|
Post by Liberator on Apr 20, 2009 0:32:40 GMT
In the course of looking around I found a directionto one of the entries on this site www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/ I'ts pretty good, if a bit old, I reckon 2001. In several cases it reckond something was going on or covered up - just not what the conspiracy theorists imagined (and maybe sometimes they were disinformation too. Sometimes you can glean fascinating insights into one thing from one entirely different - for instance that a brother of GW Bush (Neil) was having dinner with the a man at the precise time in 1981 as his brother was taking pot-shots at President Reagan, while Father Bush, whose official rise through the CIA was so precipitous as to suggest more bell-ringing that simple string-pulling just happened in the 1960s to have close ties with a White Russian with the imbrobable name of De Mohrenschildt (De Carrot-shield!) who just happened to be about the only friend Lee Harvey Oswald ever had and blew his head off when the CIA came to call. Hmm However that's all stage-setting. This site was written before the Iraqi invasion. So just read www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/gulf.html about the earlier war. I am prepared to theorise that Bush and Blair were not simply lying to make an excuse for what has proven to be a very costly exercise (thanks to American bungling when it comes to keeping the peace) just to get their hands on oil they could have bought off Saddam anyway, and were being urged to as the last people the embargo was hitting were the Sadist and his Merry Murderers. They knew that he might not have WMD but he had everything necessary to make them: their predecessors had been selling it to him under the counter for the previous ten years. Had they bought oil, they might have funded him to complete R&D. So what? Wouldn't Bush at least have loved the thought of a second war with Iran culminating in plagues, gas and nukes raining down on Tehran? They knew that secular Saddam had less connection with fundamentalist Osama than the Brothers Bush whose family has had close business relations with his. Maybe not. Israel is safe from WMD: too much Palestinian mass to risk anything in Muslim eyes. But Israel and the occasional (if large) Fundamentalist attack on the West are not the only dangers. Hitler used Christianity when he felt like it, for all that Nazism had its own esoteric cult. Saddam might not have backed religious bigots against the West but he very well might against westernising Muslims. The House of Saud has come under religious criticism for years. We may see it as Fundamentalist; Fundamentalists see it s corrupt at the top. Whatever else we may say against them, they do believe that the same laws apply to all and in the Saudi context appeal to a certain degree of civil liberty, strange as it may sound to us. They have more trouble with minor terrorism than they like us to know. How would Saddam look if he could foment religious uprisings in western-friendly Arab states - and perhaps be in a position to put subsequently them down with his own advanced war machine? He would have to be accepted, just as Hitler had to be accepted as the lesser evil than Stalin. Oil would have to come through him. The man who rebuilt Babylon and portrayed himself with (if not as) Nebu-chadrezzar might indeed get a Babylonian Empire back. So maybe the lie was in the most literal sense a lie, but it was also based on knowledge that even if the technology was not there, the means to produce it had been and had to be somewhere! Saddam was not a man to beat expensive swords into plough-shares because somebody told him to. Yes, he might show swords indeed being used to till the soil - but they are still swords and can be sharpened when backs are turned, and aimed at those backs. He might not have had nuclear weapons. They are not so great after all, the long-term effects and general destruction are more problem than they are worth for an aggressor:: what use are radioactive ruins to an invader?. He certainly had internationally forbidden chemical and biological ones and the transport to deliver them. Reagan and Thatcher sold them to him and their successors knew that perfectly well. So maybe once again, we weren't told the truth, but the truth that we weren't told is not the one that we think we should have been told.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 20, 2009 0:43:07 GMT
Yes, this is not new - mostly tin foil hat rhetoric we've seen before. One comment - I don't think W wanted war with Iran. His efforts in Afghanistan and the illegal war in Iraq were enough to satisfy the corp. lust for military contracts and his personal quest to revenge his dad for perceived insults and attempted abuses by Hussein. I'm not a Bush apologist by any means, but think GWB was more a pawn than a demon.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 20, 2009 1:07:54 GMT
It's tinfoil hat by nature but he is looking into where they get their ideas from. I'm damned sure that GW didn't want war with Iran but that analysis looks as if he knew that Iraq had stuff his father and Reagan had sold it, that had to be 'reclaimed' if Saddam was going to kick up and prove uncontrollable. It wasn't oil, it was the gangster getting ideas of his own with stuff he wasn't supposed to have.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 20, 2009 3:44:02 GMT
It's tinfoil hat by nature but he is looking into where they get their ideas from. I'm damned sure that GW didn't want war with Iran but that analysis looks as if he knew that Iraq had stuff his father and Reagan had sold it, that had to be 'reclaimed' if Saddam was going to kick up and prove uncontrollable. It wasn't oil, it was the gangster getting ideas of his own with stuff he wasn't supposed to have. Skeptic that I often tend to be, I believe, by golly, you're onto something. And, most of us who were paying attention, knew. This is from abt. '93 I think. Since it's Hicks, anyone sensitive to "language" will want to ignore. There's not much (3 f's and an ah), but I don't want to offend.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 20, 2009 5:13:15 GMT
I'd reckon that site about 2001/2002 because it lists end times predictions cancelled before then and has no mention of Pres. GW Bush. I think it's 'fair'. It's not screaming to put your tin hat on and it's not poo-pooing every suspicion. It is saying what I think we all basically know, that things go on that we don't know about and maybe we cant' know about for fear of compromising secrecy, but they are not what Conspiracy Theorists imagine either. For instance it's pretty certain that during WW2 the Allied High Command denied all knowledge of extermination camps because to admit it would have let the Nazis know that they still had spies behind the lines.
Never mind the usual suspects like 'Illuminati' and 'Freemasons' (Freemasons created the USA - that is no secret though some act as if it were) I see J Edgar Hoover and the various organised crim and semi-fascists around him as a much more powerful force than I had believed through a lot of the 50s and 60s. Remember Harold Wilson's claim that the strange events surrounding Jeremy Thorpe's dog were connected with South African Intelligence among others? Turned out that he was right and at the time there were Rightist elements working with them in the British military and MI5 for military take-over.
The same thing happened in 1938 on the other side. when what became the Home Guard was founded by a Communist expert in guerilla war, not just to be a British resistance to Nazi conquest, but if necessary to Lord Halifax joining the Nazis. Likewise, it is very likely that King Edward VIII's abdication only used Mrs Simpson's two divorces as an excuse because she and her friends had been tracked throughout the 1930s as Nazi sympathisers and he is said to have done a deal to rule directly in cahoots with Fascism once his family were out of the way by whatever means. Certainly the Windsors made no secret of their friendship with Adolf.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 20, 2009 12:32:12 GMT
How much oil have we stolen from Iraq since invading?
AH
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 20, 2009 18:42:43 GMT
I have just finished reading a very interesting, and well researched book on the Bush years. It is entitled "House of Bush. House of Saud", and it charts the connections between the two dynasties;their underhand dealings and manoeuverings, and as usual, it is all about oil, and money...lots of it. How the Saudis targeted anyone in the running for power in the USA, and especially anyone with a chance of the White House. How they bankrolled Dubya and his failed oil exploration company,and how it all paid off.
We don't know the half of it.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 20, 2009 18:49:35 GMT
How much oil have we stolen from Iraq since invading? AH So many people believe this nonsense that Iraq was invaded for oil! If that was the case the first Iraq war would have been fought to this end! Saddam Hussein's "death sentence" was pronounced when he started paying large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers and those killed attacking Israel! The myths of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, etc. and war for oil only serve to divert attention from the real reason. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58871,00.html
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 20, 2009 19:10:22 GMT
Some people just deserve to be malleted....Saddam was one of them.
If the UN was really a force of good, it would be targeting the Iranian nutter, Kim Jong Il, Bob Mugabe and Bashir for immediate extermination via Daisy-Cutter.
AH
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 20, 2009 20:55:11 GMT
the SOLE reason that the u.s. invaded iraq was to fulfill the hallucinations of the neocon lunatics who dreamed up the project for a new american century (pnac), back in 1997. the fools needed someone stupid enough to go along with their idiocy, which is why dumbya was elected president. the invasion of iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, and had everything to do with cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and their ilk's wet dream about american domination of the world, which necessitated controlling the middle east first. google project for a new american century and it is all spelled out in their own words
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 20, 2009 23:59:37 GMT
Anna, I wish I could agree with you about our country's main reason for a determination to topple Hussein that started before the first Gulf war and lasted, as an amazingly bi-partisan issue, until his execution. It would seem a much more noble pursuit that what I suspect it really was. Iraq occupation had been in their sites a long time before 9/11, I think. That sad event just provided an excuse they were able to sell to a numb and grief stricken Am. public. IMO, Jim is right, but I believe there was more to it than that. Try as I might, I can't see Cheney doing anything that does not involve avarice. No doubt he was part of the pnac ideologues (so is jed bush, btw), as well, but I've often thought he saw that as a means to an end that benefited him and his ties with the oil industry (hat tip to AlphaH).
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 21, 2009 0:20:09 GMT
Anna, I wish I could agree with you about our country's main reason for a determination to topple Hussein that started before the first Gulf war and lasted, as an amazingly bi-partisan issue, until his execution. It would seem a much more noble pursuit that what I suspect it really was. Iraq occupation had been in their sites a long time before 9/11, I think. That sad event just provided an excuse they were able to sell to a numb and grief stricken Am. public. IMO, Jim is right, but I believe there was more to it than that. Try as I might, I can't see Cheney doing anything that does not involve avarice. No doubt he was part of the pnac ideologues (so is jed bush, btw), as well, but I've often thought he saw that as a means to an end that benefited him and his ties with the oil industry (hat tip to AlphaH). I think Cheney, Bush and politicans in general are not the true rulers of the US, who we don't even know by name! Among them are the mafioson behind the federal reserve, who determine how much value a dollar has, the rate of interest, in short the world economy and they are acountable to no one as Ronald Reagan stated! If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny! People talking about paying off the national debt, but no one asks to whom( ? ) do we pay the debt! This concept of national debt and deficit spending was originally anti-constitutional because America's founding fathers knew of the danger that was involved in letting bankers run the economy. The "Federal Reserve Act" passed about a 100 years ago changed this! The politicans just serve to divert attention from the real rulers! The invasion of Iraq would have also occured if Gore was elected instead of Bush!
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 21, 2009 15:44:30 GMT
An opinion article, with subject matter touching on this topic, turned up in my email this morning. I'm going to c&p a clip and add the link because it's a rather long article. It's interesting to read as it hits on the ambitions of the neo-cons. _________________________ /snip Not long ago, excitement over American imperialism reached levels not seen in a century. "People are coming out of the closet on the word ‘empire,’" the right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer told The New York Times in early 2002. Neoconservatives were on the rise in Washington, and their leading propagandists were not shy in making the case for aggressive expansionism. Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot, for instance, took issue with Pat Buchanan’s belief that the United States should be a "republic, not an empire." "This analysis is exactly backward," Boot wrote. "[T]he Sept. 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation." He added, "troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodphurs and pith helmets.” It is hard to believe that those sentiments, hallmarks of George W. Bush’s first term, were features of our very recent history. The debate they were a part of now seems distinctly strange and foreign. Since then, the world has experienced a catastrophic occupation in Iraq, and voters have ousted the Republican vanguard of the "War on Terror." Overt defenders of imperialism have found good reason to creep back into their wardrobes. And that, of course, is to say nothing of the bursting of the housing bubble, the fall of Lehman, and the end of the hedge fund era. With unemployment rising and Wall Street shamed, we have entered a period of economic downturn acute enough to raise serious questions about the viability of U.S. power. The pressing issue today is: How will the economic crisis affect our country’s role in the world? Or, more bluntly: Is America’s empire facing foreclosure? The answer involves more than just quibbles over the semantics of U.S. dominance. Together, the fallout from the imperial hubris of the Bush administration and the discrediting of the deregulated market fundamentalism that thrived even under Bill Clinton have opened new possibilities for reshaping the global order in the Obama years. /snip www.alternet.org/audits/137560/neocon_fantasies_of_empire_crushed%3A_the_new_global_reality/
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 21, 2009 16:00:48 GMT
i disagree with buchanan on quite a few things, but he is one of the very few conservatives that are actually american
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 21, 2009 21:18:54 GMT
i disagree with buchanan on quite a few things, but he is one of the very few conservatives that are actually american Pat Buchanan is virtually the only high profil conservative, who seriously opposes globalism and adhers to the "Monroe Doctrine"! America would be like a gigantic Switzerland if he had his way! A policy of neutrality in foreign conflicts! Not a bad concept!
|
|