The beginning of WW3?

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have a problem with posters just making stuff up or stealing it from other websites and posting on a forum at their own.

Thing is, as long as you tell the right lies and agree with the general consensus here, all the other posters seem to be happy enough to sit back and let you do it, therefore they are complicit in your lying.

Stealing ? :pac: you still crying about the fluoride post I forgot to link or have you got new evidence

MRPRO03

U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran

The U.S. government has imposed new sanctions against Iran.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij Resistance Force, and Iran's Law Enforcement Forces are targeted.

Secretary of State Clinton says officials responsible for Iran's crackdown on protesters must be held accountable.

Washington has also imposed sanctions against Iran to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/09/us.iran.sanctions/

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

???

So we have a 50 year old speech from some old goat in the John Birch society and a book by a general who died before the end of the second world war. And this is what? Some kind of description of current american policy.

Talk about moving the goal posts lads? :rolleyes:

We'll go further. Eisenhower warned of the concentration of unwarranted power in the hands of a merged corporate/military cabal. Are you going to fob him off as a doddering old fool too or are you going to call him a "conspiracy theorist"?
Here is a President of the United States (and not one who has Alzheimer's or is a reformed coke and alcohol addict) warning about the fusion of business with the Pentagon in order to yield what he referred to as the "Military-Industrial Complex".
What dismissive little cliche are you going to slop on him? That he was bald? That he drank too much Merlot after liberating France? Get fücking real!

So Smedley Butler died before World War 2. And lo and behold that means that his observations of the machinations of industrial and corporate influence in war profiteering all of a sudden became null and void? Are you totally deranged?

Go back a 1000 years and you'll find that kings conducted wars purely for profit and in order to wage these wars they exacted taxes on their subjects to foot the bill.

Once again if you think the revolting slaughters in Central America in the 60's, 70's and 80's and the carnage in Indochina were about spreading freedom and defending the motherfückin' homeland instead of opening markets to the United Fruit Corporation and Goodyear and propping up Dupont Chemical then you really are a very VERY trusting and gullible individual.



One other thing, studiorat, what's your take on Israel deliberately bombing the USS Liberty in 1967?

If that's not a case of sacrificing "friendlies" in broad daylight to further a sinister agenda then I don't know what is. I'd love to hear you wrapping yourself in your rationalisations over that one. Let me guess....it was also a "long time ago" or "it was in the 60's! Everyone was high on LSD at the time!"

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

???

So we have a 50 year old speech from some old goat in the John Birch society and a book by a general who died before the end of the second world war. And this is what? Some kind of description of current american policy.

Talk about moving the goal posts lads? :rolleyes:

And if the thoughts and observations of a general who died before World War 2 are so irrelevant to current American (military) policy then why do they study the theories and movements of Rommel, Guderian, Napoleon, Hannibal, Ghenghis Khan, Darius, Sun Tzu, etc., etc at West Point? Why do they analyse the craft of Hallsey and Nelson and Nimitz and Togo and Yamamoto at Annapolis. And why do economists and industrialists study the theories of Malthus, and Aquianas and Meynard Keynes?

Oh...they're old guys...gottit!

I'll proffer your much vaunted " :rolleyes: "

studiorat

I'll be brief for the moment Jackie.

You quote Eisenhower, in the very same speech where he says

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations"

I suppose it's acceptable to take some parts of the speech on and disregard others.

So we'll look at my two points again:

US homeland and foreign security.
US spread of democracy to protect it's self.

The second point particularly, I mentioned US' "spread of democracy", nowhere did I suggest it was for altruistic means. I simply stated that it was a policy. And in a framework where US security is dependent on security further afield.

Regarding Smedley Butler, he based his thesis on the first world war. The German empire has as much of a military industrial complex as anyone else, as did the UK. Yet after the first world war all three de-mobilized. It was only after the second world war that only two countries did not de-mobilize. He could not have predicted that. Briefly scanning over War is a Racket it seems to me oversimplified.

Furthermore Smedley Butler seems to suggest the only reason for war is protection of national security. However the modern case is that that national security and global security are intertwined, like it or not. Something again SB missed out...

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

I'll be brief for the moment Jackie.

You quote Eisenhower, in the very same speech where he says

I suppose it's acceptable to take some parts of the speech on and disregard others.

So we'll look at my two points again:

US homeland and foreign security.
US spread of democracy to protect it's self.

The second point particularly, I mentioned US' "spread of democracy", nowhere did I suggest it was for altruistic means. I simply stated that it was a policy. And in a framework where US security is dependent on security further afield.

Regarding Smedley Butler, he based his thesis on the first world war. The German empire has as much of a military industrial complex as anyone else, as did the UK. Yet after the first world war all three de-mobilized. It was only after the second world war that only two countries did not de-mobilize. He could not have predicted that. Briefly scanning over War is a Racket it seems to me oversimplified.

Furthermore Smedley Butler seems to suggest the only reason for war is protection of national security. However the modern case is that that national security and global security are intertwined, like it or not. Something again SB missed out...

Can you tell me your thoughts on that statement. I promise you i'm sincerely interested, though i may take the piss if it's more comedic drivel.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

Can you tell me your thoughts on that statement. I promise you i'm sincerely interested, though i may take the piss if it's more comedic drivel.

Here's a couple of citations which support this idea.

A profound but underappreciated truth about globalization is the extent to which national security and international security have become inseparably linked. This is true even in the most powerful countries. In the United States, for example, most Americans would agree on a short list of threats to their national security: transnational terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, a pandemic of a new deadly disease, global warming and economic instability and crisis. What stands out on this list is that these threats can affect every country's security.

Nor do the threats that preoccupy other parts of the world stand in isolation...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-jones-carlos-pascual-and-stephen-stedman/changing-how-we-address-g_b_175368.html

It is our belief that national security is no longer simply national but also transnational and transcultural in its scope, and globalization has a significant role to play in the development of security and strategic agendas at all levels. National borders delineating separations between states and national economies, as well as linguistic, cultural, and legal norms, are less distinct than they once were. Security is no longer a zero-sum game and therefore all countries and cultures are dependent on one another in the pursuit of true global security

http://www.sustainablehistory.com/the-geopolitical-and-geosecurity-implications-of-globalization.html

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

The US has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans’ jobs. Recently, there have been massive US weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.

Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the “shining city on the hill” that is “bringing freedom and democracy to the world” by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France’s Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington’s will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.

No mention of the air craft carriers, fighter jets , transport aircraft, cruise missiles and that India and Russia developed and build in partnership.
70% of India's arms are bought from Russia, economic and military agreements go back as far as the 1950's and were drawn up again after the Soviet collapse. Although relations are between the two are strained at the moment due to Russia not delivering an Aircraft Carrier and Submarine on time, India's latest contract for fighter aircraft have actually gone to Europe not the Russians or the US for that matter.
India hand Russia have run 5 military exercises in the last couple of years, the last being in October 2010.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Here's a couple of citations which support this idea.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-jones-carlos-pascual-and-stephen-stedman/changing-how-we-address-g_b_175368.html




http://www.sustainablehistory.com/the-geopolitical-and-geosecurity-implications-of-globalization.html

:)Well there no arguing with that. No understanding it either.
The G word rears it's ugly head. Interesting articles though. Ta for the reply.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

:)Well there no arguing with that. No understanding it either.
The G word rears it's ugly head. Interesting articles though. Ta for the reply.

I had a feeling people would pick up on the word or should I say catch-phrase.
It's way too broad a term to label it though.

Jonny7

I know I'll get mobbed for this but..


Here is the author of the piece in question Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYQ-e256ZYo

and here is Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxq_2bQUIxs


and this is what they're both doing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuXT-Oum19Y

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

I know I'll get mobbed for this but..


Here is the author of the piece in question Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYQ-e256ZYo

and here is Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxq_2bQUIxs


and this is what they're both doing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuXT-Oum19Y

Pot Kettle Black! I've witnessed you in pontificating mode aswell now. So when is your next sermon?:D

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Pot Kettle Black! I've witnessed you in pontificating mode aswell now. So when is your next sermon?:D

When I get my book deal like these fellas!

WakeUp

I think something is coming there are warning signs everywhere. Jones reckons its about to kick off will post this video as its relevent to the thread. Whether you believe him or not is obviously up to the individual though.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

I think something is coming there are warning signs everywhere. Jones reckons its about to kick off will post this video as its relevent to the thread. Whether you believe him or not is obviously up to the individual though.

I am seeing warning signs alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2UXmTGK4M

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am seeing warning signs alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2UXmTGK4M

Funny guy:D so you going to support the ground invasion of Libya if it happens in a few months? you going to support military intervention in Syria? Iran??? Do you not feel a bit silly believing all these "interventions" are soley because its the right thing to do and because the powers that be care about human rights? When that couldnt be further from the truth and they couldnt give a flying fck about people and never have,ever. Keep telling yourself they do though if it makes you sleep better at night by continuing to do that you will continue to miss the bigger picture and there is a bigger picture.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

Funny guy:D so you going to support the ground invasion of Libya if it happens in a few months? you going to support military intervention in Syria? Iran??? Do you not feel a bit silly believing all these "interventions" are soley because its the right thing to do and because the powers that be care about human rights? When that couldnt be further from the truth and they couldnt give a flying fck about people and never have,ever. Keep telling yourself they do though if it makes you sleep better at night by continuing to do that you will continue to miss the bigger picture and there is a bigger picture.

Nothing can be done for Syria, short of him putting people in camps and exterminating them, the Syrians have to deal with Assad themselves

Iran? I would be very against intervention there

Libya yes, and Ivory coast yes.

If Norway, Japan, Brazil, Germany, etc would have been intervening in Libya I would be behind it (air only) - unfortunately we're always stuck with US/UK/France who don't have much high moral ground to stand on.

Uuuh Patsy

studiorat wrote: »

So you can't figure it out but you think anyone who thinks it may be to prevent terrorist attacks or spread democracy is a cretin. How does that work?

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

It amazes me that anybody could come to the conclusion that the US is a true democracy...

Jonny7

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

It amazes me that anybody could come to the conclusion that the US is a true democracy...

Ironically in Belgium they still don't have a government for a year, too many different parties, maybe that's true democracy

On a serious note, by definition, true democracy, true capitalism, true communism will never "truly" exist.

studiorat

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

It amazes me that anybody could come to the conclusion that the US is a true democracy...

Who would that be then?

studiorat

WakeUp wrote: »

I think something is coming there are warning signs everywhere. Jones reckons its about to kick off will post this video as its relevent to the thread. Whether you believe him or not is obviously up to the individual though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UebEM8daL-0

WakeUp

studiorat wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UebEM8daL-0

:D I remember that, like anything Jones comes out with you have to take it with a pinch of salt. Ive been noticing of late though the people he has had as guests on his show are well informed people well some of them are and in fairness sometimes he has been bang on when he talks of upcoming military action so we will see if he is on the ball this time around and a ground invasion is launced in a couple of months in Libya then on to Syria. It is interesting that he is claiming that units will be called up from Texas which is his home state so we will see:)

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

:D I remember that, like anything Jones comes out with you have to take it with a pinch of salt. Ive been noticing of late though the people he has had as guests on his show are well informed people well some of them are and in fairness sometimes he has been bang on when he talks of upcoming military action so we will see if he is on the ball this time around and a ground invasion is launced in a couple of months in Libya then on to Syria. It is interesting that he is claiming that units will be called up from Texas which is his home state so we will see:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xog5FoODC4s

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xog5FoODC4s

Nothing like some raw passion if only more people where prepared to speak what they feel instead of towing the official line believing official bull sh1t and defending official "interventions":) Will have to post some videos where he gets it right in the interest of fairness of course:) His youtube channel has over 300 million views expect it to be taken down soon these vids probably wont be around for much longer.

studiorat

Elvis had raw passion, doesn't mean he is telling the truth. Give me facts, I don't care what they "feel". It's useless without hard facts, whether it's the official line or not is immaterial.

I see no reason why his youtube channel should be taken down, except as a marketing exercise.

The real scary thing is that Jones seems to be able to convince himself aswell.

Anyone care do speculate on what he was up to in the Y2K edition anyway?

WakeUp

Have no idea what he was up to with his Y2K stuff. Jones is like any other source of available information albeit completely the oppostie of what you will hear on the main stream "news". You look, listen, look into then make up your mind as to whether or not there is any truth in it. He speakes about things nobody else will touch or highlight, for example the TSA security people in the States touching and molesting people including children all in the name of "security". This would appear to be happening. He reported a year ago how the ATF was shipping guns into Mexico for some absurd reason like they could trace them back. This apperead to have happened. He is reporting an american military build up force heading to Libya for a ground invasion in a couple of months. The US are currently holding or will be holding massive military drills involving marines on their east coast "Exercise mailed fist" a coincidence?? maybe we shall have to wait and see. Yes he can get things wrong but he can also get them right.

guitarzero

studiorat wrote: »

Elvis had raw passion, doesn't mean he is telling the truth. Give me facts

Is it a fact that Bin Laden was found in Pakistan?
Would the evidence that supports this hold in a court?
Is it fact that that 9/11 was'nt an inside job?
Give me some facts of how a building can fall just by a few floors somehow being on fire?
Show me some facts on how Americas invasion has helped Iraq. Show me some facts on how America has benefited any of the countries it has invaded.
You seem so sure btw. You seem so certain that the US military's actions are of sound morality. How are you so sure? Where do you derive such a sense of nobility in what they do? If those who administer these invasion are of such integrity about what they do, then why has none of them or their family ever taken part in what the US government pump billions of dollars into?
What makes something a fact is actually quite hard to determine at times. To just have faith in what your government tells you is such a stupid thing, so stupid.

studiorat

guitarzero wrote: »

Show me some facts on how Americas invasion has helped Iraq. Show me some facts on how America has benefited any of the countries it has invaded.
You seem so sure btw. You seem so certain that the US military's actions are of sound morality. How are you so sure? Where do you derive such a sense of nobility in what they do? If those who administer these invasion are of such integrity about what they do, then why has none of them or their family ever taken part in what the US government pump billions of dollars into?
What makes something a fact is actually quite hard to determine at times. To just have faith in what your government tells you is such a stupid thing, so stupid.

Of course jumping to conclusions like guitar hero has is equally stupid.

Thinking Alex Jones is a loon does not equate to to supporting the US in Iraq etc.

WakeUp

studiorat wrote: »

Of course jumping to conclusions like guitar hero has is equally stupid.

Thinking Alex Jones is a loon does not equate to to supporting the US in Iraq etc.

In fairness I think he is just making a point about how sometimes the "facts" we are told or lead to believe arent really "facts" at all, for example the reason/what we were told to be fact by government- for the illegal bombing & invasion of Iraq and all that followed. I think he makes a good point myself. The "facts" spun to the world are sometimes lies as has been proven with regard to the invasion of Iraq etc.

studiorat

WakeUp wrote: »

In fairness I think he is just making a point about how sometimes the "facts" we are told or lead to believe arent really "facts" at all, for example the reason/what we were told to be fact by government- for the illegal bombing & invasion of Iraq and all that followed. I think he makes a good point myself. The "facts" spun to the world are sometimes lies as has been proven with regard to the invasion of Iraq etc.

I doubt that very much Wakey.