves in knowing that. No one claims that the rest of the world's leaders are saints either. The point is that the U.S. is like any other country in that it looks out for its most powerful and most resourceful assets FIRST.<

You would think so. But as I have pointed out, many times, the US actions do not follow this path. Very curious.

>The people that stand to gain the most are...fill in the blank. What do they do again? What are their jobs? How do they affect the country and the world? The reasons for our conquests/atrocities given to this public is BULLSHIT rhetoric. Period. How many people are there that actually believe Saddam had the capability to even have one weapon capable of doing anything to the U.S? (One of the reasons given)<

Me. That's one. And the mechanism is: Sell or give weapons to terrorist organizations to be smuggled into the country, and used in a large city. Saddam had shown the inclination to fund terrorsts, $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber in Israel. Plus, proven talks with reps of Al Quada. A much easier conspiracy to prove than those alleged against the US.

>I am pretty sure you could round up thousands of buyers of this regime's crap. Men like Cheney and Bush I and Bush II who stand to make billions of dollars in the deaths of thousands and reconstruction, and dependency in oil should be enough to make anyone sick. The world is filled with these kind of people. The U.S. just happens to be the leader of the pack right now.<

But wait, these guys are already wealthy. So, where is the motivation? That is my question. If this is all a big conspiracy, what is the motive, and how is it manifested? You seem to indicate it is money or power? Correct? So, how does this come about and why? Bush is already the most powerful man in the world. And he is attempting to GIVE power to the Penis EnlargementOPLE of the middle east by assisting democracy. How is this a power grab? Plus, he will be out of office in four years. Not much time in the grand scheme. It would make much more sense if he had attempted to install a puppet dictator.

Then, let's concentrate on the money aspect. How does he, or anyone else get it, the money. You say oil. So, let's see the mechanism for this money grab. Do they steal the oil? How does that work. It would require the cooperation of thousands of people, most in the host nation. Or have they spent hundreds of billions in order to grab a few billion in oil service contracts? How does that make sense? Further, how much could actually be made?

So, perhaps it is simply wanting the US to control the entire region. But wait, how is trying to make the entire region democratic going to control it? We still need that puppet dictator.

Another question: If the conspiracy of money and power were true, how come Saudi Arabia did not flood the market with oil, lowering the pump prices in the US, and insuring Bush's re-election?

If the US goal was more oil on the market, why were we only one of two (UK being the other) to even attempt to enforce the UN sanctions against Saddam? All the while other countries were blatantly violating the sanctions. Once again, where is the sense?

I can see where limiting the oil output of Iraq for ten years could make the scheme look good, a good cover for the ultimate goal of free oil flow:

But wait: Then, why has the coalition inserted democracies that will probably lead to Iraq joining OPenis EnlargementC in order to get the best price? How are we going to control a democratic nation? Further, if we wanted to control Iraq economically, why did Bush fight so hard to make all of the reconstruction money gifts, rather than loans as the democrats wanted? Once again, where is the sense?

If a person is going to throw out conspiracy theories, and suggest evil intentions, it would seem only prudent to be able to show a motive, and the mechanism by which these evil ideas would be manifested.

>Bib, why does the U.S. go anywhere? Oil. "Hey we'll help you build up your economy and help make cities if you give us permission to build here and drill for oil. Oh yeah and you'll be needing a massive<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=Loan&id=50';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."><a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=Loan&id=50';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> loan </a></a>too that you won't even be able to pay<

So, you should be able to site examples of where this occured, right? Perhaps South Korea, where we have been protecting that country, spending billions for fifty years. What exactly are we getting out of that again?

Or the Philipines. We were there for a long time, asked to leave, and we left. Took their oil with us. Oh wait, they don't have any oil. Hmmmm

How about reconstructing Japan and Germany. Surely we were repaid for that, and stole their oil? No oil, and no payment. Hmmmm.

Let's see: Saudi Arabia? Nope. Russia? Nope. Venzuela? Nope. In fact, I cannot think of a single country with or without oil reserves, where what you postulated has occured. In fact, for at least the last two decades, forgiving debt of foreign nations has been the norm for the US. But I will surely be happy to investigate any that you come up with.

Bigger

Click to expand...

You forget how ravaged Japan and European countries were after WWII? The money was in the reconstruction. This country had become what during that period of time? Yes, that's right. A major industrial powerhouse? How? We had wartime factories in place ready to pump out the neccessities of the rebuilding process after WWII. Resources or something of interest is what I should have said is the main reason if not the only reason the U.S. goes anywhere, which I have more than eluded to in other posts, but specifically pertaining to oil...the mere search for oil Hydromaxmm...what has that done? Can you think of how many small wars and battles have been fought in the jungles of indigenous peoples of countries in South America, central, and latin america? And who were they fighting? Texaco, Shell to name a few of the parties...drilling the earth for what? Oil. And was it always in places where they were allowed? No. It wasn't. And when those oil giants are backed by our government leaders and the government of these countries attempt to figure out a way to stop the drilling and protect the rights of the people in those areas along with the impoverished people in the towns and cities the U.S. decides it's time for propaganda. Hit them up with an assault in rhetoric and get U.S. citizens who might be paying attention willing to back the oil industry over the rights of the people in those foreign nations.

One case in point: Colombia...why did the U.S. get involved there? And yes while we do get oil from them that has nothing to do with my first point.(more on oil later) But a common thread is tied in for what this country represents in terms of U.S./international relations in numerous countries. In the 70s large projects were given to U.S. engineering and construction companies to build up the country of Colombia. Electrical power grids for example were essential to this nation, so they were persuaded. So, naturally their government took on huge loans so as to invest in the potential of what such power grids and infrastructures would garner. Loans like these are huge risks for countries like Colombia. Particularly when economic projections are as inflated as they were to ensure the loans and projects would be accepted. There are plenty of countries today that pay nearly or indeed half of all national budget on repaying foreign debt on deals made with the U.S. dating thirty years back. (Ecuador is an example) And the other major components in this are oil and natural gas. These things are limited and if a country relies on it too much that makes the economy's future grim especially if you add to the fact the country owes massive debt and isn't earning enough even if the debt is relinquished to help out the people for things like health care, education...you know those things that do not get much attention from this administration... But if you want an example of the oil meaning more than people...then in fact this country was in large part persued by the U.S. because of it's vast amounts of oil and gas. I mean look at Chevvron/Texaco...they were just awarded a big time gas contract in Colombia in 03. One problem is what is occurring now in Colombia...the oil is running out so now onto the gas...Two problems with this is: one this "stuff" comes from pretty distinct areas. Amazonian areas my friend...two the indigenous people there have not taken kind to these people and have fought over the pollution of their rivers and taking over of their land. Think about it....or better yet find some information on the Net about farmers in such countries fighting over the pollution that makes it impossible for them to live there if they haven't been moved to a reservation that is. This all began in the midst the cold war. So, when guerrilla groups formed and even trained in countries like Russia and China to learn how to repel these construction workers these oil drillers they were considered communists. They just wanted their fucking land back. The government with much to lose since it had so much invested in the process and progress of these industries at times backed these companies fully and what with the school of americas near there were capable soliders to fend off these guerrilas. But like I said the U.S. is no different than any other country. It was looking out for it's investments, its interests just as the nations that were being duped did. Of course in certain circumstances there were leaders that needed to be disposed of in order for the investments to be protected and executed accordingly. You see how it works yet? The U.S. looks for lucrative ventures which is fine, but historically have made decepetive deals with foreign nations. The debt, the business, the oil or whatever resource that was desired, and the access to land for perhaps military bases even all were parts of the deal the U.S. expected. On the flip side the "unbeknownst
party" thinks it is being helped brought along into the modern times. The U.S. leaders don't care about other nations. Perhaps WWII is the only example really where its own interests were set aside, but even then it took Pearl Harbor for the country's entrance. All I am saying on that is the U.S. men and women in the military today and the men of yesterday risked their lives countless times not because of an imminent threat but to protect certain lucrative interests. But back to the word unbeknownst. I use that loosily because not all governments that made such deals with the U.S. had the intention of helping their nation. (once more the U.S. isn't the only devil playing this game) Corrupt leaders are what this engine uses for fuel. The only real example I can think of that involves a major deal where certain people high in the government getting super rich and actually helping its people is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are high on digninty and self respect. The education and cities of that country are very much like our own. Of course we don't have any influx of Islamic radicals in this country, but hey that's because since the deal in 74 was struck that movement has steadily grown. I don't know much about that...I wish I did, but I don't. Many of the likes aruge it's U.S. policy that invoked their wrath. But then again maybe I can understand it a little, but hey what are you going to do? That country historically was and today but not as much as many there would like is a very religious country. Praying five times a day and having that sort of thing policed is a crazy idea to you and I probably. The modernization and "complete sellout" that 1974 deal represented to all OPenis EnlargementC nations including plenty in Saudi Arabia might have helped grease the wheels a bit on the hatred thing. It brought materialism to Saudi Arabia. That hasn't gone over so well there for quite a few. And...what do you think the deal with the Saudis entailed? It certainly didn't allow for the U.S. to just have whatever it wanted...not sure what sarcastic comment you made about such a thing, but it served no purpose. There was so much money and oil there that the U.S. wanted to ensure that another oil embargo like that in 73 would never happen again. We'd give them a modernized look, protection, weapons, and in turn we'd get something out of it etc. etc. with the construction contracts yeah etc etc, but what it meant was that our countries would be so co dependent of each other that there is no way an embargo like that could ever occur. Kausion brought this up well. How do you not see what that deal was about and most importantly what it represents and what has happened because it was made? It has probably impacted the world more than anything in the last thirty one years at least. But I digress a bit for now on the U.S. looking out for its resources and ventures.

And to answer maybe some misconceptions of how the U.S. helped placed a puppet regime in place...you can look at Iraq in a year or two or you could look back to how the Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power...with the help of yes British and Soviets, but the U.S.(CIA)played the critical role in labeling his premier who had forced Pahlavi into exile a Communist. Pahlavi was someone the U.S. could rely on to cooperate with the U.S. (This is directly from a book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman- John Perkins)

""After the shah was reinstated," Torrijos continued, "He launched a series of revolutionary programs aimed at developing the industrial sector and bringing Iran into the modern era.""

The book goes on to describe how Torrijos believed he was on par with the Guatemalan president Arbenz in the 1950s. United Fruit was an asset much the same as the Panam Canal was. When elected the people in neighboring countries saw it as a great thing for his people. A great example of democracy. Only Jacob Arbenz saw to it that the fact that 70 percent of the land there was owned by less than 3% of the population changed. He enacted a land reform program that would greatly help the poor and middle class throughout Latin America. United Fruit disliked this reform just as greatly as the people appreciated it. United Fruit owned much of this land and used it as large plantations throughout Latin America. They saw it as a threat.

"United Fruit had launched a major public relations campaign in teh United States, aimed at convincing the American public and congress that Arbenz was part of a Russian plot and Guatemala was a Soviet satellite. IN 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup. American pilots bombed Guatemala City and the democatically elected Arbenz was overthrown, replaced by Colonel Carlos Castillo Amras, a ruthless right wing dictator." (Perkins 73)

Omar Torijos...Do you think he posed a threat to the United States or to anyone for that matter? There is nothing that shows he was anything more than a leader and friend of the impoverished people of his country, but the U.S. wanted what? ITs way. Torrijos was assassinated in a helicopter crash.

""Do you know who owns United Fruit? he asked(Torrijos asking question) Zapata Oil, George Bush's company-our UN ambassador.""

""A man with ambitions." He leaned forward and lowered his voice. "And now I'm up against his cronies at Bechtel.""

"This startled me. Bechtel was the world's most powerful engineering firm and a frequent collaborator on projects with MAIN. In the case of Panama's master plan, I had assumed that they were one of our major competitors."

""What do you mean?"
"We've been considering building a new canal, a sea level one, without locks. It can handle bigger ships. The Japanese may be interested in financing it.""

""They're the Canal's biggest clients.""

""Exactly, Of course, if they provide the money, they will do the construction.""
""Bechtel will be out in the cold.""
""The biggest construction job in recent history." He paused. "'Bechtel's President is George Shultz, Nixon's secretary of the treasury. YOu can imagine the clout he's got-and a notorious temper. Bechtel's loaded with Nixon, Ford, and Bush cronies. I've been told that the Bechtel family pulls the strings of the Republican Party."

I don't know...the super rich not having anything to do with this country's global relationships and foreign policies over the years....man I'm convinced there just no way they have that much pull....NOOOO WAAAYY. There's no motif anywhere at any time nor has there ever been a decision made in congress about our tax laws either...

I'm tired though so I'll check on this thread and see if I left anything out or need to correct some things.

And to answer another question you pose Bib, the U.S. isn't leaving Iraq and there is good reason to wipe the slate clean for that country in terms of debts. They want us out, but Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld know it isn't that easy. It goes back to a main reason the war happened. The threat of a total switch to the Petro-Euro. All it takes is one country we owe a ton of our IOUs to come calling for a collection in Euros as well you know all those U.S. security treasuries backed by the confidence in our economy and something was said today or yesterday (I'll look into that) in fact about treasury bonds in the news... the government's committment and ability to repay such things would have been very unstable if Saddam would have stayed in power...He'd already made millions by switching out to the Euro before the war. The other reasons are going to shine through to the surface in the coming years mostly to do with geostrategics. Tell me when the U.S. does leave Iraq though.

And another thing...if you are serious about the not knowing what a neo conservative is...look up some things on Irving Kristol I believe is a name to know....Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz and to an extent Donald Rumsfeld. Look at who their mentors and idols were. Also, look up Product for a New American Century. That should help you get as good an idea as to who and what I am talking about. They want the U.S. to be THE global player and be a dominant force particualrly in the Middle East using aggressive military action. Their movement goes back to the days when it became apparent that nuclear war wasn't something that any country could afford to take part. Only the men involved in this movement have become crazier over the years. But whatever you choose to believe you can't argue that there is something going on to ensure that all oil dependent nations stay that way at least for now. Any kind of energy reform has been shot down for the most part. It isn't even really discussed in the mainstream news here in the States. I'd bet Europeans know more about what global Peak Oil means than the percentage of U.S. citizens do.

Damn. I just found this site and read it through and it says almost everything I've been trying to... http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cg...derness.com/free/ww3/082702_infinite_war.html

iwant8inches said:

What does someone that falls under the rest of the 99% of a country's population in terms of income have to do with any of such matters? It doesn't matter about what politcal party you associate yourself with either when it comes to the bigger picture. The only thing that really matters anymore is how much money/influence you have.

Click to expand...

I'm just curious. What exactly are you trying to say in this? I understand the influence part you're trying to talk about but nothing else.

No intentions there to insult if that's what you mean...althought I don't think that is what you mean. It's just when it comes to the key players involved in the conspiracy of "world domination" the reasons behind their political affiliations have little to do with anything more than manipulation. Political parties are used and exploited all the time to get what is desired. The simplest form of an example would be Lobbyists. And I'm not saying that (Lobbying) is a bad thing, but when it comes to what Kausion speaks of (NWO) unless you are a man worth tens of billions of dollars most likely we know your opinion has little to do with your political affiliation. (my comments were addressing yours on being a conservative...or a bush backer or whatever it was...) I guess essentially I was trying to say when it comes to conspiracy theories and the people doing the conspiring, political parties go out the door. There...does that make sense???

Iwant,

I don't want to be an ass, but I cannot read that first post. Not enough paragraphs. I am old, and my eyes don't track so well.

At any rate, I still do not see the motives, mechanisms, what the end game is.

But the US does not have any IOUs issued to anyone, or that anyone can "call in". We have issued treasury securitites that have known lives and are paid only in dollars, not ever Euros. No person or country can put us at risk economically.

Bigger

There is a growing influence within the EU and the WEU that is actually striving to establish European dominance in all situations...The US is being forced out of peace negotiations with the iraqis and the palestinians... At the same time there is a growing influence of one of the leaders in the WEU and has been gaining strength and power over the last decade yet.. no one has reported about him or anything that he is striving to accomplish and everything that is reported is always a "good" report... Read about what Javier Solana is working to accomplish throught the WEU... He will be the most powerful man in Europe and most likely the world in a few years... He's been working towards that goal for over a decade now...

I have never heard of this Javier Solana that you speak of but it must be BS! lol (Sarcasm)

I will do some searching on him and see what you are talking about.

Im tired of seeing the good cop bad cop global manipulation going on here. Good cop being the UN and bad cop being the US. They US is being used as an engine to enforce the agenda and the country they invade hates them for this. They see it as the US trying to invade and not the big picture. So then they turn their views to the UN and see it as the saviour when infact giving yourself to the UN is helping further this global agenda. So what you have is a no win situation.

The way things are going now it should be obvious to those completely oblivious to the world that we are headed for troubled times.

Bib, don't worry about it. We're just discussing. The things that are said for the most part in this thread have already been...well...said.