| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"SPierce" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2007 10:59:36 PM |
| Object: |
The Case for Bombing Iran |
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 10:46:00 AM |
|
|
"Jews always position themselves as mediators. These
nasties hold it cardinal they accredit and interpret *everything*.
Nothing has worth or meaning until it's pronounced upon by a generous
scoop of ***** in a hate hat. Nothing must be expressed save in jewish
terms. Invaders become undocumented workers. Queers become gays.
Freakins become African-Americans. Attack on Iraq becomes defense of
America. Nothing is legitimate save Big Kike stamp off on it.
BK doesn't like it when a Sheehan steps forward and foghorns facts to
fodder. Instantly, like mosquitoes at twilight, a flock of
bloodthirsty kikes appears, buzzing and sucking and whining. Have you
ever noticed that it is impossible to criticize jews and keep your
character? The jews have literally billions of enemies worldwide, yet
not a single one of them is an honest man of laudable motive. It is
impossible to carry off this charade without controlling the media
and a hell of a lot of other things too. The minute jew-criticism
appears, the ashkenazis and appeaser annies begin the smear. No one
ever opposed a loving kike except invidiously. Smear campaigns are
media control in action. There are other aspects of media control, but
day in day out, making horrible shrieks and gurgles to keep the goyish
herd away from the healthy green fields is the workaday business of
the controllers. Jews determine which issues may be debated, and in
what terms. Jews make up more than fifty percent of the experts on
both sides of these tiny debates. A few vetted goyim are allowed
through to keep up the charade of democratic discussion. The Internet
is the only medium that prevents the illusion of popular conformity
with jewthink being carried off. All that is necessary for jews to
maintain control is to create a congenial if bogus reality through
television and the main dailies, and relentlessly enforce this
orthodoxy through smear campaigns against any who breach it.
The death of a son is one of the few motives strong enough to drive
average goy fodder to breach etiquette and speak truth to kikes. She
must be shut down. How to do that? You can see the jews' uncertainty.
They attack her, at the same time, as both a lefty and a nazi.
Illogical, but in time they'll settle on an approach. Sometimes just
throwing ***** and see what sticks is the best way. How dare Sheehan
value her own son more than the interests of Israel?
I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he
was LYING.
And none of the thick rancid honkings Limbaugh and the freeper
patriotards can gainsay it. Remember that bushy came out of manly
Barbara, the wizened maw who asked why she should trouble her
"beautiful mind" about the body bags coming back from Iraq. You know -
the ones you never see, because they have to show you endless pictures
of $440,000-compensated jews being "ethnically cleansed," sniff, yet
again. Only an anti-Semite puts his own life before Israel. The jews
are the one people on earth who routinely are absolved of guilt for
that for which they and they alone are guilty. Isn't that odd?
DaX
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
30 Sep 2007 02:34:08 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
"Jews always position themselves as mediators. These
nasties hold it cardinal they accredit and interpret *everything*.
Nothing has worth or meaning until it's pronounced upon by a generous
scoop of ***** in a hate hat. Nothing must be expressed save in jewish
terms.
(the rest snipped for brevity)
And to what do you attribute the ability of these Jews to garner all of this
power? Do you consider yourself so inferior that the much vaster numbers of
your own particular group (whatever that is) is so unable to wrestle control
from this teeny number of nebishy looking men in long black coats and big
black hats? How embarrassing for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
01 Oct 2007 05:37:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:34:08 -0400, "Carl"
<crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
And to what do you attribute the ability of these Jews to garner all of this
power?
Here is a quote from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "SPierce" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
01 Oct 2007 08:18:18 PM |
|
|
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kkt2g3t03micc58j4vg67hfrp1u7lhmi87@4ax.com...(snipped)
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
That is not exactly right. Ask the question...where did the $10 come from in
the first place. Kings made it as payment for something, some goods or service.
Then you could run off with this bit of metal and hope someone would exchange it
for something useful.
Or the $10 will be lent on the basis that the borrower will also provide some
goods or service and be paid by someone else. He will only risk lending it if
he gets something more than he's lending it for.
If there is no more than the $10 dollars in existence to start with then there
is no payment for further effort to provide goods and services. You stay
living like the aboriginal..just bartering.
There have been many recorded instances in history when there has been a
shortage of coin , and produced the results of bartering. It became
unmanageable when goods got transfered over longer distances. Try paying
someone in fish to someone 50 miles walk away on a hot day.
Kings are not financiers and always got it wrong about how much coin was needed
to pay armies...and more importantly where to get the coin from. They still do
so they print it instead.
This is a long story and you need to read more History to get to the bottom of
it.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is pretty good on the history of Usury.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
The European Banks came along way down the line when trade became international.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
02 Oct 2007 07:35:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:18:18 GMT, "SPierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kkt2g3t03micc58j4vg67hfrp1u7lhmi87@4ax.com...(snipped)
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
That is not exactly right. Ask the question...where did the $10 come from in
the first place.
Someone prints it on a printing press.
Kings made it as payment for something, some goods or service.
Then you could run off with this bit of metal and hope someone would exchange it
for something useful.
Or the $10 will be lent on the basis that the borrower will also provide some
goods or service and be paid by someone else. He will only risk lending it if
he gets something more than he's lending it for.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more
loans, and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't
make their payment he takes
their entire farm or business.
That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and
make their own money. To make the initial supply of money they would
simply print $100 for each
of them. This money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest.
But there is a money supply
on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more cars and
houses are built, from time to time more money would need to be
created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers can do this on his own. It is decided and
done at a town meeting.
A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting.
The government should create money and not private bankers. The
government should be for
the people.
Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.
If there is no more than the $10 dollars in existence to start with then there
is no payment for further effort to provide goods and services. You stay
living like the aboriginal..just bartering.
Or ten million or whatever. The point is the same.
There have been many recorded instances in history when there has been a
shortage of coin , and produced the results of bartering. It became
unmanageable when goods got transfered over longer distances. Try paying
someone in fish to someone 50 miles walk away on a hot day.
Kings are not financiers and always got it wrong about how much coin was needed
to pay armies...and more importantly where to get the coin from. They still do
so they print it instead.
This is a long story and you need to read more History to get to the bottom of
it.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is pretty good on the history of Usury.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
The European Banks came along way down the line when trade became international.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "SPierce" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
03 Oct 2007 12:25:02 AM |
|
|
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2oo5g3lf3hf45vuohs5cckc2e8m4omfhvv@4ax.com...
That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and
make their own money. To make the initial supply of money they would
simply print $100 for each
of them. This money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest.
But there is a money supply
on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more cars and
houses are built, from time to time more money would need to be
created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers can do this on his own. It is decided and
done at a town meeting.
Well, that's what the Soviets thought too. Strange why it didn't work out.
They should have been rich by now. Russians risked their lives to swap bundles
of Rubles into a few Dollars for some reason
What do you think happened? And why do think Dollars were more valuable to
them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
03 Oct 2007 11:55:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:25:02 GMT, "SPierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
Well, that's what the Soviets thought too. Strange why it didn't work out.
They should have been rich by now. Russians risked their lives to swap bundles
of Rubles into a few Dollars for some reason
What do you think happened? And why do think Dollars were more valuable to
them?
ITEM: In 1922 the Soviets formed their first international bank, It
was not owned and run by the State as would be dictated by Communist
theory, but was put together by a syndicate of private bankers for
profit. These included, not only former Tsarist bankers, but
representatives of German, Swedish, and American banks. Most of the
foreign capital came from England. The man appointed as Director of
the Foreign Division of the new bank was Max May, Vice President of
Morgan's Guaranty Trust Company in New York.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dux" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:13:01 AM |
|
|
"Raven" <valbridge@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1191045276.395288.123010@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 3:34 pm, ***** <bi...@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov>
wrote:
SPierce wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
If anything.....
It will be 2-3 months before the next election.
So no matter who wins next, they will fighting a war for
control of Mid-East Oil.
So, all those pollies saying they will pull of Iraq/Mid-East, *****.
It just won't happen.
The big question is whether the yanks are stupid enough to vote another
Bush into the white house (A.K.A Jeb). Yes, I believe they are.
He has all the Qualifications, he's Dumber than Dubya.
Amazing really how poilitical dynasties can produce such autistic
offspring.
It might be all that alcohol he drunk, or the loads of coke he snorted.
Or he might be that stupid from birth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander DeLarge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:18:03 AM |
|
|
Dux <dux@ilduce.com> wrote:
It might be all that alcohol he drunk, or the loads of coke he snorted.
Or he might be that stupid from birth.
I wonder if Iran has a radio personality like Rush.
It's still amusing that the nut-case who leads Iran had the balls to show up in
the USA, whilst the best that Dubya did was to present a plastic turkey in the
Green Zone a few years back.
"In fact, we will probably be regarded as Liberators"
- Rumsfeld.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:15:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:59:36 GMT, "SPierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
Why Does Norman Podhoretz Hate America?
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11670
Michael Scheuer September 26, 2007
Norman Podhoretz's new book, World War IV: The Long
Struggle Against Islamofascism, is a hate-filled,
anti-American book of the first order. Podhoretz
hates every American who does not support the
neoconservatives' views, the foreign policy they
have devised, and the military and national security
disasters to which they are leading America. Patrick
Buchanan, Andrew J. Bacevich, Sir John Keegan, Brent
Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington,
Francis Fukuyama, and many others are all targets of
Podhoretz. These men are variously characterized as
anti-Semites, isolationists, recanters from the true
creed, or simply as small men who fear the
neoconservative utopia is about to arrive, discredit
their views, and cost them their jobs or prestige.
Podhoretz is particularly vicious toward Buchanan
because he knows that Buchanan sees through the
neoconservative fantasy with the most unrelenting
acuity. Buchanan's frank voice and
non-interventionism - not isolationism - are
genuinely American characteristics, so Podhoretz
must go all out to discredit Buchanan as an
anti-Semite, lest Americans listen to Buchanan's
advice not to get their children killed fighting
other peoples' wars, be they wars for Israelis or
Muslims or anyone else.
rest of article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11670
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Siobhan Medeiros" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
03 Oct 2007 01:55:00 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 8:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Yeah, and that will accomplish what, exactly?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:09:14 PM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bc_nv" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:04:35 AM |
|
|
"Raven" <valbridge@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1191038954.975309.108220@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real power. He
is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers' though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
30 Sep 2007 05:40:54 PM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 2:04 am, "bc_nv" <bc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Raven" <valbri...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1191038954.975309.108220@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real power. He
is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers' though.
He is not a figurehead. The positon of President used to be a
figurehead position but not anymore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander DeLarge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:12:33 AM |
|
|
bc_nv <bc_nv@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Raven" <valbridge@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1191038954.975309.108220@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real power. He
is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers' though.
Iran has been widely respected as being a country of well educated and informed
people led by a fucking moron who is a nut.
You and I live in Canada. Look south.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SPierce" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:37:59 AM |
|
|
"Alexander DeLarge" <AlexanderDeLarge@clockwork.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2167b6dff16789ae989904@news.individual.net...
(snipped)
Iran has been widely respected as being a country of well educated and
informed
people led by a fucking moron who is a nut.
Some say Germany was led by the same sort of nut.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bc_nv" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:32:06 AM |
|
|
"Alexander DeLarge" <AlexanderDeLarge@clockwork.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2167b6dff16789ae989904@news.individual.net...
bc_nv <bc_nv@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Raven" <valbridge@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1191038954.975309.108220@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real power.
He
is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush falling off his
bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers' though.
Iran has been widely respected as being a country of well educated and
informed
people led by a fucking moron who is a nut.
You and I live in Canada. Look south.
I travelled to Iran a few years ago, and it was actually really nice. The
idiot American media make the whole place look like a living hell, and
simple minded, scared, mid west folk, just eat it up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
30 Sep 2007 02:20:58 PM |
|
|
bc_nv wrote:
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real
power. He is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush
falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers'
though.
I think this misses the point that, while yes, he has no real power, he is
the official spokesperson for the Mullahs who do. He doesn't make his policy
statements up out of thin air ie. he speaks for the government of Iran and
he, himself, is not the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Viejo Vizcacha" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
30 Sep 2007 06:57:24 PM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
bc_nv wrote:
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real
power. He is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush
falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers'
though.
I think this misses the point that, while yes, he has no real power, he is
the official spokesperson for the Mullahs who do. He doesn't make his policy
statements up out of thin air ie. he speaks for the government of Iran and
he, himself, is not the issue.
It does not matter if he is supposed to be the spoke-person for the
mullahs. His word has as much weight as Colin Powell's when he was the
secretary of State.
VV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
30 Sep 2007 11:12:16 PM |
|
|
Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
Carl wrote:
bc_nv wrote:
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real
power. He is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush
falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers'
though.
I think this misses the point that, while yes, he has no real power,
he is the official spokesperson for the Mullahs who do. He doesn't
make his policy statements up out of thin air ie. he speaks for the
government of Iran and he, himself, is not the issue.
It does not matter if he is supposed to be the spoke-person for the
mullahs. His word has as much weight as Colin Powell's when he was the
secretary of State.
Ok. So are we agreeing or disagreeing? I think we're on the same side.
Whether he has weight or not, he is still expressing the attitudes/policies
of the administration driving him, no?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Viejo Vizcacha" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
01 Oct 2007 07:21:45 PM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
Carl wrote:
bc_nv wrote:
Perhaps you should realize that 'the Iranian fella' has no real
power. He is simply a figure head and is about as scary as Bush
falling off his bike.
Enjoy following the sheep into fearing media created 'evil doers'
though.
I think this misses the point that, while yes, he has no real power,
he is the official spokesperson for the Mullahs who do. He doesn't
make his policy statements up out of thin air ie. he speaks for the
government of Iran and he, himself, is not the issue.
It does not matter if he is supposed to be the spoke-person for the
mullahs. His word has as much weight as Colin Powell's when he was the
secretary of State.
Ok. So are we agreeing or disagreeing? I think we're on the same side.
Whether he has weight or not, he is still expressing the attitudes/policies
of the administration driving him, no?
The Iranian regime is not delivering what the people of Iran want. Iran
is not only more homogeneous, more advanced, and more populous than
Iraq, but also has better educated people. This regime knows that Bush
is after them, so they decided to double the bet.
Since the USAmericans are so misinformed thanks to the mass media, and
the rest of the world have access to other sources, USAmericans have no
idea how isolated they are in seeing Iran as a threat.
VV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Merlin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
01 Oct 2007 08:46:27 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 8:21 pm, Viejo Vizcacha <elbie_jovis_ka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since the USAmericans are so misinformed thanks to the mass media, and
the rest of the world have access to other sources, USAmericans have no
idea how isolated they are in seeing Iran as a threat.
Exactly what "other sources" do you think you have access to that
anyone in the USA doesn't?
None.
You're talking out of your *****, island boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Viejo Vizcacha" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
02 Oct 2007 06:10:22 PM |
|
|
Merlin wrote:
On Oct 1, 8:21 pm, Viejo Vizcacha <elbie_jovis_ka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since the USAmericans are so misinformed thanks to the mass media, and
the rest of the world have access to other sources, USAmericans have no
idea how isolated they are in seeing Iran as a threat.
Exactly what "other sources" do you think you have access to that
anyone in the USA doesn't?
None.
You are right. USAmericans have access to the same sources, only they do
not use them.
This is the talk of the world. It happened in the US. Yet, I doubt many
USAmericans know about it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10022007.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770
But they surely know it all about Britney Spears, or Paris Hilton, or
Lindsay Lohan.
VV
You're talking out of your *****, island boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:31:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:09:14 -0700, Raven <valbridge@bigpond.com>
wrote:
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
This "Iranian Fella" hasn't got a thing to do with Iranian foreign
policy, simpleton.
Brits can't even keep Basra under control.....spend their
time hunkered down getting mortared.
Are you guys and the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc gonna help
with the Mullahs too?.......it'll be fun!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mary collins" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:38:00 PM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 4:09 pm, Raven <valbri...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned.
Which means he disagrees with the Yanks, is a bit nutty (albeit he
does not hold the real power, it is the far more powerful and moderate
mullahs) as is Bush; and most importantly Iran is in the midst of most
strategic oil producing region in the world. As they say if his
country and region produced no more of value than pickles and cabbage,
no one would care (nor would they be producing nuclear energy).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander DeLarge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:27:26 PM |
|
|
Raven <valbridge@bigpond.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Judging by the article it is closer than many think. This Iranian
fella falls into the Saddam category as far as the Yanks are
concerned. Your guess may well prove correct. Get em before they get
nukes. The pre-emptive strategy.
I feel the same way about Anglicans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:51:23 PM |
|
|
SPierce wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
First it was the Nazis that were the bad guys, then it was the Japs and
then the Communists. Now the bad guys are Muslims. It's the flavour of
the month.
Iran has not invaded anyone and there is no threat to the world. Here is
an editorial which explains the reasons for the anti-Iran rhetoric and
the sliding American dollar.
http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary31.htm
IRAN, BOURSE AND THE U.S. DOLLAR
By Ed Haas
January 28, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
On November 10th 2005, the Muckraker Report published an article that
described one of the unspoken reasons why the United States had to
invade Iraq; to liberate the U.S. dollar in Iraq so that Iraqi oil could
once again be purchased with the petrodollar. See The liberation of the
U.S. Dollar in Iraq
In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for their oil.
Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency
required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N.
Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N.
account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in
their U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had
abandoned the U.S. dollar completely.
Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food
Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switch back to dollars,
and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could
the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Universal global dollar
supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest
recession that the United States endured began and ended within the same
timeframe as when Iraq was trading oil for euros. Whether this is a
coincidence or related, the American people may never know.
In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq’s switch to the petroeuro to new
heights by launching a third oil exchange. The Iranians have developed a
petroeuro system for oil trade, which when enacted, will once again
threaten U.S. dollar supremacy far greater than Iraq’s euro conversion.
Called the Iran Oil Bourse, an exchange that only accepts the euro for
oil sales would mean that the entire world could begin purchasing oil
from any oil-producing nation with euros instead of dollars. The Iranian
plan isn’t limited to purchasing one oil-producing country’s oil with
euros. Their plan will create a global alternative to the U.S. dollar.
Come March 2006, the Iran Oil Bourse will further the momentum of OPEC
to create an alternate currency for oil purchases worldwide. China,
Russia, and the European Union are evaluating the Iranian plan to
exchange oil for euros, and giving the plan serious consideration.
If you are skeptical regarding the meaning of oil being purchased with
euros versus dollars, and the devastating impact it will have on the
economy of the United States, consider the historic move by the Federal
Reserve to begin hiding information pertaining to the U.S. dollar money
supply, starting in March 2006. Since 1913, the year the abomination
known as the Federal Reserve came to power, the supply of U.S. dollars
was measured and publicly revealed through an index referred to as M-3.
M-3 has been the main stable of money supply measurement and transparent
disclosure since the Fed was founded back in 1913. According to Robert
McHugh, in his report (What’s the Fed up to with the money supply?),
McHugh writes, “On November 10, 2005, shortly after appointing Bernanke
to replace Greenbackspan, the Fed mysteriously announced with little
comment and no palatable justification that they will hide M-3 effective
March 2006.” (To learn more about Robert McHugh's work, please visit [Read]
Is it mere coincidence that the Fed will begin hiding M-3 the same month
that Iran will launch its Iran Oil Bourse, or is there a direct threat
to the stability of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. economy, and the U.S.
standard of living? Are Americans being set up for a collapse in our
economy that will make the Great Depression of the 1930’s look like a
bounced check? If you cannot or will not make the value and stability of
the U.S. currency of personal importance, if you are unwilling to demand
from your elected officials, an immediate abolishment of the Federal
Reserve Act of 1913 and the fiat money scheme that the banking cartel
has used for nearly a century now to keep our government and our people
in a state of perpetual debt, than you are faced with but two
alternatives, abject poverty, or invading Iran.
The plans to invade Iran are unspoken, but unfolding before our very
eyes. The media has been reporting on Iran more often, and increasingly
harshly. For the U.S. government to justify invading Iran, it must first
begin to phase out the War in Iraq, which it is already doing. Next, it
must portray the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a threat to
the region and the world. Finally, once naive American people are
convinced the “weapons of mass destruction” that were to be found in
Iraq are actually in Iran, coupled with the almost daily media coverage
of Iran’s nuclear power / weapons program aspirations, and what we will
soon have on our hands is another fabricated war that will result in
tens of thousands of civilian lives being lost, all because the
political elected pawns in Washington DC lack the discipline to return
our currency to a gold or silver standard, end the relationship with the
foreign banking cartel called the Federal Reserve, and limit the
activities of the U.S. government to those articulated in Article I
Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
When a wayward and corrupt fiscal policy and fiat currency, coupled with
runaway government spending, forces a nation to only be able to sustain
the value of its currency with bullets, the citizenry of the country
involved in wars primarily to sustain its currency have historically
first became slaves to their government, and then to the nations that
finally conquer them. If you question the validity of such a premise, or
whether it could happen to the United States of America, study the fall
of the Roman Empire. If you read the right books on the subject, you’ll
quickly discover that towards the end of the Roman reign, the Roman
Empire was doing exactly what America is doing today; attempting to
sustain a failed fiat money system with bullets.
Understanding fiat money is not an easy task, and the Federal Reserve,
World Bank, and International Monetary Fund have purposely made it that
way. They do not want the American people to realize that the money in
their wallet loses its value with each new dollar that they print. They
do not want people to understand that our money does not become money
until it is borrowed. When the Federal Reserve has money printed, when
it is in uncut sheets of paper, it is not yet money. After it is cut,
bundled, and placed into the Federal Reserve vaults, it still is not
money. It only becomes money once it is borrowed. Consequently, if all
debt were to be paid, if the United States didn’t have an $8 trillion
national debt and the American people were debt free, and if all loans
of U.S. dollars made to foreigners were paid in full, there would be
exactly zero U.S. dollars in circulation because it will have all been
returned to the vaults of the Federal Reserve. This might seem hard to
fathom, but it is the gospel of fiat money.
The major news media in the United States, fed by Washington DC which in
turn is fed by the Federal Reserve, literally, has already begun
conditioning the American people for invading Iran. Media accounts of
Iran’s nuclear ambitions along with amplification of the potential
instability and core evilness of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
is setting the stage to spring the invasion of Iran on the American
people. There does appear to be a direct correlation between the winding
down effort underway in Iraq and the increase of anti-Iran rhetoric. How
American soldiers ultimately arrive in Tehran is uncertain at this time,
but it is reasonable to expect that if the Iran Oil Bourse opens for
business in March 2006 as planned, it will only be a matter of time
before the United States will have to blow it up.
If the United States invades Iran, or if Israel starts military actions
by launches missiles at Iran’s nuclear power facilities, which then
opens the door for the United States to intervene, most Americans will
believe that our military actions in Iran will be to defend freedom and
liberty while spreading democracy, when the truth is that we’ll be
fighting a war in Iran because of our nation’s relationship with the
Federal Reserve, a so-called bank that is not owned by the federal
government, maintains no reserve, and isn’t a bank at all, but a cartel.
Just like our war in Iraq, Americans and foreigners will die in battle
so that the historical power bankers and brokers; cartel members such as
Rothschild, Morgan, Lehman, Lizard, Schrader, Lobe, Kuhn, and
Rockefeller to name a few, can continue collecting interest on every
single U.S. coin and dollar bill in circulation, while controlling the
U.S. Congress to the extent that the U.S. taxpayer becomes the
collateral and lender of last resort to cover bad loans and unpaid debts
that these institutions create by loaning money to third world
countries, some of which are devout enemies of the United States.
Remember the $400 billion savings & loan bailout approved by the U.S.
Congress during the Reagan Administration? America is still paying for
it – you and me, and so will our children and grandchildren.
It is well overdue for Americans, every American, to do whatever it
takes to fully understand the relationship between the United States and
the Federal Reserve, along with the grave consequences of our current
fiat money system; for even if the United States wanted to continue to
sustain the supremacy of the U.S. dollar with bullets, it is
historically, impossible. When bullets become the commodity to secure a
currency, it is a clear sign of devastating calamity looming. To ignore
the warning signs, is to suffer like you have never suffered before, or
to die. Harsh words, but true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SPierce" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 01:42:33 AM |
|
|
"Tom P" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hRkLi.35$Bq3.13@newsfe18.lga...
First it was the Nazis that were the bad guys, then it was the Japs and then
the Communists. Now the bad guys are Muslims. It's the flavour of the month.
Iran has not invaded anyone and there is no threat to the world.
Errrrm...yes there is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kope" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran |
29 Sep 2007 04:34:54 AM |
|
|
i am a radical muslim please read my blog read how islam will win the
clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for *not* Bombing Iran |
28 Sep 2007 11:48:40 PM |
|
|
SPierce wrote:
My guess is before this Christmas.
Russia and China have stated that they will not
support crap like this, and will support IRAN
with Nuclear technology if the USA follows
through.
Let the Iranians have their atomic plants for
electrical power; The USA has enough atomic weapons
to wipe out the earth, no one would be that stupid to
attack it, and yet the USA continues to become more
and more dumb from the paranoia.
I hope there is no bombings, for the USA's case. The Republican
Party cannot be that dumb after all.
Already in Europe, Aisa, the Middle East, Japan, Canada,
common people are stating that the USA should be the next
one to be bombed, and no one will shed one bloody
tear on that occasion.
But please, let the US try, and I'm sure China will have all
their banks call in *all* those mortgage loans, not just the one
bank in Bejing.
Then you'll see a depression in the USA and a stock market
crash like never before.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
