Post: #26

(08-26-2013 09:56 PM)Damedius Wrote:  This is all smoke and mirrors. It's just an attempt to mask neo-colonialism.

The US has been involved from the start. They have been training mercenaries in Jordan and Turkey.
http://www.jpost.com/Special-Reports5/Re...012-317346
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/...a-20130621

Assad has been successful in holding them off and the west is getting impatient. So they are drumming up another bullshit excuse to provide air superiority. That should be enough to tip the scales. This is all about control of the middle east. It's much easier to control a bunch of fractured factions than strong independent nation states. Just like it's easier to control someone that has already been knocked on their ass.

Dont you think Russia is involved in this too? You'd think they'd be all in league with each other, as they'd make a lot more money that way (and playing the "other side" while getting a huge piece of the pie)

I mean it wouldn't make much sense to go to war with each other over this and lose more resources than it's worth. They've gotta be all in on this, but playing this game so that the common person doens't know.

Post: #27

I think it is becoming increasingly obvious to many that governments are stooges for the interests of covert power. None of these wars America are engaged in make any sense at all to the economic, social or political interests of the country. Anyone can see that surely.

Post: #28

Funny how the Department of "Defense" is always on Offense.

Post: #29

(08-26-2013 07:06 PM)j r Wrote:  The only reason to gig Obama is that he came in on a cloud of promises to be something different and then just continued all of Bush's policies.

The new boss is pretty much the same as the old boss.

That's exactly what I'm faulting Obama for. Everyone thought Obama was the chosen one who was going to "change" things and they all got played like a slut by a celebrity for a quick pump and dump.

Except Obama pump and dumped the voter not once, but twice.

People who voted for Obama should lose their voting privileges, for displaying that they have no judgement of character. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that Obama was an charlatan empty suit from day 1.

And before you say he was better than Romney - I'm not saying you should have voted for Romney. The answers have been the same for the last 10 years:

- Don't vote
- Or vote third party

Post: #30

(08-26-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  And before you say he was better than Romney - I'm not saying you should have voted for Romney. The answers have been the same for the last 10 years:

- Don't vote
- Or vote third party

This assumes you believe presidents are elected, not selected. I tend to believe the latter.

Post: #31

This has the feel of another false flag.

Post: #32

(08-26-2013 07:35 PM)kbell Wrote:  I don't know about Israel invading other countries. That sounds far out there. It would be interesting to see since I haven't seen large scale imperialism in my life. I also don't think US and Israel are as tight as they used to be. A lot of my Israeli friends don't like Obama and a lot of America's actions. I wouldn't be surprised if a movement is in place to get rid of America's influence on Israel.

If American splits with Israel ... say good bye to Israel.

Post: #33

Defense spending is going down while Washington whitewashes the economic numbers. Bernake is shoveling $85B into the economy EACH MONTH! Growth is stagnant. Jobs are stagnant (many new jobs are part time as Obamacare ramps up. We are high on credit and short on cash. Big Ben has been inkling for a couple months that the shoveling of cash into the furnace might end in September. That will hurt this precious 5-year long "recovery."

The Eurozone is a disaster. Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland and France are a disaster: high debt, low employment, no way out. The Germans hold the cards and the cash, and they have elections in September. The European Union might not have a big German brother to bail them out if the regime and attitudes change there. Who wants to keep bailing out these other nations?

Meanwhile, China has been cooking the books. Their economy is slowing and stagnant since they are tied to the US and the rest of the world. They are squabbling with Japan about islands (and oil and gas underneath them). Both nations recently launched their first carriers. Doesn't that sound awesome and peaceful? Oh, right, Japan's economy sucks and their little nuke plant continues to be one of the worst environmental disasters in history. No problem there!

War is a way out as many of these issues converge in September. The games and spending can continue while the world mobilizes and fights yet another war. This one could be big and nasty given the Russians have moved warships into the region (after tooling up during massive war games in the Far East), and the UK and France are moving air units onto Cyprus.

Cyprus...hmm...yes, where did I hear about Cyprus recently? Oh, right! Lots of Russian tycoons lost big money when they had a banking crisis just a few months ago. I am sure the wealthy Russians were happy to contribute. i am sure Putin never received any phone calls.

Yes....nothing to see here! Move along. The markets, banking and potential intervention are freak events. All coincidence....I am sure of it

The shit show is about to start. Grab some corn and a beer.

Post: #34

(08-26-2013 10:00 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:56 PM)Damedius Wrote:  This is all smoke and mirrors. It's just an attempt to mask neo-colonialism.

The US has been involved from the start. They have been training mercenaries in Jordan and Turkey.
http://www.jpost.com/Special-Reports5/Re...012-317346
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/...a-20130621

Assad has been successful in holding them off and the west is getting impatient. So they are drumming up another bullshit excuse to provide air superiority. That should be enough to tip the scales. This is all about control of the middle east. It's much easier to control a bunch of fractured factions than strong independent nation states. Just like it's easier to control someone that has already been knocked on their ass.

Dont you think Russia is involved in this too? You'd think they'd be all in league with each other, as they'd make a lot more money that way (and playing the "other side" while getting a huge piece of the pie)

I mean it wouldn't make much sense to go to war with each other over this and lose more resources than it's worth. They've gotta be all in on this, but playing this game so that the common person doens't know.

This has many levels so it's hard to say. The gameplan right now is to destroy national sovereignty. This is done through war, both military and economic.

The US seems to be one of the most useful tools to do it. So I assume that they are lost already.

I had also assumed that Russia and China were there own players in the game. The only way to tell for sure would be to study their finances. Who owns what and are they owned by the same groups of people that the west are owned by.

I also think that this is past money at this point. The elites have more money than they could ever need. This has moved to a Eugenics and depopulation phase in my opinion. That doesn't mean that they won't make money at the same time. Just that it is secondary to controlling resources.

Post: #35

Due to the political nature of this humanitarian disaster, its very hard to say with any certainty who is doing what to who....there is just too much at stake, too much smoke and mirrors and the strings are being pulled by the best puppet masters in the world.

I feel so very sorry for the people, the average joe's, mums and dads and kids that are caught in the middle of this horrific event and can only hope that it sends soon, with a result that's for the best of the people not the politicians.

Post: #36

(08-26-2013 07:15 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This chemical weapons thing is just the latest pretext in a long line of pretexts. The goal is to destroy any country, any government, that does not kowtow to the US and Israel. This has been the goal from the beginning and will remain so. Other regional flunkies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. do their bidding also. It will never change and it's just too depressing to watch.
The ideal endgame from the US/Israel perspective is to see Syria, Lebanon, and Iran destroyed to that the US can economically dominate the region in perpetuity, and Israel can carry out its goals of "Eretz Israel", Greater Israel. And the people here in the US could care less.
You pay a high, high price for independence. They seek you out, and then they target you.

It's not so much Israel but guilt-ridden pro-Israel American Jews. They think Israel's a great country, and that they are sinning by not living there. So they do 'penance' by taking hawkish positions that they think will help Israel. Actual political opinion in Israel is rather diverse. There's also the hawkish humanitarians, the type who'd have invaded Darfur had there been enough support for it.

Assad's regime is an enemy in name to Israel, but otherwise at a rude peace with them. As with Libya and Egypt, it's by no means clear that toppling the ancien regimes is a help to Israel. And Eretz Yisrael just means the land of Israel.

Post: #37

(08-26-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 07:06 PM)j r Wrote:  The only reason to gig Obama is that he came in on a cloud of promises to be something different and then just continued all of Bush's policies.

The new boss is pretty much the same as the old boss.

That's exactly what I'm faulting Obama for. Everyone thought Obama was the chosen one who was going to "change" things and they all got played like a slut by a celebrity for a quick pump and dump.

Except Obama pump and dumped the voter not once, but twice.

People who voted for Obama should lose their voting privileges, for displaying that they have no judgement of character. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that Obama was an charlatan empty suit from day 1.

And before you say he was better than Romney - I'm not saying you should have voted for Romney. The answers have been the same for the last 10 years:

- Don't vote
- Or vote third party

Great post. As bad as Clinton and Bush were, Obama is even worse. FAR worse.

I wouldn't be surprised if the net value between 2012 Non Obama voters v. 2012 Obama voters is 5:1, at least. Those who actually have skin in the game, so to say, wanted Obama gone in 2012.

But the women ran out and voted for Obama after he made up a "war on women" all the while women have more rights and more freedoms than men, and more money and more college degrees.

The 2012 election told me this country is done for. The number of those who want hand outs/the number of those who don't care to inform themselves out number those who do want a better life for themselves in the USA. This country can never get back at this point, IMO.

If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Post: #38

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Post: #39

(08-27-2013 03:53 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Voting restrictions:

- Must have done one of the following: served in military, paid a net positive tax the year prior, or own land.
- Must be male
- Must be older than 18

Post: #40

(08-27-2013 03:53 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Agreed. I would have taken Romney over Obama or Jill Stein, but still I agree with your premise of voting.

The only way for a "Democracy" to work, is that all those who vote have something in the game. The best bet would be to have a system where all taxes are on one form of ownership/income and only those who pay the taxes vote. At the same time we would want this to be at least 50% of society, so the voters are not left to only the elite.

Post: #41

(08-27-2013 04:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:53 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Voting restrictions:

- Must have done one of the following: served in military, paid a net positive tax the year prior, or own land.
- Must be male
- Must be older than 18

This would be excellent. Too bad there is not a land mass out there to start a new countries with this in place. You would be the only super power in the entire world within a few generations.

Post: #42

(08-27-2013 04:10 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  This would be excellent. Too bad there is not a land mass out there to start a new countries with this in place. You would be the only super power in the entire world within a few generations.

I've pondered on the difficulties/benefits of just buying out some land and declaring it a country. Acquiring the funds to do this is the first primary issue...

Post: #43

(08-27-2013 04:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:53 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Voting restrictions:

- Must have done one of the following: served in military, paid a net positive tax the year prior, or own land.
- Must be male
- Must be older than 18

You seem like you have put more thought into than me. I think I heard of a system where only land owners vote and it sounded much better than what we currently have.

That's a better set of requirements than what I suggested.

Post: #44

(08-27-2013 04:09 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:53 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Agreed. I would have taken Romney over Obama or Jill Stein, but still I agree with your premise of voting.

The only way for a "Democracy" to work, is that all those who vote have something in the game. The best bet would be to have a system where all taxes are on one form of ownership/income and only those who pay the taxes vote. At the same time we would want this to be at least 50% of society, so the voters are not left to only the elite.

The reason why I would vote for Jill Stein over Romney is that she would pull back spending on military. The US wastes too much money on military. On top of that it isn't smart about how it spends it's money. It's all about corporations milking the taxpayer for as much as it can.

Just one example is fighter jets. At this point they have become obsolete. The F-35 is a joke. A colossal waste of money. Drones are the future of air combat. Yet you have many countries spending billions of dollars on them. It essentially corporate welfare or fascism.

Post: #45

(08-27-2013 04:40 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 04:09 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:53 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:17 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Agreed. I would have taken Romney over Obama or Jill Stein, but still I agree with your premise of voting.

The only way for a "Democracy" to work, is that all those who vote have something in the game. The best bet would be to have a system where all taxes are on one form of ownership/income and only those who pay the taxes vote. At the same time we would want this to be at least 50% of society, so the voters are not left to only the elite.

The reason why I would vote for Jill Stein over Romney is that she would pull back spending on military. The US wastes too much money on military. On top of that it isn't smart about how it spends it's money. It's all about corporations milking the taxpayer for as much as it can.

Just one example is fighter jets. At this point they have become obsolete. The F-35 is a joke. A colossal waste of money. Drones are the future of air combat. Yet you have many countries spending billions of dollars on them. It essentially corporate welfare or fascism.

That was my #2 problem with Romney. He said we need to increase how much we spend on military. Just idiotic.

My #1 problem was when he proudly said he would support Obama's Indefinite Detention Act.

Post: #46

Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.

Post: #47

I think the only thing that motivates the West with military intervention is self-interest.

This has been demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Post: #48

I think poor decisions made out of self-interest in the past (e.g. Iraq) cloud judgment during cases when there's a clear humanitarian narrative. Any war we're involved in - justified or not - will be viewed negatively as a result.

Syria is just one spot on the geopolitical chessboard. Lots of players involved, lots of geopolitical influence at stake. We only know the half of it.

Post: #49

(08-27-2013 06:30 AM)Marco Wrote:  Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.

If that was the cause, we would have intervened in Darfur. The motives of our government are far from pure.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Irani...acks-Syria

They want Iran. American hegemony is threatened by Iran. The less the dollar is used as a reserve currency, the less power our government can control.

Post: #50

(08-26-2013 05:16 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Does the U.S. government have a shred of credibility anymore? Who can seriously believe this farce? The idea that Assad would use chemical weapons defies all common sense.

Obama might go down as the most lawless President in the history of the Republic. I wouldn't have believed it possible that a former Constitutional law professor could so shamelessly shit all over the Constitution. He's able to get away with things that a Republican never could. I honestly believe that Bush would have been impeached for the NSA scandal. Hell, any President in the modern era would have been impeached for that, but Obama gets away with it. The media just shrug their shoulders and Congress sits on their hands.

We must come to terms with the fact that we are living under de facto tyrannical rule. The rule of law, the principle that underlies Western society in the modern era, is no longer the order of the day. We are ruled now by the whims of the powerful. They are no longer bound by law. Their decisions ARE law. If they do something, it is legal. That is the new reality. And while the elite have exercised outsized influence for centuries, they have rarely behaved with such naked contempt for the law, and would at least try to maintain the appearance of legality. Now they don't even bother anymore. That means they're either extremely desperate, or so confident in their power that they no longer feel the need to cloak it.

Neither case should comfort the average man. If the elite are so desperate they've become this reckless, that means that the global economic situation is far worse than is commonly understood, and that all the central banking hijinks they've been playing are at risk of coming unglued at any day now. They might see a major war, WW3 even, as the only way out, and the perfect cover for their crimes. Syria might become the modern day Serbia or Poland that draws in the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, Israel, Iran and China into a war that would have the potential to liquidate over half the global population if it went nuclear. There isn't even a word to describe a crime of such magnitude. Genocide fails. It would be more like "globacide".

If their recklessness is caused by confidence in their ability to control the masses, we should also be very afraid. The NSA scandal could be the tip of the iceberg in their ability to monitor the citizenry. Police forces are increasingly militarized. Drones are starting to be used over U.S. land. The precedent has already been set for U.S. citizens to be executed by drone strikes if they are decided to be "enemies of the state" by the President and his advisers. The internet as we know it, and the ability to speak freely and organize into communities like this, poses a threat to tyrannical governments. A false flag "cyberattack" is all it would take to give governments the power to take complete control of the internet, rendering free and anonymous speech a thing of the past. Dissent will no longer exist.

There are clouds gathering over the Republic. Everyone can feel that things aren't right, and that before long, something is going to give and all hell is going to break loose. I wonder if this is how people felt in the 1930s?

I hope I am wrong.

"The best way to take control over people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people won't see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed." - Adolf Hitler.