This Iraq debate thing !

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 9:17 am

Re: G'Day

Originally posted by G'Argst
@Fable; what information/opinion/knowledge do you have regarding the Council on Foreign Relations? The Illuminati? The concept of 'New World Order'? The Bohemian Grove? Skull and Bones? (perhaps enough for starters).

Thanks. I eagerly await your expert analysis and depth of knowledge.

Then keep waiting. I am an expert in nothing. This much I can tell you: if you want to specifically discuss the pending Iraqi war, this is the place for it. If you wish to discuss themes dependent upon world conspiraces, I would suggest you start up a new thread.

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 9:38 am

OOPPSSS

@Fable: Sorry, but I see them as one in the same (conspiricies of world domination and the Iraqi war). But in the light of my relative position to this forum, I will take your advice and start a new thread.

Also, I sense a bit of umbrage in your response. I did not intend to insinuate that I looked upon you as an 'expert' but more as an 'informed source' (I don't even know you other than from your presence on this forum. A presence, judging from others' views of your depth of knowledge and maturity, to be widely accepted as responsible and insightful. Again, I appologize if my statements have caused any unease).

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:03 pm

Re: OOPPSSS

Originally posted by G'Argst
A presence, judging from others' views of your depth of knowledge and maturity, to be widely accepted as responsible and insightful.

Shyeeeah--as though there aren't a good dozen or more people in SYM right now whose knowledge base easily swamps mine, and who are just as insightful, if not more so.

Forget it, just please, don't do that again.

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:18 pm

I'm sorry?

Don't do what again?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 8:10 am

To quote you, "Again, I appologize if my statements have caused any unease."

Anyone who refers to "my expert analysis and depth of knowledge" only reminds me of my laziness, emotional hair trigger and poor memory. Then, I only need to think back over some of the extraordinary knowledge shown by up here by other posters to feel about two feet tall.

Clear enough?

Basta. Time to return to the Iraqi invasion, soon to be *not* coming to your local television station. Because the US and the UK governments will be controlling all media access, we'll be seeing wonderful pictures showing the pinpoint accuracy of some futuristic guided weapon, or the daring-do of some very human troops. We will definitely miss the shots of bombed-out buildings oozing blood, the mothers covering their children as the missiles fall, the sheltered gradually emerging to see who is now homeless, and who will be homeless over the next few days.

And this is perhaps the worst face of war: the face it hides behind state-controlled glory. The face so ugly nobody could stand the view.

But it will all be over in a few weeks, and the world will suddenly bloom daisies, and the US will have a secure supply of oil to replace the oil vouchers that Iraq supplied the US as war reparations in the early 1990s, and which ran out two years ago. So there's a happy ending, right?

Karembeu · Post by **Karembeu** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:24 am

Originally posted by fable
But it will all be over in a few weeks, and the world will suddenly bloom daisies, and the US will have a secure supply of oil to replace the oil vouchers that Iraq supplied the US as war reparations in the early 1990s, and which ran out two years ago. So there's a happy ending, right?

Someone's being ironic I think....

Any ideas on what will happen now? Turkey have said no to american troops in Turkey, Canada have given voice to support a "peaceful solution", Iraq are destroying their "Al-samoud" (sp?) missiles....will this make any difference or is Mr Bush still intent on war....no matter what?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:08 am

@Karembeu, I think the Bush administration has put far too much on the line now to redraw it anywhere else. They've staked everything, including Dubya's political future, on Hussein's removal from power. That, plus this administration's inability to see the world outside of their own extremely narrow terms makes it highly unlikely that the US will do anything save invade Iraq, claiming it has prior UN approval.

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:26 am

Good Morning!

@fable, thanks for the clarification.

If I may be so bold, (following are opinions only): the war against Iraq has little or nothing to do with oil. That is just the easiest disinformation to disseminate for mass consumption (it's what everyone wants to believe). It has even less to do with 'regime change' or 'liberating the Iraqi people from oppression'.

(IMO) this war has to do with enabling. Enabling the current executive branch of the US government to impose more Orwellian restrictions on the unwitting masses of the US. This in an attempt to further their own, gasp!, nefarious schemes to move the world closer to globalization.

Now, fable, et al will start making comments about substantiation so if I may post some links without getting into trouble,

http://www.newswithviews.com
http://www.infowars.net
http://www.thenewamerican.com

Follow some of their links into mainstream press stories cited by the 'columnists' (yes I read the dissertation "journalists v. columnists").

at99 · Post by **at99** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 7:05 pm

Re: Good Morning!

Originally posted by G'Argst
@fable, thanks for the clarification.

If I may be so bold, (following are opinions only): the war against Iraq has little or nothing to do with oil. That is just the easiest disinformation to disseminate for mass consumption (it's what everyone wants to believe). It has even less to do with 'regime change' or 'liberating the Iraqi people from oppression'.

(IMO) this war has to do with enabling. Enabling the current executive branch of the US government to impose more Orwellian restrictions on the unwitting masses of the US. This in an attempt to further their own, gasp!, nefarious schemes to move the world closer to globalization.

Now, fable, et al will start making comments about substantiation so if I may post some links without getting into trouble,

http://www.newswithviews.com
http://www.infowars.net
http://www.thenewamerican.com

Follow some of their links into mainstream press stories cited by the 'columnists' (yes I read the dissertation "journalists v. columnists").

You seem to have some interesting opinions on this G'argst.

What do you think of the UK and Australia joining in with the US on Iraq. Are they naive or 'in on the plot'. (in simple terms if you dont mind )

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:25 pm

Greetings!

Opinions abound... {EDIT} there are some links and opinions on this site that speak about Australia that you might find interesting, http://www.serendipity.li/index.html .

Hummm, Australia and the UK.... I don't know if John Howard has any connection to the CFR or the Tri-Laterialists but he did an excellent job disarming the citizens of Australia. I do know that there are implications of the British Royals being connected to the global bankers (one of the, purported, driving forces behind globalization).

Tony Blair hitching his entire political carreer to GW's wagon is a bit perplexing unless he's been promised an important part in the aftermath.

Once again, I must emphasize that these are just my opinions.

Now, this could be about oil, but not from the stand point of feeding the fossel fuel consumption of the US. We import most of our oil from Canada, Saudia Arabia and Venezuela (also the UK, Mexico and a few other producers). Actually the French and the Russians, not to mention the Chinese, have deep investments in Iraq and could loose a great deal of money and power if GW actually does put Iraq'a oil in a 'trust fund for the future of the Iraqi people' as he has stated. This could be a power play by GW and the actual forces behind him for a power grab that would further marginalize a major part of the EU and Russia as well.

This could also disrupt Japan's infrastructure since they also import almost all of their fossel fuels from the Middle East.

But if you look beyond the obvious there are other potentials that a war in the Middle East could act as a springboard for. (Speculation follows - although I cannot claim sole ownership of same...). While the US and most of the rest of the West is preoccupied with Iraq, expecially if there are massive casualties, the North Koreans could use this diversion as an opportunity to attack S. Koera (Kim is afterall a 'madman' you know), China could act against Tiawan and the Mullahs could light the fuse of Fundementialist revolution in Pakistan thus prompting a nuclear showdown with their traditional enemy India.... Even if World War III doesn't erupt, Orwell put forth the concept quite well in 1984 with wars and rumors of wars being used by tyrannanical governments to convince their populations that relenquishing liberty for safety is in their best interests.

I firmly believe that the game is afoot, as Holmes said, and we may be in for a rude awakening either voluntarily or involuntarily.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:15 pm

Re: Greetings!

Originally posted by G'Argst
Now, this could be about oil, but not from the stand point of feeding the fossel fuel consumption of the US. We import most of our oil from Canada, Saudia Arabia and Venezuela...

Dubya's administration has been openly concerned about Venezuela's ability to continue supplying oil since Hugo Chavez came to power. The turmoil, brief coup, and strike have only exacerbated that feeling.

And there are strong elements within the same administration that categorically regard Saudi Arabia as a rogue state. They don't like to rely upon the Saudis for oil, either.

Combine those factors with the conclusion of Iraqi oil vouchers in 2000 (as part reparation for the expense of the Gulf War) and you have some very good and oily reasons, indeed, why the US would be concerned according to its own lights after a new source of fossil fuels.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:21 pm

Re: Re: Greetings!

Originally posted by fable
(Snip)

And there are strong elements within the same administration that categorically regard Saudi Arabia as a rogue state. They don't like to rely upon the Saudis for oil, either.

(Snip)

Forget not...it's just a hop and skip from Iraq. Basing a US force in Iraq, while undermining the Saudi Government..Not far to send troops to keep the peace.

IMHO...Saudi is not far down Bush's list.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:26 pm

Re: Re: Re: Greetings!

Originally posted by Weasel
Forget not...it's just a hop and skip from Iraq. Basing a US force in Iraq, while undermining the Saudi Government..Not far to send troops to keep the peace.

IMHO...Saudi is not far down Bush's list.

You could well be right. This is an administration that sees everything at home and abroad in terms of black and white, easy problems requiring simple, final solutions. They've never indicated any understanding of MidEastern politics--nor the national boundaries of other nations, to judge by Rumsfeldt's comments.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:10 am

Re: Greetings!

Originally posted by G'Argst

Hummm, Australia and the UK.... I don't know if John Howard has any connection to the CFR or the Tri-Laterialists but he did an excellent job disarming the citizens of Australia. I do know that there are implications of the British Royals being connected to the global bankers (one of the, purported, driving forces behind globalization).

Tony Blair hitching his entire political carreer to GW's wagon is a bit perplexing unless he's been promised an important part in the aftermath.

Once again, I must emphasize that these are just my opinions.

This may be your opinion but I dont see your logic.
John Howard disarmed the country? What of this?

Tony Blair might have been promised something eh?Explain?
If you wouldnt mind showing me how you arrived at your conclusions.

I dont see how the US can so easily fool everyone else?
You must have a very high opinion of americans ?

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:55 am

Opinions;

@at99; I don't base any of my 'assumptions' on a high opinion of America's ability to fool the rest of the world.

If you want facts I have posted links to many sites, both here and in the 'Conspiracy or paranoia' thread for you, or anyone for that matter, to gather information to make up their own minds about any or all of my opinions.

Once again, these are nothing more than my opinions and carry no more weight than ayone else's. As I stated elsewhere, I came to my expressed conclusions based on the available evidence (as I see it) on my own and expect everyone else to do the same. Whether they agree with me or not!

As far as disarming Austraila, (IMO), it is impossible for an unarmed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government. ('An armed populace is governed. An unarmed one is ruled.')

Oil and Saudia Arabia (Venezuela is currently resuming fuel oil grade petroleum shipments to the US. Besides, the politics of any South American country can be changed on a whim (Chile comes to mind). GW is circumventing Congress on the numbers of US military troops that can be deployed to Columbia based on the 'kidnapping' of several CIA agents by Columbia's 'rebel factions'. What could he do under the guise of a National Emergency and who of the American populace would protest (especially if they or their relatives are unable to heat their homes?), - whew - the Saudi royal family needs us more than we need them. It wouldn't take too much 'influence' in the right quarters to cause a fundimentalist revolution there that would require UN sanctioned intervention to 'stabalize' the world's supply of oil. Besides, destabilization is the favorite technique of any power bent on world domination.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 5:11 pm

Re: Opinions;

Originally posted by G'Argst
[s far as disarming Austraila, (IMO), it is impossible for an unarmed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government. ('An armed populace is governed. An unarmed one is ruled.')

. [/b]

Gargst are you calling my goverment tyrannical? and the UK 'just going along' if you make these claims you must have a very different picture of the facts than everyone else.

Cmon, this is not convincing, you seem unusually paranoid.

IMO the UK are guiding the US not the other way around, I think you may be overestimating the brains of the US to use against the UK and Australia.

I dont mind your opinions but you must be a little more convincing than this (on details) if people are to take you seriously.

IF you could explain yourself on the australia and UK issues again.....

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:24 pm

Whew

@at99: I am not calling any government tyrannical. It seems, IN MY OPINION, that mine is moving closer to that day by day.

I am not trying to convince you, or anyone, of anything. Experience the world as you wish. If you do not want to take me seriously, then you don't need to. Your perogative. There is evidence readily available for the discerning mind to experience with very little effort. Since you're on-line I expect that you have access to a browser and therefore can follow some of the links that I and others have posted throughout this, and related, threads. Or just do your own searches on 'gun control', consipracy theories, The Council on Foreign Relations, the Illuminati, the New World Order, or Bugs Bunny!

Once again, I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I exercise my freedom to form opinions based on the facts as I interpret them and would expect you, or anyone, to do the same.

As far as my level of paranoia is concerned, rest assured that I am comfortable in my skin.

And just so this isn't construed as spam, there are already contracts with some of the larger defense contractors (Halliburton, the Carlyse Group and some of their subsidiaries) for reconstruction programs within Iraq.

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:26 pm

Funny I have always believed it was not just about world domination, but also about profits, just seems it profits the weapons industry significantly when there is war, so is it really in the United States interests to have a atmosphere of peace, the more war the better, the more funds are spent buying useless gadgets, what was it Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex determining public policy?

As to overthrowing the government, doesn't the government have all the cards at least with respect to military strength I mean isn't it rather illogical to talk about overthrowing the government with a few rifles and shotguns, when the government has fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and nukes, and assuming it was tyrannical it would be more then willing to use these nukes, of course the argument could be made in response to this, that if the government was tyrannical then part of the military would go support it, well that assumes a definite decision about tyranny, The Bush administraton at least to my viewpoint is becoming a tyrannical government, but a lot of people do not agree with me on this, not that this matters, the truth is the majority of people have historically not cared less about the governmental system, historically it has been fought between minorities, in the case one small minority controls the military and government, the military having a self interest in supporting this government, and the other larger minority but still a minority, is rather powerless with respect to iniating any change in the government whether violently or peacefully.

What do you think?

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:47 pm

Military Industrial Complex

@IN; go here; http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presi ... wer001.htm

And you could be more right than you know. There are many people that stand to get very rich from the military build up (defense budget) in the US and from 'reconstruction' projects after any war......

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:55 pm

Wow I just finished reading through the whole Eisenhower speech, and its scary how he was so prophetic, not just about the military industrial complex either.