>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Quboid:
British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded

George isn't a nut, he's a shill for whichever despotic dictator will pay him the most money to argue for their cause.
While he was a voice against the Iraq war he was also taking millions in direct donations from Saddam's oil for food scandal.
There are critics of wars who do so for good reasons, and then there are those like George who do it because the dictator being condemned is paying them handsomely to defend them out here in the west.


He's allegedly a shill, but he's definitely a nut.

>> ^Quboid:

British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded


George isn't a nut, he's a shill for whichever despotic dictator will pay him the most money to argue for their cause.

While he was a voice against the Iraq war he was also taking millions in direct donations from Saddam's oil for food scandal.

There are critics of wars who do so for good reasons, and then there are those like George who do it because the dictator being condemned is paying them handsomely to defend them out here in the west.

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.

Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.

As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.

Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.

Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

</rant>


>> ^bcglorf:

>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

I think it important to point out that Galloway opposed the removal of Saddam not on any principals, but because he was personally profiting to the tune of millions off the Oil for Food scandal, and traveled to Iraq and sang Saddam's praises while there.

He doesn't care about or support Arabic and Persian people like he claims, his a sycophantic parasite off the tyrants and dictators repressing them.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
And their stock suggestions have worked out well for me. But that's mainly because I think it's a good idea to bet against the US dollar, especially now, and their stock suggestions are basically mostly that.

So be specific, how are they saying to bet against the dollar? Buy gold and silver? Buy foreign currency or foreign stocks & bonds?
Which of those have paid off big (you mentioned tripling your 401k)?

I didn't say they said "bet against the dollar". I said that. They don't sell gold or silver, either. They review companies that do though. And as far as I can tell they're not selling anything.
They have a number of stocks they think will do well as the currency inflates, and so far they've been spot on. Mainly mining companies and the occasional agriculture company. Read on.
http://inflation.us/stocks.html


Intro paragraph at that link:

One of our missions at the National Inflation Association is to discover and profile companies that we believe will prosper in an inflationary environment. Typically we will bring to you producing, profitable, Gold and Silver companies with strong balance sheets. We believe these stocks have a chance of becoming some of the best performers of the next decade.

That said, those look like decent enough picks, even if the much ballyhooed hyperinflation never actually arrives. They've got oil, gas, food, tech stocks, even some potash (very trendy) in there, which are mostly bets that global warming is real, the oil is running out, and the developing economies will rapidly increase their demand for food & oil over the next decade. All safe bets!

Though the bulk of it is stock in precious metal traders and miners, and I'm not sure that quite counts as "betting against the dollar" so much as betting that the hysteria about inflation will lead to a boom for gold traders. At least inflation.us knows which side their bread is buttered on.

Assuming these companies themselves aren't scams, they're not setting you up to lose your shirt if Paul Krugman continues to be right, and Peter Schiff continues to be wrong. You might take a hit if/when a Republican reclaims the White House, and all the talk of inflation disappears though.

>> ^thinker247:
While I am one to never believe anything my government tells me, I find it highly improbable that anybody but the 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th. But to play devil's advocate, let me for a minute suspend my belief and agree with the "truthers" that my government perpetrated an act of terrorism against itself.
Why?
In order to invade Afghanistan to plunder its oil? We already had bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We easily could have invaded under the pretense of finding and extracting bin Laden (and the Taliban and al-Qaeda), because that's exactly what we did after September 11th.
In order to invade Iraq under the banner of anti-terrorism? Hussein had already defied U.N. weapons inspectors for over a decade and Bush was never the type to ask permission, so we didn't need September 11th to justify illegally invading a sovereign nation. We did it anyway.
In order to enact greater restrictions upon the citizens by inducing their fear response? Hell, as a general populace we're lemmings. The Bush administration certainly did not need to kill 3000 people in order to take away our liberties. We gladly give them up whenever anybody in authority asks.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to the question of "Why?" But I'm all ears.


niiiice.
ask a question and then propose possible hypothesis which of course you then dismantle.
let me preface this by stating i am not a "truther" and am not as convinced as my friend rougy is concerning 9/11.
that being said,the US government has never,in my opinion,given this a proper investigation.
let me give you an example:
lewinsky and the impeachment of bill clinton =168 million dollars.
9/11 investigation=6 million dollars
and lets be clear here.the governments version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory and one that does not hold up well under closer scrutiny.
who is responsible? i do not know and neither do you but i think it prudent to not only ask questions but be allowed to ask those questions.
agree?
now...
as for YOUR question thinker247.
why?
i presume you are asking for motive.
ok.
1.lusitania
2.reichsthag
3.gulf of tonkin
these are all false flag operations and all preceded war.WW!,WW2 and vietnam respectively.i could mention the oil embargo on japan but that is a lengthy conversation.
what ARE the motives for war?
they have always been unequivocally about:
1.land/labor/resources/trade
how does a government,crown or ruling entity get its poorest,least educated and therefore most expendable to go fight and die for something the ruling class wishes?
1.propaganda.
which creates a "fighting spirit".
for thousands of years religion was the impetus to create this spirit but for the last hundred years it has been nationalism but it is ALWAYS the F>E>A>R that is the true driving force.
now that we have established a basis for war let us get to the heart of your question.
since i am not privy to secret documents i must make my answer based on conjecture.i shall do my best.
why would the US government use 9/11 (by action or by proxy) to change 200 years of national defensive posturing to one of "pre-emptive" and declare a war,not on any person or nation but one against an ephemeral opponent?the "war on terror".
1.war is HUGE business and the DOD has been one of the top 10 lobbyists since 1962.
2.saddam hussein,having been bombed for over 10 years straight(fact,look it up) along with sanctions and that ridiculous "oil for food" threatened to change iraq's oil transactions from the american dollar to the euro(fact,look it up)which would have cost the US billions if not trillions.seeing that every oil transaction is done in american dollars.it is the world reserve currency (not for much longer).
3.uzbekisthan has one the last and richest oil and natural gas left in the world.a pipeline which was denied by turkey (that has since changed,but for europes benefit,not america) is being built right now...
where?
ill give ya a guess.
iraq.
and do you know where it will lead into?
want to try another guess?
afghanistan.

those are just a few off the top of my head.i could take the time to be more concise and specific but this is a comment section.
maybe we have differing political philosophies thinker247.i do not trust government nor power because that power historically has ALWAYS attempted to garner more power for itself at the expense of liberty,freedom and the common good of society.
so while i dont think the US government attacked the twin towers,i believe they ALLOWED it.
what evidence do i have? none.and any evidence we could have gotten has been destroyed.
but i was military for a number of years and unless they have gotten lazy and stupid there is no way that would have happened.
could i be wrong?you betcha.
but unlike you i do not trust government and neither should you because historically,governments will abuse whatever powers they have and take your rights away as fast as they are allowed to.
might i recommend:
1.bryzinski "the grand chessboard"
2.naomi klein "the shock doctrine"
3.chalmers johnson "blowback"
hell...just go the PNAC website they practically lay it out for you and that minority controlled the government for 8 years.
history is the greatest teacher and it is your friend.
i have enjoyed this conversation thinker247.

George Galloway is certainly is a sharp debater. I don't necessarily agree with him on much, though.

One of his main argument in this clip seems to be that attacking Iran is a bad idea because they can retaliate. That's a weak argument. I buy the arguments that we can't trust the intelligence and that Iran may have a right to be developing nuclear facilities. But the threat of terrorism to London shouldn't change your policy. That's just giving in to Iran's brinkmanship. That's rewarding them for supporting terrorism. I don't agree with Galloway that it would be justifiable "self-defense" for them to bomb civilians in London if we strike a nuclear weapons program.

He says Iran is a strong nation to be feared. Then a minute later he says they can't attack anyone and they're not to be feared, and in fact 300 Spartans stopped them.

All of the allegations relating to him, his wife, or his charity benefiting from abuses of the oil-for-food program are also suspect. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

As for the amount of people needed to carry off such an operation, well I don't see how it would be in the thousands.

Think about it - Dick Cheney orders a couple of different exercises to be carried out by the Nation's military on the day of the event, to keep them busy. Those exercises have the nicely added effect of putting false radar signals on various control tower's radar, etc - as they are taking part in the exercises, and thus NEED to be able to instruct various military personnel as to where the false planes are, all as part of normal military exercises(yes, former mil here, too - all of what I'm saying is actually well documented).

To get some form of explosive in the tower - well, I don't know where you heard the "proposed 26 hours" that you cite above, but the WTC towers were being worked on for about 2 weeks prior to 9/11. Various parts of the towers were having power turned on and off, and only during the last weekend, both building's power and security systems were shut down.

Now, the people to plant the explosives, etc - would they really have to have very little moral character? How did 9/11 benefit the American economy?

Well, prior to 9/11, Iraq's Saddam Hussein had announced that it would start accepting Euros as payment for Oil("In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros." - http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/19.html). Due to our embargo on Iraq, and the subsequent "Oil for Food" program that the UN announced, it made sense that, in order for them to get at least some funding to feed their economy in at least the slightest way...maybe to be able to afford weapons - maybe even just to be able to buy building materials for their own country - who knows?

Thing is, as part of a 1972-1973(can't remember which year) agreement between President Nixon and OPEC, OPEC agreed to accept only USD as payment for oil. This subsequent agreement occurred one or two years after Nixon stopped the backing of the USD by gold for foreign investors, on August 15, 1971. The USD hadn't been backed by gold for citizens of the U.S., but foreign investors could cash in their USD for gold up until that point.

What does this mean? Well, basically it means that the USD stopped being backed by gold in 1971 and OPEC started accepting ONLY USD for oil in 1972 or 73...essentially backing our currency by what?....oil!

So, as you can probably understand, it's quite a threat for Iraq to start accepting Euros for oil(and the USD has taken a hit because of it - around 17% loss in value, so far).

Now, however(and this might explain a lot to you), Iran has opened it's "Oil Bourse" - accepting what for oil?....Euro and Yen. What further complicates matters with Iran, however, is that China is now buying 50% of it's oil from Iran in Yen, because, of course, it's easier for them(easier than having to try to get USD to buy oil from OPEC with).

Well, that kindof complicates things on a global geopolitical stage. What it means is that, as more countries start buying oil with Euro and Yen, they will stop trying to get USD, and even use the last of their USD and not really have a need to get more(since they can now buy oil in Euro or Yen - or even diversify between Euro, Yen, and USD - either way, the demand for USD lowers).

On a global scale, this will most certainly disrupt the value of the USD like never seen before.

Had Iraq actually gotten clients for his "Oil for Euro/Yen" program, it would have been devastating for the USD back in 2001...but 9/11 happened, giving us a "reason"(even if only superficially and even a lie) to go into Iraq.

In effect, those that may have taken down the towers did us a favor - they stopped millions from being killed by what would be an ensuing recession/depression in the value of the USD(as is kindof happening now) by killing only 2000 people in the towers, and a couple thousand killed in a war to hold onto Iraq's oil as a type of backing for USD.

Don't believe me, though - look into it yourself. All of the above described events and places are well documented. Look into the "Iranian Oil Bourse" in particular.

....GEEEEEEK!,aaaaaaand..YAYYYYYYY!...
motor oil, baby food, plastic dinosaurs, Quick™...the stoner shopper!!...

*comedy because it is...

double Speak

The story from the troops has always been that the condition is bad due to mismanagement from above, it's getting worse as troops are being replaced by ungoverned PMC outfits such as Blackwater and Executive Outcomes. They suggestion has been that will they would continue the objective if need be, it's best if if they extradite from Iraq as soon as possible. One of the chief ways they have done is the hearts and minds program combined with a training of the Iraqi Police and National Guard.

Both military organizations coalition forces just disbanded following the end of hostilities, which lead to the mass looting and chaos seen previously. The hearts and minds program is responsible for the 98% of children who are vaccinated.

This was a positive effect, something that would have happened back in 1991 if policies with Iraq were more stringent following the conclusion of the first Gulf war. Arguably the UN was at fault due to restrictions via the oil for food program. The economy simply opened up because the oil for food program was gone, the embargo forced by a no fly zone and trade restrictions was gone. So all those goods and services.

What they are throwing at you are simply the statistics of damage control that was run to fix the shit hole the administration took you, wheres the mention of the smoking gun? The mass wave of propaganda and power point slide shows of chemical tankers and mobile launchers? Wheres the Al Qaeda link? The mention of the fiasco when claiming that Iraq attempted purchase of yellow cake of Nigeria? Which then lead to the outing of Valeria Palme? What about our troops fighting short handed supported by dubious PMCs? Fighting with little to no armour in their vehicles. Like the amount of questions about the actions of this administration is ridiculous. At no point do you feel Bush to be humane because he never says or even alludes that his wrong, alot of republican nuts say its a sign of strength? I don't know what kind of MC Esher sketchbook you came from but that's just ignorant...

The US administration does not want to get involved in what potentially could be a 2nd Vietnam war, even though it is abundantly clear from the time span of the actual war that the Iraqi military was completely overwhelmed. Kurdish rebels in the North and Shiites in the South start military operations against Saddam's goverment. The American goverment at the time felt that this would lead to civil war and thus let the situation resolve itself, however it makes a mistake in negotiations for a cease fire with Saddam. While a no fly zone was imposed, Saddam was given premission to use attack helicopters. Attack helicopters crush both rebel movements. (Remember those famous pictures of Kurds driven to the mountains?). The American administration does no intervene any further because an unstable presence in the Middle East means that military bases will be allowed remain in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and Qatar, securing the oil supply should anything ever happen. The American goverment could have overthrown Saddam then and there, the initative was there, the world was behind them but they stopped, because it served their objectives at the time. What follows is 10 years of misery via the UN Oil-for-food programme, under which thousands suffer. The iraqi people feel betrayed because the liberators had left before the job was finished, pro american supports silently dissappeared off the streets as Saddam tightened control, seeing no alternative a cult of personality arises around Saddam who starts to provide food and supplies to the people, in 10 years he becomes more beloved and feared ruler. Something that US forces are dealing with every day, day in day out. The rest is history.

During the same time period (70s to 90s), the USSR intervenes in Afghanistan, the CIA sponsors the mujahedin and Osama Bin Laden with roughly a billion dollars in order to destabilize the Soviet Union. Significantly they provided the mujahedin shoulder launched heat seekers that destroyed the air support of the russian helicopter fleet (responsible for supply, transportation and tactical attacks) which was vital to any successful campaign. Clearly the CIA was not doing it's job properly because at the time it was clear the Soviet Union was just disintergrating under the inefficiency of the soviet communist system. Osama Bin Laden joined the Taleban because they envisioned a muslim nation, and that was attacked by a secular power (USSR). With US forces staying put in Saudia Arabia indefinately after the Gulf War, Osama Bin Laden declares a jihad against occupying forces in the Islamic Holyland. The rest is thus history.

In conclusion. The policies the American goverment has undertaken have backfired, the consequences of which we see in 9/11, the Afghan war, the Iraq war, the uneasy situation with Iran. The CIA have a code word for this called "blow back". Intervention in Iranian affairs has created regime whose coming to power was mostly based on a hatred of America for doing what it did. This is the same regime that could be acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestine, supporting indirectly anti-american action in Iraq. The same people who would have greeted America as liberators in 1991, when it mattered, are not the same people America invades in 2003.

The same thing I mentioned about Nicaragua applies to East Timor. in 1975, the Indonesian Military Regime intervenes in the former colony of East Timor. What follows is a genocidal event. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassdor to the UN blocks any international reaction to the event. And I quote now "The United States wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this about. The department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."
In 1991, A News Service study reveals that the US goverment supplied the Indonesian military with a list of names of promeint communist party leaders, mass organizations, labour federations and youth groups. The CIA station chief reffered to this as "a shooting list".

I could go on and on...

Exactly. Galloway is an asshole, a liar, and probably a profiteer from the Oil-For-Food program before the war. But, just as in everyday life, despite being a thoroughly unsavory fellow paradoxically he is often a brilliant orator, and here he totally nails it.

It pains me that the most effective rhetoricians are often the biggest jerks. Where are the Democrats who can speak effectively against the idiots running the country into the ground? Pelosi and Reid are lame.