Thread: NATO Missiles in Poland --- Back on track... :-(

Regarding Americans carrying weapons as they go about their daily business:
My view is --- it's their country, if that's what they want... why should we care? Nobody is forced to go there.

Personally I think it's strange that people want this but I agree that according to ONE view (expressed by DDT) it might make sense for citizens to be armed. I'd say it probably leads to more accidental deaths and spur-of-the-moment killings, but if that's a price Americans are willing to pay, then that's their call.

Originally Posted by Johanna

In general I thought Croc's post was great. But I really don't see why there was any need to go to war in Iraq in the first place, not to mention going there for the second time.

It was an economically motivated war! How could you support it? Some points:

1) Saddam Hussein never had any hostile intentions that he could realistically carry out towards either Europe or the US. As it turned out he never even had WMDs --- the public in the UK and US were tricked!

2) He had previously been propped up(!!!) by the US when he was "the enemy of the enemy", i.e. the Khomeini regime in Iran. The opportunism of first helping someone, then go to war against him is beyond words in terms of cynicism. Saddam's policies were the same all along.

3) Additionally Kuwait had been effectively stealing oil from Iraq, to sell on the world market, and ignored Iraq's requests to stop or pay for the oil it took. Iraq had warned that this would lead to war unless it stopped. If Kuwait had not been so greedy for this Iraqi oil, or at least tried to negotiate, the invasion probably would never had happened.

4) Kuwait had previously been part of Iraq and the attempt to conquer it back was no stranger or more shocking than Argentina trying for the Falklands, China wanting Taiwan or the USSR trying for Finland . It was not a black and white issue although I personally of course don't think it was acceptable for Iraq to invade.

Seven years later, thousands of Western soldiers have died, and many millions of Iraqis since the first war; in battle, as civilian war casualties, as a result of sanctions, through general hardship and in terrorist attacks.

Essentially to ensure a steady and affordable oil supply to the US (mainly) and the UK (to a much lesser degree).

The civilians are worse off than before the war, millions have fled the country and are now in Europe (mainly) or living in refugee camps. The war in Iraq has spurred on terrorism and created an incredibly cynical and hostile view of the West among Moslems.

I am 100% for a country defending itself if it gets attacked, but this had nothing to do with peacekeeping or patriotism. It was always an economical war where most of the victims are civilians and coalition soldiers in their early twenties. In my view it's only marginally less bad than the Vietnam war.

And tell me, how many wars were ever fought for anything other than financial gains? The question is, just, whose financial gain?

PS: Not only were Iraq'a Kuwait's borders drawn up by Britain under the Balfour plan, so were ALL the borders in the Middle East. Furthermore, so what if Kuwait was once part of Iraq. Part of Iraq was once part of Israel!

Back in the days when my country was constantly fighting wars (like the US is now), there was at least a pretense that it was about religion (protestantism vs catholicism), or about securing outer borders or existing property in annexed areas like Norway, Finland or the Baltic states.

As far as I know we never started any wars purely for economical reasons, or to secure a supply of certain natural resources. We also only fought countries that are more or less geographical neighbours.

I think the habit of starting wars in a completely different part of the world took off when colonialism started, which my country was never really involved in. But the European countries withdrew from serious colonialism / imperialism (with a few exceptions) and the only country still openly doing it now is the US.

Some people viewed the USSR as a thinly veiled excuse for Russian imperialism. But as we know, that too ended.

It's very sad that decent Americans and others are tricked by media into believing that these wars are somehow morally justified. The information used to convince them of this is seriously skewed and one-sided. It would be called propaganda or agitation if any other country was using it..

It's unbelieveable that the US is going through such tough times and yet engaging in a war that benefits nobody apart from a clique of people and organisations in the financial elite. It's even more embarrassing that European countries have bought into this scheme when there is literally nothing at all in it for Europe.

And in contrast to earlier eras such as the 1960s-1980s regular people are too busy with work commitments, de-sensitized to violence and distracted with nonsense entertainment to care or to seriously try and change things.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Back in the days when my country was constantly fighting wars (like the US is now), there was at least a pretense that it was about religion (protestantism vs catholicism), or about securing outer borders or existing property in annexed areas like Norway, Finland or the Baltic states. .
As far as I know we never started any wars purely for economical reasons, or to secure a supply of certain natural resources. We also only fought countries that are more or less geographical neighbours.

So Vikings raiding the coasts of Britain, Scotland and France was not about "getting free stuff" off unsuspecting farmers?

Originally Posted by Johanna

I think the habit of starting wars in a completely different part of the world took off when colonialism started,..............
..which my country was never really involved in.

And that started when? With the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks the Romans. Or was it when your people sailed down the river and settled in Kiev?

Originally Posted by Johanna

and the only country still openly doing it now is the US.

Really? Then how come there is a host on other nations military represented there too? It can't be colonialism. You are still thinking too small. It's actually worse, but you will have to figure out what it really is.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Some people viewed the USSR as a thinly veiled excuse for Russian imperialism. But as we know, that too ended.

Yes, Putin was only handing out hundreds of thousands of Russian passports in Ukraine and Georgia!

Originally Posted by Johanna

It's very sad that decent Americans and others are tricked by media .

And you are tricked too!
The conspiracy is BIGGER than you think. And it started long before Bush or even Reagan.

The Vikings were "pagans" and didn't have any concept that there was anything wrong about what they did! They were not claiming to be Christian, Democratic, Humanitarian or anything at all along those lines.. They did not try to impose their worldview or culture on everyone else and they did not have umpteen media outlets singing their praises despite their aggressive behaviour.

Lord Almighty, that was 1000 years ago -- before national borders even existed!! Their actions are totally irrelevant in the modern world. And as far as the Ukrainians in particular were concerned there was not a problem - they got on fine with the Vikings.

But tell me about this great conspiracy that you are alluding to?

If it's not about America controlling as much as possible of the worlds' oil reserves, then what is it about in your view?

OK! Why do you think it is just America? Or even America at all? Don't you know that huge corporations are not countries? They are multinational! Furthermore they are owned by "people" or someone. And they usually own more than one corporation. There are people behind the "big money" and most of the 'big money' is connected to families and has been in these families for generations. They are kings, queens, statesmen, businessmen, bankers from all over the world and they own most of what you see including the media. Combined, they are more powerful than most countries.

And they ARE combined! They meet! They discuss what is good for them and what they foresee for us. You can deny it if you want but we do know where and when they meet. When they meet in the US, the tax payers pay for their "security" measures, which also include three branches of the military. The media is not allowed in. True, we don't know what they say in the meetings but we can assume they don't talk about what they saw on TV last night! Both Hillary Clinton and Obama went to one together, shortly before the candidate for the Primaries was announced. Obama's press team who followed his campaign, was left sitting on an airport runway locked in the plane while Obama was at that meeting. These are facts. The press was pissed, and that incident is on video. This how the world operates. It does not operate because you cast your vote at a ballot.

You think that Bush and the neocons are after the oil! I think that Bush and the neocons do only what they are allowed to do. If Bush gets the Iraqi oil, it's only because "somebody" thinks that it is a good idea for them too!

PS: I don't think that Russia is "playing" with the "Money Men", ....yet! ....But I could be wrong about that.

Ok, I agree with that and I happen to think that large corporations, particularly banks and oil companies are the real bad guys. But America is the one country that is the most willing to do the dirty work of [these people, whoever they are..] including starting wars that break international law.

The UK during the Bush era was even stupider, happy to tag along out of misguided loyalty, without asking any questions.. Getting hardly anything in return apart from empty words.

There is a huge debate and investigation here into both the ongoing wars right now, and the findings are both shocking and pathetic. Medias role in misguiding people is enormous. Hard to say if it was deliberate or if they too were tricked.

With its enormous post war/cold war influence America has got large parts of Europe to tag on to its strategy to dominate those parts of the world that are worth the trouble -- the most recent (and eager) recruits being the East Europeans who are temporarily high on everything Western, including the prospect of Nato bases on their territories. They just got rid of the Russian bases, muppets! Duh!

I also think that the behaviour of the US after WW2 seems to have been deliberately designed to provoke the USSR, thereby triggering it to become overly paranoid and as a result locking all of Europe into the insanity of the cold war. Socialism might have worked out a lot better had these countries not spent more than half of their GDP on defense which they felt forced to do as a result of the US' constant rattling its weapons and bringing nukes to Europe. But now we shall never know.

After the cold war everyone thought: "Peace at last"; but no sooner was that over until all these oil and terrorism wars started, and the Serbs getting singled out by Nato as bad guys. Just after that ended; Sept 11 and the great crusade... aka the war on terror.

And again we are seeing Nato behave in a way that seems deliberatlely designed to push Russia into paranoia mode, to the detriment of its neighbours. A constructive approach would be the opposite; trust and open relations.

I feel like the movie "Canadian Bacon" (as silly as it is) is almost prophetic -- post cold war, new enemies had to be found asap, and they were... The phony concerns about whether or not Russia is democratic and what the status of human rights might be there is just phony. None of these things are historically a prerequisite for good relations with either Europe or America and it seems doubtful whether people there even care particularly for these things at the moment.

Don't get me wrong DDT, there are lots of great things about the US and American people. I admire it in many different ways, really, honestly.
I really only have a serious issue with the foreign policy and environmental polices. Some of the qualities of the US are really VERY admirable; peoples' faith, can-do positive attitude, the achiements of the pioneers and the techinical expertise in so many fields, just to mention a few that I can think of.

You keep insisting that it is "the USA". The USA is only being used. One of the biggest moneymen and Left-wing supporters today is George Soros. He practically owns the left-wing think tank moveon.org. He pours money into every left-wing program. Yet in 1992, representatives of Soros, Rothchilds and Dutch/British bankers met on board the HMS Britannia while in presence of the queen herself. At the same time, in 2006, Soros campaigned against HALIBURTON through moveon.org and their stocks fell dramatically. Soros then bought up a large percentage of Haliburton stocks (of the company he had a vendetta for). Moveon.org quietly stopped talking about Haliburton and the stocks went back up, and now Soros made 40 million dollars from them. It was the largest investment that he made that year. Moveon.org is a huge influence on the Left-wingers in the USA. But they/Soros are manipulating the Left.

Soros' moveon.org campaiged for Obama. Soros also had a hand in the restructuring of Russian economy after the collapse. Soros states that he believes in doing away with all international borders and havind a centralized government.
Soros, as a 12 year old boy, was a Nazi sympathizer and helped collect other Jewish peoples belonging for the Nazis. This experience had to have left a negative impression of the man's psyche.

This is just ONE example of one man among the many that help shape this world into their image. You are still thinking "small" when you think the USA operates alone.

Originally Posted by DDT

You think that Bush and the neocons are after the oil! I think that Bush and the neocons do only what they are allowed to do. If Bush gets the Iraqi oil, it's only because "somebody" thinks that it is a good idea for them too!

PS: I don't think that Russia is "playing" with the "Money Men", ....yet! ....But I could be wrong about that.

You would do a great Ramil.

Ok, so let me ask you a question. When Russia was governed by Yeltzin it was "playing" with the "Money Men" (and only did what it was allowed to) and now it's governed by Putin/Medvedev, so it isn't? So, how come it changed so drastically? How do you apply the "Soros & Co." theory to resolve that?

Originally Posted by Johanna

But I really don't see why there was any need to go to war in Iraq in the first place, not to mention going there for the second time. It was an economically motivated war! How could you support it?

I have to agree with DDT here. All wars are economically motivated (however disguised). The sole purpose of a national army is to promote or defend the national economy. By definition. For example: the Vikings (=army X) want to grab some food (=economy) from the peasants who take mattocks (=army Y) to ward the Vikings off.

You go on stressing the point that if Iraq had Saddam Hussein it's what the Iraqis want and no one should intervene, but let me remind you of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack in which Saddam Hussein ordered chemical assault on his OWN CITIZENS!! Don't you think by doing that he CLEARLY crossed the line and became illegitimate ruler?

I think the rule here is rather simple. As a ruler, you're entitled to fight (=kill or imprison) the organizers of the separatist movements. If you punish men, women and children who didn't have a say in the matter, you basically openly become a criminal. So, you lose the entitlement of a "just ruler" and start a vicious cycle as your supporters are also criminals, and so on.

The assault on Kuwait and the subsequent bombing of Israel (did Israel also use to steal Iraq's oil?), making ecological catastrophe (he intentionally spilled the oil in the ocean, remember?) was a rather decent excuse to deprive that open criminal of the power and most countries supported that idea back then.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by DDT

You think that Bush and the neocons are after the oil! I think that Bush and the neocons do only what they are allowed to do. If Bush gets the Iraqi oil, it's only because "somebody" thinks that it is a good idea for them too!

PS: I don't think that Russia is "playing" with the "Money Men", ....yet! ....But I could be wrong about that.

You would do a great Ramil.

Ok, so let me ask you a question. When Russia was governed by Yeltzin it was "playing" with the "Money Men" (and only did what it was allowed to) and now it's governed by Putin/Medvedev, so it isn't? So, how come it changed so drastically? How do you apply the "Soros & Co." theory to resolve that?

I think that Russia has always been a "wild card" for the European moneymen. I think that the Russian moneymen are a breed on their own. Puti/Med team, at this point, simply deal with the world moneymen as they see fit. If they don't play nice there could be problems. If they play along together, there will be problems. For us peons, there will be problems either way.

Soros is only one person amongst the hundreds in the Moneymen group. I just used him as an example of how the Left (Johanna) is used to fulfill their agenda. Their chance for the manipulation of Russia is over. Russia has her own Moneymen of which Putin is a part of. I look at this as two mafia families, the East Siders and the West Siders, competing for business.

But it is more than just "business" with the West Siders. They have foresight and an ideology to go along with their agenda of control. I believe that they discuss these things at their group meetings which are held at locations all over the world. Their ideology involves what is sustainable for themselves and the planet and if you read some of their ideas you will see that they don't give a crap about YOU or ME. For them, there are already too many of "yous and mes" in the world and most of us are not only expendable but "in the way."

I don't think that the Russian Moneymen are in on that part of the deal....yet...or ever will be! Not sure! If they do go in on that "ideology" then we are all toast!


This out of a book that I think has a few valid points to be pondered.
Jan Von Helsing ("Secret Societies and their Power in the 20th Century")

Soros led a delegation to Russia, where he had been collaborating with Raissa Gorbacheva since the 80's, to set up a further Soros foundation, ":The Cultural Initiative Foundation". This is a further vehicle for him and his Western cronies to enter the highest political echelons tax-free and proceed to "buy" the most important political and economic personalities of the country.

After a failed attempt with Gorbechev 1988-1991 he changed over to the circles around Yeltsin. And again it was Soros who introduced his "shock therapy" aided and abetted by his friend Jeffery Sachs.

From Jan. 2, 1992 onwards Sachs "shock therapy" brought an unprecedented chaos and a forseeable hyper-inflation to Russia which was followed by the best scientific research institutes fleeing to the West. Under the Soros plan, Igor Gajdar and the Yeltsin government shorted subsidies to industry and agriculture drastically, despite all of economy being a state-economy. The goal announced was a deficit-free budget within 3 months. There were no more loans for industry, the companies accrued astronomical debts and the rouble inflation went out of control. Soros and his friends immediately profited from the situation. Marc Rich, the world's largest aluminum dealer, started to buy up alot of Russian aluminum at incredibly low prices with which in 1993 he proceeded to flood the market in the industrialized countries and thus caused the price of aluminum to plummet by 30%. This is just one example of the Soros exploitation.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The assault on Kuwait and the subsequent bombing of Israel (did Israel also use to steal Iraq's oil?), making ecological catastrophe (he intentionally spilled the oil in the ocean, remember?) was a rather decent excuse to deprive that open criminal of the power and most countries supported that idea back then.

Ok I am very tired so I won't write long. I admit that I had totally forgotten that Iraq attacked Israel. Terrible. I still don't quite see what this has to do with the USA though... Israel has a kickass army and actually managed to shoot most of the missiles down, I think.

Frankly I was pretty young and not very interested when this happened, but was I was shocked of course - some relatives of my mothers lived in Israel at the time.

Did Iraq start attacking Israel before or after the war? It must be one of Saddams stupidest moves - guaranteed to provoke the US and seal his fate. I've really forgotten how the attacks on Israel fits into any of this.

Obviously the attacks on the Kurds were ghastly. But genocide of population happens in many countries... Should the USA start bombing and occupying all countries where this happens, or let people in those countries take sort out their own problems? Would you have wanted the US to bomb and occupy Russia when Stalin was out of control in his "cleansings" of people he disapproved of? Obviously very, very wrong and immoral to treat people like he did -- but the medicine should not be worse the the illness, so to speak.

The Kurds have been seriously persecuted in Turkey too, by the way. And just look what happens in Zimbabwe, Sudan.... The difference? Something black and sticky.....

I don't think that the Russian Moneymen are in on that part of the deal....yet...or ever will be! Not sure! If they do go in on that "ideology" then we are all toast!

It's not my problem, but I find it tragic that property / resources of Russia used to belong to the entire people/nation, as inefficient and restrictive as that system was... But now it's been grabbed by opportunists and unscrupulous people, while important public services like schools and hospitals are underfunded.

I don't think that the Russian Moneymen are in on that part of the deal....yet...or ever will be! Not sure! If they do go in on that "ideology" then we are all toast!

OK, Business in Russia is very mysterious and I have had some VERY strange and interesting experiences with some stock/shares I bought. "It's capitalism Jim, but not as we know it... " I doubt I'll ever understand it. Right now it seems like the Russian state is trying to buy up lots of companies and influence business.

Anyway DDT, in the world order as you see it, where does China (and/or India) fit into the scheme of things? Chinese economy is much bigger than Russias at the moment if there is a strange conspiracy going on, then Chinas role is more interesting. Not my favourite country I have to say.

Conspiracy exists! Crocodile must be their agent here

Originally Posted by Johanna

Anyway DDT, in the world order as you see it, where does China (and/or India) fit into the scheme of things? Chinese economy is much bigger than Russias at the moment if there is a strange conspiracy going on, then Chinas role is more interesting. Not my favourite country I have to say.

China is still on her own basically. She was so busy buying up all of the US debt that she owns the USA now. She is like the banker telling someone who has borrowed a lot of money from them what they can and can't do and how much they can afford. If the banker calls in the debt, the borrower is destroyed.

I think India will be split on her decisions but in the end may join a coalition with China and Russia. But I think that ultimately, those who are actually in power in these countries (not necessarily their respective governments) will join with the old money families of the West. At that time the ultimate "wilds cards" who will be trouble for the One Worlders will be the Islamists. And then we have still have the Jesuits to contend with, who I believe are mixed up at present in Western Politics. Some say they are the whole reason we went into Vietnam. But that is another story.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Conspiracy exists! Crocodile must be their agent here

Hear out, young mammal, for your heart the conspiracy senses, the truth you seek. Be known to you that our mighty race of Reptilians had ruled this world for the countless millennia, until the Yucatan catastrophe 65 million years ago. Wise we were enough to foresee that coming and united we were for the common goal. Build the spaceship we had and taken refuge and survived. You, the pitiful descendants of rodents, are given a chance for the greatness, but have not learnt the signs of your catastrophe coming. Even the Tunguska Event, 1908 opened your eyes have not. Be known to you that the gravitational waves had already disrupted the Oort Cloud and your rock is coming. Unable you will, however, to thwart the inevitable for great is the power of our technology and instilled we have jealousy and fear and suspicion in your weak minds. Will spend you all your energy and resources into fighting each other, destabilizing your own society by revolutions, by the perversion of virtues of the leadership and the united world. Implanted we had those ideas into the minds of the communists, anti-globalists, and anarchists. And the other minds had we subverted into the passive criticism, into denial, into dolce far niente. Incapable you will to develop the technology in time.

Oath, young mammal, upon hearing the truth, the faithful allegiance to our Highly Cool Ruler, Mighty Lord of the Water, the Land, the Sea, and the Space, Righteous Allosaurus XXVIII, his heirs and successors, and your life will be spared.

Gee... take me to your dealer!

Originally Posted by Ramil

Gee... take me to your dealer!

Nah, those were the home-grown ones. Can't share, sorry.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I admit that I had totally forgotten that Iraq attacked Israel. Terrible. I still don't quite see what this has to do with the USA though... Israel has a kickass army and actually managed to shoot most of the missiles down, I think. [...] Did Iraq start attacking Israel before or after the war? It must be one of Saddams stupidest moves - guaranteed to provoke the US and seal his fate. I've really forgotten how the attacks on Israel fits into any of this.

Here's a good introductory article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

"The great majority of the military forces in the coalition were from the United States, with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt as leading contributors, in that order. Around US$40 billion of the US$60 billion cost was paid by Saudi Arabia."

However, the foreign politics of Israel was disputed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, so admitting Israel into the military coalition would have effectively ruined the alliance. "Israel, at the request of the United States, did not join the war, and all Arab states remained in the coalition." A very few of the SCUD ballistic missiles were shot by the US-delivered Patriot missiles and almost all of the 40 scuds hit Israel. The so-called "kickass army" did nothing. You remembered it all wrong.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Obviously the attacks on the Kurds were ghastly. But genocide of population happens in many countries...

Not the genocide of their OWN CITIZENS. And you haven't answered the main question: had Saddam Hussein a right to continue to rule Iraq? It was the multinational consensus at the time to hand the power over to the Iraqi opposition right after the Operation Desert Storm stops, but as Saddam Hussein happened to retain his powers, he physically destroyed all opposition that surfaced up during the war. That's why the second Iraq war is so endless and senseless. There's still no sign the current Iraqi government can control anything on their own. They are real puppets.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Should the USA start bombing and occupying all countries where this happens, or let people in those countries take sort out their own problems?

Ok, so let's not mix apples with pears. First, there was a multinational consensus (including Muslim countries) and not the US alone. Second, do you really believe Iraqis had the means to lawfully displace their dictator?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, so let's not mix apples with pears. First, there was a multinational consensus (including Muslim countries) and not the US alone. Second, do you really believe Iraqis had the means to lawfully displace their dictator?

Taking the line of argument that we had the UN backing is dangerous!
Multinational consensus means nothing! Every leader in the "consensus" acts on their own interests.
Consensus = democratic
Democratic = two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

The Founding Fathers of USA were dead set against a "democracy" for this reason. We have a Republic and therefore a "rule of law" Our rule of law, the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, give little power to the federal government but also keep the US sovereign from the United Nations.
In other words, "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

If the US acts in accordance to the Constitution we don't need a consensus from the UN.

As a mater of fact the US should defund the United Nations and kick them out of their building in New York! The moneymen and global elitists mentioned in my earlier posts have already full control over the UN.

Remember, it was the old Bush, President H W Bush that first talked about the "new world order" in his speeches. He wasn't kidding! He could have taken Saddam out in 1991 and ended the incident. But he preferred to leave him in power so we could have a UN resolution keeping the US in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

Now we have under his son's presidency GW Bush, continued the policy of troops in the middle east furthermore compounded by Obama continuing with the same doctrine, even though he was elected to get US troops out of the M.E.
And you don't think that is strange?
It is time for you to take the Red Pill.