Discussion:
The Case for Bombing Iran
(too old to reply)
SPierce
2007-09-29 03:59:36 UTC
Permalink
My guess is before this Christmas.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
Raven
2007-09-29 04:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
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.
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 04:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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.
can_o_worms
2007-09-29 04:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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!
mary collins
2007-09-29 04:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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
Post by Raven
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).
Peter Webb
2007-09-29 05:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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
Post by Raven
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).
Like say Bosnia, where the US intervened to protect Muslims from genocide,
which has as its sole economic claim to fame that it is the largest supplier
of raspberries in Europe?

So you are saying that the US will protect democracy if the country produces
raspberries, but won't if they produce cabbage? What do you base this
strange assertion upon?
bc_nv
2007-09-29 06:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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.
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 06:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by bc_nv
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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.
bc_nv
2007-09-29 06:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by bc_nv
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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.
SPierce
2007-09-29 06:37:59 UTC
Permalink
"Alexander DeLarge" <***@clockwork.com> wrote in message news:***@news.individual.net...
(snipped)
Post by Alexander DeLarge
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.
Anarchore
2007-09-29 13:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Alexander DeLarge
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.
Yeah the fucking UberKike terrorists do, JEWBOY!

You twisted cocksucker, go to Israhell and suck Olmert off yourself!!

Dear President Bollinger;

I am a seasoned geo-political intel analyst who has spent time in the
Mid-East - among other credentials. I also come from a Latin ethnicity
whose heritage included the tradition of hospitality to those who were
invited to my home or my country. I am multi-lingual - have been a
foreign diplomat - Honeywell aero-apace scientist - have traveled to
dozens of foreign countries - lived among other cultures - am a
successful retired businessman and while you were still in Jr high
school - was a commanding a combat training infantry company of some
235 men - the youngest officer on record to do so at that time ( 1961)
Later on I commanded an elite Special Operations Airborne A -Team - so
I have not garnered my knowledge or learned opinions via an ‘armchair’.
I have ‘paid my dues’ - and with HONOR!

What I witnessed recently was one of the most embarrassing and
disgusting experiences of my life. Your conduct was not only
inappropriate - but of a thug bully mentality which has tainted the
reputation of my country - my native land that I have risked my life to
protect. How much was it Mr. Bollinger? - 30 pieces of silver? Was that
what the Jews paid you for your cowardly ‘assassination’? I would have
expected such ignorant slanderous crudeness from filth like Bill
Clinton - but not a person of your prestigious position. Do you REALLY
have ANY idea of the amount of IRREPARABLE damage you have committed by
you arrogant malevolent slanderous insults! The man you so maliciously
insulted and falsely maligned, holds a doctorate degree and is the
elected President of a sovereign nation. You might at least had the
decorum to recognize those facts.

Of all the countries in the Mid-East where I was NOT shown courtesy,
respect and hospitality - the ONLY place was IsraHELL. What was really
an eye opener was that before my actual experiences there, I had
expected exactly the opposite! As long as that land of Godless liars,
thieves, prostitutes, porn kings, white slavers, murderers, cheats,
frauds, mobsters, Marxists, racists and traitors to America EXISTS -
there will NEVER EVER be ANY peace on this planet. That place is 100%
pure concentrated evil! Read you Bible Mr. Bollinger. Our Lord
PERSONALLY addressed them - the ’self-chosen’ - as the ” sons of the
Devil - the father of all lies”. NOTHING has changed in the souls and
hearts of these pernicious scum in the past 2000 years.

In the future - DECENT KNOWLEDGEABLE American patriots will hold
brutish lying slanderous ’shabbus goy’ like yourself responsible for
the horrors that you have been responsible for promoting. When that
treasonous spineless mongoloid war criminal Bush plunges MY country
into a world wide conflict - people like you WILL be ALSO held
responsible. YOU WILL YET PAY FOR YOUR COMPLICITY IN THESE CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY.

These madmen traitors have sent our street scum ( these are NOT the
decent young warriors I trained 45 years ago!) to murder -at present
count- now OVER ONE MILLION TOTALLY INNOCENT CIVILIAN MEN WOMEN AND
CHILDREN - all in the name of the Jew and his criminal shit little
stolen country - IsraHELL! I have been INSIDE that criminal shithole
with the HIGHEST intelligence personnel and witnessed horrors that you
can’t even imagine sir! Have you ever witnessed the world’s largest
institutionalized terrorist organization shoot helpless defenseless
innocent children in their - OWN HOMELAND - just for sport or target
practice? No of course not! Well - Mr. Bollinger - I HAVE!

That BONA FIDE terrorist group is the IDF! They are the SAME killers
that murdered and slaughtered over 200 of our sons brothers and father
aboard the USS LIBERTY - and YOU - you hypocrite - you STILL proudly
support these Godless anti-American murdering Jew scum! The SAME Jew
scum that have turned MY beloved once decent country into a morally
rotted corpse! There is not ONE SINGLE moral malady that has of more
recent times ‘infected ‘ this once great country that was not at the
bequest, support and finance of the Jew - NOT ONE!

YOU SIR - are the perfect example of the ‘domestic’ enemy of MY country
and those who would jeopardize the safety of MY children and
grandchildren. DAMN YOU TO HELL SIR! - DAMN YOU TO HELL! May almighty
God punish you for your lies, false witness, duplicity and hypocrisy -
and send you to the most forlorn corner of hell to rot for all
eternity!

YOU - are the quintessential ‘domestic enemy’ that I took that solemn
oath so many years ago - to defend this country against! YOU and your
ilk ARE the EXACT reason why we are now the most feared and hated
nation on earth. When you lay on your death bed and are struggling for
your last breath - I want you to NEVER forget this letter and the
horrendous damage you have done to decent innocent mankind. Even worse
- you were given the rare opportunity to do the right and truthful and
honorable thing - and instead - you did evil! May God forgive you for
what you have done - I will not.

With utter disgust,

Joe Cortina - father - patriot - veteran - historian - Christian - and
seeker of truth and justice till the day I die
Carl
2007-09-30 19:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by bc_nv
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.
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-09-30 23:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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
Peter Webb
2007-10-01 01:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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.
No, he is the official head of government of Iran, and speaks in that
capacity. That was not true of Powell.
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-10-01 01:18:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 30, 9:06 pm, "Peter Webb"
Post by Peter Webb
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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.
No, he is the official head of government of Iran, and speaks in that
capacity. That was not true of Powell.
However, this is a "government" that does not control the armed forces
which respond to the supreme leader, position that is reserved to the
top ayatollah.

President, but no "commander in chief."

VV
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-10-02 00:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Webb
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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.
No, he is the official head of government of Iran, and speaks in that
capacity. That was not true of Powell.
He has NO power over military issues, over the nuclear program, the
military intelligence, and all security agencies, which are under the
command of the Supreme Leader, who is the highest rank ayatollah. He is
the one who appoints the judiciary, the commanders of police, and he
appoints the Council of Guardians, which is like the Senate or Chamber
of Lords.

The Islamic Republic has very little of a Republic, and the public has
very little input in government decisions. Pretty much like in the USA,
only the people in Iran KNOW that they have little influence in the
direction of government, while most of the the people in the USA still
believe that they live in a democratic Republic.


VV
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-10-03 06:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Peter Webb
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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.
No, he is the official head of government of Iran, and speaks in that
capacity. That was not true of Powell.
He has NO power over military issues, over the nuclear program, the
military intelligence, and all security agencies, which are under the
command of the Supreme Leader, who is the highest rank ayatollah. He is
the one who appoints the judiciary, the commanders of police, and he
appoints the Council of Guardians, which is like the Senate or Chamber
of Lords.
The Islamic Republic has very little of a Republic, and the public has
very little input in government decisions. Pretty much like in the USA,
only the people in Iran KNOW that they have little influence in the
direction of government, while most of the the people in the USA still
believe that they live in a democratic Republic.
VV
Yeah, but that wasn't always the case. Iran was democratizing quite
nicely before Bush went on his oil crusade and gave the hard-liners an
excuse to crack down.
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-10-03 22:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Peter Webb
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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.
No, he is the official head of government of Iran, and speaks in that
capacity. That was not true of Powell.
He has NO power over military issues, over the nuclear program, the
military intelligence, and all security agencies, which are under the
command of the Supreme Leader, who is the highest rank ayatollah. He is
the one who appoints the judiciary, the commanders of police, and he
appoints the Council of Guardians, which is like the Senate or Chamber
of Lords.
The Islamic Republic has very little of a Republic, and the public has
very little input in government decisions. Pretty much like in the USA,
only the people in Iran KNOW that they have little influence in the
direction of government, while most of the the people in the USA still
believe that they live in a democratic Republic.
VV
Yeah, but that wasn't always the case. Iran was democratizing quite
nicely before Bush went on his oil crusade and gave the hard-liners an
excuse to crack down.
USAmericans presidents have their hands soaked in blood

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html
Carl
2007-10-01 04:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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?
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-10-02 00:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
Post by Carl
Post by bc_nv
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
Merlin
2007-10-02 01:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
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 ass, island boy.
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-10-02 23:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Viejo Vizcacha
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
Post by Merlin
You're talking out of your ass, island boy.
tim@nocomment.com
2007-09-30 22:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bc_nv
Post by Raven
Post by SPierce
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.
can_o_worms
2007-09-29 04:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
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
dave
2007-09-29 04:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
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.
SPierce
2007-09-29 06:40:36 UTC
Permalink
"dave" <***@yahoo.name> wrote in message news:IOkLi.107327$***@edtnps82...
(snipped)
Post by dave
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.
And they will switch their funds to where exactly.
pl
2007-09-29 21:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by dave
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.
And they will switch their funds to where exactly.
Russia, Europe?? America has already forced radical changes that have yet to
flow down, if they leave no choice even more radical steps that no one would
even contemplate in our sedentary but safer world before bush world plans
were and are being exposed.
dave
2007-09-30 05:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by dave
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.
And they will switch their funds to where exactly.
The Chinese will demand the cash that the USA owes them...
[ around 1.6 Trillion ]

The Chinese very well could invest in Europe, if the
USA dollar and their politics sinks any further.
SPierce
2007-09-30 08:11:16 UTC
Permalink
"dave" <***@yahoo.name> wrote in message news:5sGLi.126545$***@edtnps89...
( snipped)
Post by dave
The Chinese very well could invest in Europe, if the
USA dollar and their politics sinks any further.
I hope they do that. They will get a first class education in what returns
on investment means.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-09-30 14:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
( snipped)
Post by dave
The Chinese very well could invest in Europe, if the
USA dollar and their politics sinks any further.
I hope they do that. They will get a first class education in what
returns on investment means.
Yep - they will.
Way better than sticking with a dollar which is crashing out of sight.
The steadily rising Euro is becoming the new reserve currency now - get over
it.
Carl
2007-09-30 19:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by SPierce
( snipped)
Post by dave
The Chinese very well could invest in Europe, if the
USA dollar and their politics sinks any further.
I hope they do that. They will get a first class education in what
returns on investment means.
Yep - they will.
Way better than sticking with a dollar which is crashing out of sight.
The steadily rising Euro is becoming the new reserve currency now -
In the short term. The EU has plenty of problems within itself, have a
couple of nations which would prefer to pull out of it because they're
getting the short end of the economic stick, and as yet have not had to
confront any international crises because the U.S. handles all that for them
now. When and if the U.S. gets to the point where it has to withdraw more
to a point of neutrality, we'll see how equipped, either militarily or
economically, the Europeans are to mount their own defenses.

Of course, that is unless you believe that if it weren't for The Great Satan
there would be World Peace and an end to World Hunger.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-10-01 13:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by SPierce
( snipped)
Post by dave
The Chinese very well could invest in Europe, if the
USA dollar and their politics sinks any further.
I hope they do that. They will get a first class education in what
returns on investment means.
Yep - they will.
Way better than sticking with a dollar which is crashing out of sight.
The steadily rising Euro is becoming the new reserve currency now -
In the short term. The EU has plenty of problems within itself, have a
couple of nations which would prefer to pull out of it because they're
getting the short end of the economic stick, and as yet have not had to
confront any international crises because the U.S. handles all that for them
now. When and if the U.S. gets to the point where it has to withdraw more
to a point of neutrality, we'll see how equipped, either militarily or
economically, the Europeans are to mount their own defenses.
Yep we will - quite soon. Bye bye Yankee dollar.
Post by Carl
Of course, that is unless you believe that if it weren't for The Great Satan
there would be World Peace and an end to World Hunger.
It would be a lot nearer of course - only a Yank could possibly remain blind
to that fact.
Don't believe *everything* your Pappy tells you.
Carl
2007-09-30 19:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by dave
Post by SPierce
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.
I seriously doubt that they will do more than just sit on the sidelines as
they have done for the past 20 years.
Post by dave
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.
Yep, true. But it's not about the U.S. fearing an attack from Iran. See what
good all them nuclear weapons do you should Iran come to control the region
and shuts down exports of oil to the U.S.. What would be your plan then?
Post by dave
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.
This won't happen because then they'd have no clients. That depression
you're predicting, below, will smack them right in their own heads. Besides,
it's naive to think that China and Russia are so moral that they will keep
their word to either their allies or, particularly, to each other. You
think they actually can act in tandem? What a joke. I'd bet you they each
fear each other more than they fear the U.S. anyway.
Post by dave
Then you'll see a depression in the USA and a stock market
crash like never before.
David Johnston
2007-09-30 19:28:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:11:44 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
Post by dave
Post by SPierce
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.
I seriously doubt that they will do more than just sit on the sidelines as
they have done for the past 20 years.
Post by dave
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.
Yep, true. But it's not about the U.S. fearing an attack from Iran. See what
good all them nuclear weapons do you should Iran come to control the region
and shuts down exports of oil to the U.S.. What would be your plan then?
I think Iran is even less well equipped to control the area than Iraq
was, nukes or no nukes.
Carl
2007-09-30 19:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:11:44 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
Post by dave
Post by SPierce
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.
I seriously doubt that they will do more than just sit on the
sidelines as they have done for the past 20 years.
Post by dave
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.
Yep, true. But it's not about the U.S. fearing an attack from Iran.
See what good all them nuclear weapons do you should Iran come to
control the region and shuts down exports of oil to the U.S.. What
would be your plan then?
I think Iran is even less well equipped to control the area than Iraq
was, nukes or no nukes.
I'm surprised you feel that way. Perhaps you're correct for the moment. And
perhaps it was true when we left Iraq alone as a counterbalance to Iran. But
Iraq is gone now and I think that is their present goal. You apparently
disagree?
dave
2007-10-01 06:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by dave
Post by SPierce
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.
I seriously doubt that they will do more than just sit on the sidelines as
they have done for the past 20 years.
I think Russia and China will act economically, and
may even continue to contribute weapons to IRAN
just to spite America,

After all, Taiwan, Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen, are
not forgotten by either country, and the USA is long due
for a come-uppance,
Post by Carl
Post by dave
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.
Yep, true. But it's not about the U.S. fearing an attack from Iran.
Yes it is, or rather, the oil exports that would come under
attack from Iran, and the oil embargo that Iran would
institute after an American bombing attack,

You can't be that naive,
Post by Carl
See what good all them nuclear weapons do you should Iran
come to control the region and shuts down exports of oil to the U.S.
Iran's greatest export is oil. It's greatest consumer is the
USA. Why would Iran shut down oil exports to begin with, as
if the haven't had cause to date,

Iran had a valid reason to attack the US for supplying Iraq
with chemical weapons in the 1980's, and supporting the
Saddam Hussien regime,

They didn't. That should tell you something about their
character,

However, the Republicans in the USA back in the 1970's wanted to
establish U.S. bases all across the Indian Ocean and the Persian
Gulf. The put out a political paper on that topic and even
leaked it to the media, back then,

Rumsfield's paper, and look at what the world is in now.


Today, we see the blundering of George Bush on the so-called
"War on Terrorism". It might as well be a war on fat, for all
the effectiveness the US Army has done in Iraq thus far.

Shit, it was even mentioned in a movie, "Three Days of the
Condor" for christ's sake, get with the program already.
Post by Carl
. What would be your plan then?
Should have never invaded IRAQ, for starters, and never invaded
Afghanistan. You start a war on terror, you go after bin Laden
the only way the CIA knows how.

Get an Arab to do it.

The USA has a decision left to it for the next 18 months;

Pull out of Iraq and invade Iran, or pull out of Iraq and
focus on Afghanistan.

The US has no more people, or resources, for anything else.
Post by Carl
Post by dave
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.
This won't happen because then they'd have no clients.
Your wrong;

When the Chinese call in those loans, the USA has
to transfer the funds to them; If they can't, Chinese banks
can come to the USA and demand the House and property, business
or warehouse, or building.

This is what the USA does everywhere else, and they're the
ones who invented and created those very rules.

The USA is now effectively, stuck.
Post by Carl
That depression
you're predicting, below, will smack them right in their own heads.
One bad thing about depression; If your not the one with the
money, or the land, your the one starving.

The USA has managed to send all it major businesses to other
countries. Off shore corps are now commonplace;

Business in Russia, Europe, Australia is still going strong.

If the USA can't buy their stuff, these will. That's around
1 billion people.

The USA only has 400 million, and estimates put 170 million
as consumers.

That doesn't include the baby boomers retiring in 5 years.

see?
Post by Carl
Besides,
it's naive to think that China and Russia are so moral that they will keep
their word to either their allies or, particularly, to each other. You
think they actually can act in tandem?
Yep.
Post by Carl
What a joke. I'd bet you they each
fear each other more than they fear the U.S. anyway.
Not since the USA invaded a country for no valid reason; On
the next election, if the Republicans manage to rig another
election and get another President, they'll have even
more reason to stick together, don't you worry.
Peter Webb
2007-10-01 12:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by dave
Iran had a valid reason to attack the US for supplying Iraq
with chemical weapons in the 1980's, and supporting the
Saddam Hussien regime,
You have got it backwards.

The US supplied weapons to Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, specifically large
numbers of BGM-91 anti-tank weapons which were used by Iran against Iraq.
The US did not supply any weapons to Iraq after Saddam took over (though of
course plenty of other countries did).
dave
2007-10-01 18:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Webb
Post by dave
Iran had a valid reason to attack the US for supplying Iraq
with chemical weapons in the 1980's, and supporting the
Saddam Hussien regime,
You have got it backwards.
I do?
Post by Peter Webb
The US supplied weapons to Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, specifically large
numbers of BGM-91 anti-tank weapons which were used by Iran against
Iraq. The US did not supply any weapons to Iraq after Saddam took over
(though of course plenty of other countries did).
I'm sorry that that fact has still escaped you,
'cause your obtuse opinion is starting to make me
laugh;

That information was already revealed in a report, around
1992. And no one in the USA bothered to read the report, until
re-written for everyone to understand, in 2002.

So, I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

Iraq had chemical weapons shipped to them from the USA
Chemical Weapons storage igloos in Virgina and Montana,
tumbleweed.


Saddam Hussien had American Advisors instructing them how
to employ those weapons. That's it, game over, don't
pass go, don't collect your $200 bucks.

But don't take my word for it...
Post by Peter Webb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
[ This link shows Rumsfield and Hussien shaking hands over
a deal they made together in the in 1980's while Rummy
was working for Ronald Regan. ]
Post by Peter Webb
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
http://www.doublestandards.org/text/mackay1.html
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
Sunday Herald
08 September 2002
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and
urban affairs – which oversees American exports policy – reveal
that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan
and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas,
West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992,
as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia.
Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major
organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
====

What are you exactly, dense?
Peter Webb
2007-10-02 02:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Webb
Post by dave
Iran had a valid reason to attack the US for supplying Iraq
with chemical weapons in the 1980's, and supporting the
Saddam Hussien regime,
You have got it backwards.
I do?
Post by Peter Webb
The US supplied weapons to Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, specifically large
numbers of BGM-71anti-tank weapons which were used by Iran against Iraq.
The US did not supply any weapons to Iraq after Saddam took over (though
of course plenty of other countries did).
I'm sorry that that fact has still escaped you,
'cause your obtuse opinion is starting to make me
laugh;

That information was already revealed in a report, around
1992. And no one in the USA bothered to read the report, until
re-written for everyone to understand, in 2002.

So, I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

Iraq had chemical weapons shipped to them from the USA
Chemical Weapons storage igloos in Virgina and Montana,
tumbleweed.


Saddam Hussien had American Advisors instructing them how
to employ those weapons. That's it, game over, don't
pass go, don't collect your $200 bucks.

But don't take my word for it...
Post by Peter Webb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
[ This link shows Rumsfield and Hussien shaking hands over
a deal they made together in the in 1980's while Rummy
was working for Ronald Regan. ]

**** No, that link shows Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. It shows they
met, nothing more. It does not support any of the statements that you have
made. None.
Post by Peter Webb
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
*** This story doesn't support your assertion that the US supplied weapons
to Iraq.
Post by Peter Webb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
*** This story doesn't support your assertion that the US supplied weapons
to Iraq.
Post by Peter Webb
http://www.doublestandards.org/text/mackay1.html
*** This story is from some flakey web site.

*** How come the reputable sites don't support your assertion, and the only
sites that do are flakey?

*** Ever think because it might be wrong?
Post by Peter Webb
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
Sunday Herald
08 September 2002
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban
affairs – which oversees American exports policy – reveal that the US,
under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr,
sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and
botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to
tuberculosis and pneumonia.
Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major
organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
====

*** The biological agents were part of an inter-University program for
epidemiological tracking. This had been in place since the late 1940s.
Almost all countries in the world are part of this program. It also included
E-coli and salmonella. These have no conceivable military use. Exactly the
same thing happens today with exchange of bird flu viruses to track disease
movements. The program was closed down by the US administration as soon as
they heard about it, which is a pity because it harmed Iraqi agriculture,
where anthrax is endemic. The Iraqis had no means of determining which
strains of anthrax were in various animal populations, as they stopped
getting reference samples sent to the University of Bagdhad. Iraq never in
fact used biological weapons, and it is not clear they ever had any.

*** Did I tell you about the BGM-71's that the US sold to Iran to defend
against the Iraqi tanks? An awesome weapon, still in production use today.
How much do you know about the US supplying weapons to Iran to use against
Iraq - which is well documented and explicit?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-10-01 13:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Yes it is, or rather, the oil exports that would come under attack from
Iran, and the oil embargo that Iran would
institute after an American bombing attack,
You can't be that naive,
Hey - it's Carl remember.
dave
2007-10-01 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Yes it is, or rather, the oil exports that would come under attack from
Iran, and the oil embargo that Iran would
institute after an American bombing attack,
You can't be that naive,
Hey - it's Carl remember.
Don't know him...only encountered him here yesterday.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-10-01 13:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
This won't happen because then they'd have no clients. That depression
you're predicting, below, will smack them right in their own heads.
You are so out of touch with the current economic realities in China it's
laughable.
China doesn't need US markets anymore. They've got a rising middle class
that numbers over 300 million and they aren't even out of first gear yet.
They've got coastal cities that make most US cities look like last century's
rustbelt towns. Oh wait. I was forgetting.
Post by Carl
Besides, it's naive
Carl calling someone naive! LOL.
Now that is funny
Tom P
2007-09-29 04:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
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.
SPierce
2007-09-29 06:42:33 UTC
Permalink
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.
Kope
2007-09-29 09:34:54 UTC
Permalink
i am a radical muslim please read my blog read how islam will win the
clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
son of a bitch
2007-09-29 05:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
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, bullshit.
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.
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 05:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
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, bullshit.
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.
You stupid fool. "Bomb Iran' was by Vince Vance and the Valiants in 1979!

A tune that they ripped off from Fred Fassert and was performed by The Regents
in 1961, and later made popular by the Beach Boys!

Learn your history! And stop being such an insufferable creep!


How will you ever kill the Iranian dirt devels if you fail to know the basics
of American culture?
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 05:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
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, bullshit.
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.
You stupid fool. "Bomb Iran' was by Vince Vance and the Valiants in 1979!
A tune that they ripped off from Fred Fassert and was performed by The Regents
in 1961, and later made popular by the Beach Boys!
Learn your history! And stop being such an insufferable creep!
How will you ever kill the Iranian dirt devels if you fail to know the basics
of American culture?
One of the few that the Beach Boys didn't pen. They had good tunes.

Only one of the surfed.

Ah, ba ba ba ba barbara ann
Ba ba ba ba barbara ann

Oh barbara ann, take my hand
Barbara ann
You got me rockin and a-rollin
Rockin and a-reelin
Barbara ann ba ba
Ba barbara ann

Went to a dance, lookin for romance
Saw barbara ann, so I thought Id take a chance
With barbara ann, barbara ann
Take my hand
You got me rockin and a-rollin
(oh! oh!)
Rockin and a-reelin
Barbara ann ba ba
Ba ba ba ba black sheep

Ba ba ba ba barbara ann
Ba ba ba ba barbara ann

Barbara ann, take my hand
Barbara ann
You got me rockin and a-rollin
Rockin and a-reelin
Barbara ann ba ba
Ba barbara ann
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 06:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=3
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, bullshit.
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.
You stupid fool. "Bomb Iran' was by Vince Vance and the Valiants in 1979!
A tune that they ripped off from Fred Fassert and was performed by The Regents
in 1961, and later made popular by the Beach Boys!
Learn your history! And stop being such an insufferable creep!
How will you ever kill the Iranian dirt devels if you fail to know the basics
of American culture?
One of the few that the Beach Boys didn't pen. They had good tunes.
And don't forget. 1967.

Pet Sounds and Sgt. Peppers were the two greatest recordings 40 years-ago.

Can anyone humm "Good Vibrations"? With the VSC3 synthesizer?
Raven
2007-09-29 08:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
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, bullshit.
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.
You stupid fool. "Bomb Iran' was by Vince Vance and the Valiants in 1979!
A tune that they ripped off from Fred Fassert and was performed by The Regents
in 1961, and later made popular by the Beach Boys!
Learn your history! And stop being such an insufferable creep!
How will you ever kill the Iranian dirt devels if you fail to know the basics
of American culture?
One of the few that the Beach Boys didn't pen. They had good tunes.
And don't forget. 1967.
Pet Sounds and Sgt. Peppers were the two greatest recordings 40 years-ago.
Can anyone humm "Good Vibrations"? With the VSC3 synthesizer?
God forbid.. I was 20 something and working in a BR signal box in the
middle of nowhere when the beach boys released good vibrations....
memories. Had long hair in those days and wore a cow bell around my
neck chanting 'peace man' and making love in a muddied puddle
somewhere... what happened to those days.
Raven
2007-09-29 05:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
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, bullshit.
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.
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 06:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
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, bullshit.
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.
I think that I'm better than that.

My first experience seeing and meeting Chrissie Hynde was in 1980, and I'm a
lover of animals, but not a PETA Nazi like her. But she still knocks me out.

I eat steaks and Buffalo wings, and listen to Paul McCartney recordings.

I suppose that I'm a hypocrite.
Raven
2007-09-29 06:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by Raven
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
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, bullshit.
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.
I think that I'm better than that.
My first experience seeing and meeting Chrissie Hynde was in 1980, and I'm a
lover of animals, but not a PETA Nazi like her. But she still knocks me out.
I eat steaks and Buffalo wings, and listen to Paul McCartney recordings.
I suppose that I'm a hypocrite.
You actually met her....wow put me in your shoes any day. I'd get a
hard on just listening to her.
jonz
2007-10-04 10:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by Raven
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
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, bullshit.
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.
I think that I'm better than that.
My first experience seeing and meeting Chrissie Hynde was in 1980, and I'm a
lover of animals, but not a PETA Nazi like her. But she still knocks me out.
I eat steaks and Buffalo wings, and listen to Paul McCartney recordings.
I suppose that I'm a hypocrite.
You actually met her....wow put me in your shoes any day. I'd get a
hard on just listening to her.
if you had a dick.......try another group clown.....
--
If at first you don't succeed, look in the trash for the instructions..
Raven
2007-10-04 10:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonz
Post by Raven
Post by Alexander DeLarge
Post by Raven
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
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, bullshit.
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.
I think that I'm better than that.
My first experience seeing and meeting Chrissie Hynde was in 1980, and I'm a
lover of animals, but not a PETA Nazi like her. But she still knocks me out.
I eat steaks and Buffalo wings, and listen to Paul McCartney recordings.
I suppose that I'm a hypocrite.
You actually met her....wow put me in your shoes any day. I'd get a
hard on just listening to her.
if you had a dick.......try another group clown.....
--
If at first you don't succeed, look in the trash for the instructions..
Love you too.....
Dux
2007-09-29 06:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Post by son of a bitch
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, bullshit.
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.
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 06:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dux
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.
SPierce
2007-09-29 06:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
If anything.....
It will be 2-3 months before the next election.
You didn't read carefully enough. It has to be done at least 6 months before
an election or the media junkies and the 'liberals' will complain that it was a
political stunt before an election.

No thought will be given to it about the danger of *not* doing anything once
that kind of hysteria is generated.
son of a bitch
2007-09-29 07:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by son of a bitch
If anything.....
It will be 2-3 months before the next election.
You didn't read carefully enough. It has to be done at least 6 months before
an election or the media junkies and the 'liberals' will complain that it was a
political stunt before an election.
No thought will be given to it about the danger of *not* doing anything once
that kind of hysteria is generated.
The fake evidence compiling will be begin in January leading
up to a crescendo of a finish that only proposes one solution.
Sound Familiar....


And all the who-har about it now only serves one purpose.
To prepare the people of the US for the Inevitable, so it's
not a shock when it happens.
Alexander DeLarge
2007-09-29 07:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Post by SPierce
Post by son of a bitch
If anything.....
It will be 2-3 months before the next election.
You didn't read carefully enough. It has to be done at least 6 months before
an election or the media junkies and the 'liberals' will complain that it was a
political stunt before an election.
No thought will be given to it about the danger of *not* doing anything once
that kind of hysteria is generated.
The fake evidence compiling will be begin in January leading
up to a crescendo of a finish that only proposes one solution.
Sound Familiar....
And all the who-har about it now only serves one purpose.
To prepare the people of the US for the Inevitable, so it's
not a shock when it happens.
War is easy, when you don't live it.

Have you seen what people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other shit holes go through?


I often think that Americans find that shit easy to ignore after all. NYC,
Washington DC, Boston and places like that were never like 80% of Europe after
1942.


I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.

If any US city suffered what the Brits, the French or the Germans did, perhaps
they would realize why war sucks.
Rifty
2007-09-29 08:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander DeLarge
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
Except on one occasion for one September morning in 2001.... Other than
that, you are right - only their own troops have any idea what war
really means for those who can't go anywhere else.

For the record, there will be no bombing of Iran by the US in the
immediate future. Maybe by someone else though...

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
son of a bitch
2007-09-29 11:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rifty
Post by Alexander DeLarge
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
Except on one occasion for one September morning in 2001.... Other than
that, you are right - only their own troops have any idea what war
really means for those who can't go anywhere else.
For the record, there will be no bombing of Iran by the US in the
immediate future. Maybe by someone else though...
Rifty
Funny thing about 2001.....

It was the Biggest successful Terror attach in the world and
using NON Weapons of Mass Destruction, and after a year of chasing
down Obama he said I'm not Interested in him anymore.
Kope
2007-09-30 02:46:19 UTC
Permalink
i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win the
clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
son of a bitch
2007-09-29 11:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rifty
Post by Alexander DeLarge
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
Except on one occasion for one September morning in 2001.... Other than
that, you are right - only their own troops have any idea what war
really means for those who can't go anywhere else.
For the record, there will be no bombing of Iran by the US in the
immediate future. Maybe by someone else though...
Rifty
Funny thing about 2001.....

It was the Biggest successful Terror attack in the world and
using NON Weapons of Mass Destruction, and after a year of chasing
down Obama he said I'm not Interested in him any more.

Instead deciding to track down Saddam because they believed he
HAD Weapons of mass Destruction.

Maybe I'm a bit funny, but I would think It would be more
Important to find a person destroying the country with everyday
Items.
Denny Crane
2007-09-29 11:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Post by Rifty
Post by Alexander DeLarge
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
Except on one occasion for one September morning in 2001.... Other than
that, you are right - only their own troops have any idea what war
really means for those who can't go anywhere else.
For the record, there will be no bombing of Iran by the US in the
immediate future. Maybe by someone else though...
Rifty
Funny thing about 2001.....
It was the Biggest successful Terror attack in the world and
using NON Weapons of Mass Destruction, and after a year of chasing
down Obama he said I'm not Interested in him any more.
I know one thing, Obama is allowed into Canada without challenge because he
doesn't have a criminal record. Bush requires a "Ministers Permit" due to the
fact that he possesses one.

It's been that way since the Quebec G8 conference in 2002.
Post by son of a bitch
Instead deciding to track down Saddam because they believed he
HAD Weapons of mass Destruction.
The USA is full of ignorant Hillbilly politicians who are out of date.

Last Updated: Thursday, April 21, 2005
Outspoken American conservative Newt Gingrich has apologized for saying this
week that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada.
Gingrich, a former Republican speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives,
retracted the comments on Wednesday after Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna
sent him a letter.

"Please accept my apology to the Canadian people for perpetuating the error;
one I am sure that has been very painful to them," said Gingrich in a reply to
Ambassador McKenna.
Post by son of a bitch
Maybe I'm a bit funny, but I would think It would be more
Important to find a person destroying the country with everyday
Items.
Shit! You think that that's funny?

The USA is on Canada's ass again over how the Canadians are assholes because
terrorists get into the USA! The last time I crossed the border into the USA,
I didn't say "hello" to a Canadian border guard!
son of a bitch
2007-09-29 15:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denny Crane
Post by son of a bitch
Post by Rifty
Post by Alexander DeLarge
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
Except on one occasion for one September morning in 2001.... Other than
that, you are right - only their own troops have any idea what war
really means for those who can't go anywhere else.
For the record, there will be no bombing of Iran by the US in the
immediate future. Maybe by someone else though...
Rifty
Funny thing about 2001.....
It was the Biggest successful Terror attack in the world and
using NON Weapons of Mass Destruction, and after a year of chasing
down Obama he said I'm not Interested in him any more.
I know one thing, Obama is allowed into Canada without challenge because he
doesn't have a criminal record. Bush requires a "Ministers Permit" due to the
fact that he possesses one.
It's been that way since the Quebec G8 conference in 2002.
Post by son of a bitch
Instead deciding to track down Saddam because they believed he
HAD Weapons of mass Destruction.
The USA is full of ignorant Hillbilly politicians who are out of date.
Last Updated: Thursday, April 21, 2005
Outspoken American conservative Newt Gingrich has apologized for saying this
week that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada.
Gingrich, a former Republican speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives,
retracted the comments on Wednesday after Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna
sent him a letter.
"Please accept my apology to the Canadian people for perpetuating the error;
one I am sure that has been very painful to them," said Gingrich in a reply to
Ambassador McKenna.
Post by son of a bitch
Maybe I'm a bit funny, but I would think It would be more
Important to find a person destroying the country with everyday
Items.
Shit! You think that that's funny?
The USA is on Canada's ass again over how the Canadians are assholes because
terrorists get into the USA! The last time I crossed the border into the USA,
I didn't say "hello" to a Canadian border guard!
Maybe a more pertinent question would be to ask themselves why do so
mid-east people LOVE the US. By Love, I mean Hate.

A hint would be:
It's NOT freedom or Democracy
Rifty
2007-09-29 23:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Maybe a more pertinent question would be to ask themselves why do so
mid-east people LOVE the US. By Love, I mean Hate.
When the American government and people understand the answer to that
question, they might start to rectify their fatally flawed approach to
the mid-east and its people.

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
Anarchore
2007-09-29 13:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Post by Rifty
Post by Alexander DeLarge
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
Except on one occasion for one September morning in 2001.... Other than
that, you are right - only their own troops have any idea what war
really means for those who can't go anywhere else.
For the record, there will be no bombing of Iran by the US in the
immediate future. Maybe by someone else though...
Rifty
Funny thing about 2001.....
It was the Biggest successful Terror attack in the world and
using NON Weapons of Mass Destruction, and after a year of chasing
down Obama he said I'm not Interested in him any more.
Instead deciding to track down Saddam because they believed he
HAD Weapons of mass Destruction.
Maybe I'm a bit funny, but I would think It would be more
Important to find a person destroying the country with everyday
Items.
Inside, JOB, JEWS!!! SUck a ckikkee, and die of AIDS you worthless
sheeple fucks!!!!!!

http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/evidence-of-israels-911-involvement/
Rifty
2007-09-29 23:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
Maybe I'm a bit funny, but I would think It would be more
Important to find a person destroying the country with everyday
Items.
Bush has only to look in the mirror to find that person. And he might
also see the ones looking over his shoulder.....

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
SPierce
2007-09-29 20:39:06 UTC
Permalink
"Alexander DeLarge" <***@clockwork.com> wrote in message news:***@news.individual.net...
(snipped)
Post by Alexander DeLarge
War is easy, when you don't live it.
Have you seen what people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other shit holes go through?
I often think that Americans find that shit easy to ignore after all. NYC,
Washington DC, Boston and places like that were never like 80% of Europe after
1942.
I can see why the Europeans are adverse to what war means. After all, they've
had it in their turf. The USA? They export it. It never happens to them at
home.
If any US city suffered what the Brits, the French or the Germans did, perhaps
they would realize why war sucks.
Well, I do know what war is. I was in the London Blitz from the first day in
September 1940 to about November. But what Happened in New York in my opinion
was worse for the American psyche than the effect of being Blitzed.

Yes the streets around London were piles of rubble, and the smell of scorched
paint is still etched my mind, in retrospect it was the best thing to happen to
the place. But it was restricted to a few hundred or a thousand people at any
one raid. You only saw what was within your personal view, which was a street
at a time.

And those few hundred people being bombed in each street were long term
residents and friends. The effect was to make cups of tea as men dived into
rubble to look for something worth saving. The whole atmosphere was one of
quiet determination not to get upset about it.

When those towers were hit and brought down BILLIONS of people had the
mesmerising shock of destruction. Screen war is not exactly the same thing
but the hatred for Muslims will never be erased because of that visual impact
what was done to innocent people.

British people never hated the German people for what they did. Just Hitler.
Believe me there was no hatred in my parents for what was being done to
them...just a determination to cut Hitler's other ball off and the sure
knowledge he would get his come-uppence.. This certainty of defeating the
enemy was what kept the spirit up. That certainty might be a British
thing...I'm not sure. It could have been the effect of Churchill's voice that
did it.

I cannot understand why the American don't show those towers being brought down
every night just before the news is about to be broadcast. A few seconds of
the buildings crumbling should always be shown.
It should be shown so they are assured of vengeance being waged on the
perpetrators. The human mind needs to feel satisfaction through vengeance.
It's buried deep within the unconscious. This is the human condition of
survival and cannot be eradicated even in the 'liberal' mind.
Maybe America needs to be bombed daily for months on end too before they get the
message and the people who can't feel the need for vengeance actually might come
close to being blown up themselves and feel what it's like. And the thought of
the hysterical Iranian nutter having a nuclear bomb or bombs is out of the
question. You cannot allow it.
William Black
2007-09-29 21:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
British people never hated the German people for what they did. Just Hitler.
Utter rubbish.

talk to people who've been bombed for 60 or 70 nights.

They wanted as many dead Germans as was possible.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
SPierce
2007-09-29 21:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by SPierce
British people never hated the German people for what they did. Just Hitler.
Utter rubbish.
talk to people who've been bombed for 60 or 70 nights.
They wanted as many dead Germans as was possible.
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler. I don't
need to 'talk' to people who were bombed.
William Black
2007-09-29 22:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by William Black
Post by SPierce
British people never hated the German people for what they did. Just Hitler.
Utter rubbish.
talk to people who've been bombed for 60 or 70 nights.
They wanted as many dead Germans as was possible.
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler. I
don't need to 'talk' to people who were bombed.
Obviously not.

Evidence obviously doesn't play any role in your view of reality.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Peter Webb
2007-09-30 01:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by SPierce
Post by William Black
Post by SPierce
British people never hated the German people for what they did. Just Hitler.
Utter rubbish.
talk to people who've been bombed for 60 or 70 nights.
They wanted as many dead Germans as was possible.
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler.
I don't need to 'talk' to people who were bombed.
Obviously not.
No, because he was there. He was one of those people. Its his opinion that
we are discussing, a subject you appear to know more about than he does.
Post by William Black
Evidence obviously doesn't play any role in your view of reality.
He was there. He is one of the people being talked about.

I think actually being in London at the time of the blitz provides
substantial evidence as to what people at the time thought.

Were you there? If you weren't - and you are not relying on direct first
person experience of the events in question - what evidence are you basing
your opinion on?
Rifty
2007-09-29 23:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler.
So they were quite happy with the rest of the Nazis then?

Come on, Stan. I know what you were trying to say but if you think an
awful lot of Brits didn't hate the German people, then you needed to get
out more during the blitz.... Mind you, it would have been an admirable
trait if they could have restricted their hatred to the Nazi thugs, and
I am sure some did - hell, there were/are plenty of Poms with German
relatives.

I just don't think you are remembering it quite like it really was.

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
Viejo Vizcacha
2007-09-30 02:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rifty
Post by SPierce
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler.
So they were quite happy with the rest of the Nazis then?
Come on, Stan. I know what you were trying to say but if you think an
awful lot of Brits didn't hate the German people, then you needed to get
out more during the blitz.... Mind you, it would have been an admirable
trait if they could have restricted their hatred to the Nazi thugs, and
I am sure some did - hell, there were/are plenty of Poms with German
relatives.
I just don't think you are remembering it quite like it really was.
Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
I do remember in 1983 I was working in London. I was there for about
four months. I remember a few people (not a majority) who still hated
the Germans.

VV
SPierce
2007-09-30 07:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rifty
Post by SPierce
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler.
So they were quite happy with the rest of the Nazis then?
Come on, Stan. I know what you were trying to say but if you think an
awful lot of Brits didn't hate the German people, then you needed to get
out more during the blitz.... Mind you, it would have been an admirable
trait if they could have restricted their hatred to the Nazi thugs, and
I am sure some did - hell, there were/are plenty of Poms with German
relatives.
I just don't think you are remembering it quite like it really was.
I do remember they hated Churchill and said so loudly. He turned up one
day amongst the rubble and he was booed.

And I do remember my dad saying he was going to cut Hitler's other ball
off when he got him. Everybody laughed for some reason.

And my mum told me to pick a bag of Cox's Orange Pippins off the tree in the
garden and take them over to some German prisoners of war who were working
near us. She said they were away from their families and needed a treat.
She'd lost her house in a raid and then her mothers house and still had no
hatred. The prisoners also made me this marvellous lethal weapon that my
mother took off me when she caught me with it. Sort of like a spear carved
from wood and you threw it by means of a stick and piece of string notched
to give it this incredible impetus.

But she would have killed Churchill if let near him. But that was over
him sending in troops with fixed bayonets in the Jarrow hunger marches.
People of her generation never forgave him. It was like pressing a button
just to mention Churchill. My recollection is that Churchill was more
hated than Germans by Londoners. The hatred for him got worse the further
north you went because they suffered more in the Depression with the closed
down shipyards and coal miners.

The media people only show him giving spiritually uplifting speeches and
Hitler as a rambling idiot...but then *we* won. It wasn't all like you see
in the doco's. The Blitz was so bad one night the local councillors sent
a delegation to ask Churchill to declare a capitulation. They just couldn't
take anymore. All hushed up. Imagine how it would be like now with the
squealing queers pushing microphones in Churchill's face and asking him if
he was going to capitulate and showing all the misery on television every
night to put pressure on.

You know what got people through all that misery, the promise of Churchill
to give them what they gave us. No capitulation. He caught the spirit of
the people right. Then seeing the black and white aerial photos in the
papers of German cities burning. It made people feel better. You might
not like what I'm saying in these politically naive times but everyone
bought the paper just to see the pictures. No-one had ever seen photos like
that before. It was a catharsis to see them burning...revenge...but the
Germans as people were not hated. We shared a common heritage.

Hitler was the live third rail. Every hateful word was about him from the
Blitz on.

When the war ended there was an election. The pundits said it would be a
'cliff-hanger but the Tories would still win. Churchill lost 200 seats.
A rout. The people had had enough of him.

There were photos in the papers of British troops giving their chocolate
ration to German prisoners of war in the camps. A lot of Germans stayed
in Britain rather than go home to devastation. 48 cities were in ruin.
It was a tragedy for the civilised world

Three years later the Russians, our friends, people our sailors had froze
to death being torpedoed in the Murmansk convoys for, blockaded Berlin.
They wanted total control.

Churchill was reported to have said " We killed the wrong pig ".
Peter Webb
2007-09-30 08:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by Rifty
Post by SPierce
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler.
So they were quite happy with the rest of the Nazis then?
Come on, Stan. I know what you were trying to say but if you think an
awful lot of Brits didn't hate the German people, then you needed to get
out more during the blitz.... Mind you, it would have been an admirable
trait if they could have restricted their hatred to the Nazi thugs, and
I am sure some did - hell, there were/are plenty of Poms with German
relatives.
I just don't think you are remembering it quite like it really was.
I do remember they hated Churchill and said so loudly. He turned up one
day amongst the rubble and he was booed.
And I do remember my dad saying he was going to cut Hitler's other ball
off when he got him. Everybody laughed for some reason.
And my mum told me to pick a bag of Cox's Orange Pippins off the tree in
the garden and take them over to some German prisoners of war who were
working near us. She said they were away from their families and needed a
treat. She'd lost her house in a raid and then her mothers house and still
had no hatred. The prisoners also made me this marvellous lethal weapon
that my mother took off me when she caught me with it. Sort of like a
spear carved from wood and you threw it by means of a stick and piece of
string notched to give it this incredible impetus.
But she would have killed Churchill if let near him. But that was over
him sending in troops with fixed bayonets in the Jarrow hunger marches.
People of her generation never forgave him. It was like pressing a button
just to mention Churchill. My recollection is that Churchill was more
hated than Germans by Londoners. The hatred for him got worse the
further north you went because they suffered more in the Depression with
the closed down shipyards and coal miners.
The media people only show him giving spiritually uplifting speeches and
Hitler as a rambling idiot...but then *we* won. It wasn't all like you
see in the doco's. The Blitz was so bad one night the local councillors
sent a delegation to ask Churchill to declare a capitulation. They just
couldn't take anymore. All hushed up. Imagine how it would be like now
with the squealing queers pushing microphones in Churchill's face and
asking him if he was going to capitulate and showing all the misery on
television every night to put pressure on.
You know what got people through all that misery, the promise of Churchill
to give them what they gave us. No capitulation. He caught the spirit
of the people right. Then seeing the black and white aerial photos in
the papers of German cities burning. It made people feel better. You
might not like what I'm saying in these politically naive times but
everyone bought the paper just to see the pictures. No-one had ever seen
photos like that before. It was a catharsis to see them
burning...revenge...but the Germans as people were not hated. We shared a
common heritage.
Hitler was the live third rail. Every hateful word was about him from
the Blitz on.
That's an interesting, informative and touching story. Thankyou for posting
it.
Rifty
2007-09-30 22:24:24 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Peter Webb that this was interesting and informative.
Still got some of your marbles anyway, Stan. :)
Post by SPierce
Post by Rifty
Post by SPierce
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler.
So they were quite happy with the rest of the Nazis then?
Come on, Stan. I know what you were trying to say but if you think an
awful lot of Brits didn't hate the German people, then you needed to get
out more during the blitz.... Mind you, it would have been an admirable
trait if they could have restricted their hatred to the Nazi thugs, and
I am sure some did - hell, there were/are plenty of Poms with German
relatives.
I just don't think you are remembering it quite like it really was.
I do remember they hated Churchill and said so loudly. He turned up one
day amongst the rubble and he was booed.
Churchill was wrong about a lot of things. His policy regarding India,
for example, was fatally flawed. Just as well he lost the election
immediately after the war.
Post by SPierce
And I do remember my dad saying he was going to cut Hitler's other ball
off when he got him. Everybody laughed for some reason.
And my mum told me to pick a bag of Cox's Orange Pippins off the tree in the
garden and take them over to some German prisoners of war who were working
near us. She said they were away from their families and needed a treat.
She'd lost her house in a raid and then her mothers house and still had no
hatred.
Very admirable behaviour on your mother's part. And an excellent choice
of apple tree, if I may say so. Sad that some of these varieties have
gone out of favour (flavour? :)).
Post by SPierce
The prisoners also made me this marvellous lethal weapon that my
mother took off me when she caught me with it. Sort of like a spear carved
from wood and you threw it by means of a stick and piece of string notched
to give it this incredible impetus.
Aboriginal people would call it a woomera! (Or something like that as
the principle seems the same.)
Post by SPierce
But she would have killed Churchill if let near him. But that was over
him sending in troops with fixed bayonets in the Jarrow hunger marches.
People of her generation never forgave him. It was like pressing a button
just to mention Churchill. My recollection is that Churchill was more
hated than Germans by Londoners. The hatred for him got worse the further
north you went because they suffered more in the Depression with the closed
down shipyards and coal miners.
Churchill needs cutting down to his real size. Obviously he inspired
many people during the war, but he was not a good peacetime politician,
nor a particularly good military leader.
Post by SPierce
The media people only show him giving spiritually uplifting speeches and
Hitler as a rambling idiot...but then *we* won. It wasn't all like you see
in the doco's. The Blitz was so bad one night the local councillors sent
a delegation to ask Churchill to declare a capitulation. They just couldn't
take anymore. All hushed up. Imagine how it would be like now with the
squealing queers pushing microphones in Churchill's face and asking him if
he was going to capitulate and showing all the misery on television every
night to put pressure on.
There's a hell of a lot that happened during the war that was hushed up.
But that's inevitable in war.
Post by SPierce
You know what got people through all that misery, the promise of Churchill
to give them what they gave us. No capitulation. He caught the spirit of
the people right. Then seeing the black and white aerial photos in the
papers of German cities burning. It made people feel better. You might
not like what I'm saying in these politically naive times but everyone
bought the paper just to see the pictures. No-one had ever seen photos like
that before. It was a catharsis to see them burning...revenge...but the
Germans as people were not hated. We shared a common heritage.
I understand the point you are making. I don't think your experience of
this was universal in Britain, but I accept that views inevitably
differ.
Post by SPierce
Hitler was the live third rail. Every hateful word was about him from the
Blitz on.
When the war ended there was an election. The pundits said it would be a
'cliff-hanger but the Tories would still win. Churchill lost 200 seats.
A rout. The people had had enough of him.
There were photos in the papers of British troops giving their chocolate
ration to German prisoners of war in the camps. A lot of Germans stayed
in Britain rather than go home to devastation. 48 cities were in ruin.
It was a tragedy for the civilised world
Three years later the Russians, our friends, people our sailors had froze
to death being torpedoed in the Murmansk convoys for, blockaded Berlin.
They wanted total control.
Churchill was reported to have said " We killed the wrong pig ".
It's a perspective worth sharing. Thank you.

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
son of a bitch
2007-09-30 00:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by William Black
Post by SPierce
British people never hated the German people for what they did. Just Hitler.
Utter rubbish.
talk to people who've been bombed for 60 or 70 nights.
They wanted as many dead Germans as was possible.
Read my lips, the British never hated the German people...only Hitler. I don't
need to 'talk' to people who were bombed.
The British Royal Family has always had an attachment to Germans,
and married one.
Rifty
2007-09-29 23:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
It should be shown so they are assured of vengeance being waged on the
perpetrators.
Vengeance is the worst possible reason for making decisions. Look what
it did to Bush, who went into Iraq partly to avenge the death threat by
Saddam against Bush Snr.

He got his vengeance, but at a horrific cost to the American people and
nation; one they will continue to pay for god knows how many years to
come.

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
SPierce
2007-09-30 00:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rifty
Post by SPierce
It should be shown so they are assured of vengeance being waged on the
perpetrators.
Vengeance is the worst possible reason for making decisions. Look what
it did to Bush, who went into Iraq partly to avenge the death threat by
Saddam against Bush Snr.
He got his vengeance, but at a horrific cost to the American people and
nation; one they will continue to pay for god knows how many years to
come.
Rifty
--
That's what humans are hard-wired to do. It can never change. That is why we
are so dangerous. You obviously have no one in your life to protect. Just
wait until you find yourself in a position where someone close is harmed by an
outsider.

Abstract ideas of what 'ought' to be and what 'is' will instantly disappear
from your MIND and your BRAIN will take over.
Topaz
2007-09-29 15:46:00 UTC
Permalink
"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 shit 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 shit 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
Carl
2007-09-30 19:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
"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 shit 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.
Topaz
2007-10-01 22:37:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:34:08 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
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
SPierce
2007-10-02 01:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
"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.
Topaz
2007-10-03 00:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by Topaz
"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.
Post by SPierce
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.
Post by SPierce
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.
Post by SPierce
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
SPierce
2007-10-03 05:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
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?
Topaz
2007-10-03 16:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
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
Peter Webb
2007-10-02 06:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:34:08 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
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.
So, your source is an obscure book written by some anti-semite nobody has
ever heard of, and published in 1925?

Wow.

It must be true.
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-10-03 06:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Yeah, and that will accomplish what, exactly?
fasgnadh
2007-10-03 07:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by SPierce
My guess is before this Christmas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&p...
Yeah, and that will accomplish what, exactly?
Within 5 years middle east oil will be contracted to China,
..no one can trust the USSA any more.

---------

Prime Minister Rip Van Winkle;

"Well, I don't, I, I, I, I don't know. I, I mean, I, I "

- John Howard asked about his plans.

Sure John we will all just go get a coffee while
you find your mind and then make it up! B^D


http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/climate_coma.htm



"After a successful few years as a junior minister in
Malcolm Fraser's government, Howard was promoted to
treasury, where his five years in the job can only
be judged as an unmitigated failure.
Take a look at the statistics.

When Howard left the treasury in March 1983, the
budget deficit was forecast at $9.6 billion, inflation
was 11 per cent, unemployment was 10.2 per cent,
the economy was in recession with negative
0.4 per cent growth, and housing interest rates
were 13 per cent.

And, despite the 1982-83 recession being the worst
since the Great Depression, Howard still managed to
increase the federal tax take from 25.1 per cent of
GDP in 1977 to 27.5 per cent of GDP by 1982-83.

Howard then spent 13 years in opposition, during
which - when he wasn't leader himself - he spent
a lot of time conspiring against the three leaders
he served under: Andrew Peacock, John Hewson and
Alexander Downer."

---------

"THE polls show John Howard is likely to be beaten
by Labor, now under its sharpest leader in a decade.
Facing defeat, the Prime Minister yesterday changed
not only his team but its tone." -Andrew Bolt 24/1/2007

http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/team_howard.htm

http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/howard_backs_costello.htm

http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/trust_me.htm

http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/team_lieberal.htm

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
George Orwell
2007-10-11 09:37:50 UTC
Permalink
It seems the USA is about to bomb Iran.
Not the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, despite all the recent rhetoric.
They are going to bomb Iranian military bases, supply dumps and training
facilities.
Got a link?
Sure. Here they are:

http://thescambaiter.com/forum/image.php?u=62&dateline=1176183179

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
Apparently Australia is enthusiastic about this. Well John
Howard is anyway.
Got a link?
Sure. Here they are:

http://thescambaiter.com/forum/image.php?u=62&dateline=1176183179

http://www.gaiaguys.net/Latham.Howard.04.htm
Post by Raven
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
Post by Raven
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).
Like say Bosnia, where the US intervened to protect Muslims from genocide,
which has as its sole economic claim to fame that it is the largest
supplier of raspberries in Europe?
Peter Idiot, do you have a link?
So you are saying that the US will protect democracy if the country
produces raspberries, but won't if they produce cabbage? What do you base
this strange assertion upon?
It's about OIL ONLY.

US plunder with your idol's help. Don't forget to vote on 2nd December (also
All Souls Day - RIP Liberals).

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushnostradamus.htm

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=7573

http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/RulingClass

http://msterri2.tripod.com/politicalgem/id8.html




Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Peter Webb
2007-10-11 14:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Orwell
It seems the USA is about to bomb Iran.
Not the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, despite all the recent rhetoric.
They are going to bomb Iranian military bases, supply dumps and training
facilities.
Got a link?
http://thescambaiter.com/forum/image.php?u=62&dateline=1176183179
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
I'm sorry; I invariably find that sites with names like bushisantichrist.com
and jewsarenotevenhuman.com just turn out to as "crank"y as the people who
post about them. So I didn't bother looking.

When I asked for a "link", I really should have asked for "evidence"
instead.

BBC, CNN, SMH, ABC, Washington Post, Guardian Weekly - you will find they
cover most news stories, and actually have at least some fact checkers,
editorial policies, original sources, and accountabiity.
Post by George Orwell
Apparently Australia is enthusiastic about this. Well John
Howard is anyway.
Like say Bosnia, where the US intervened to protect Muslims from genocide,
which has as its sole economic claim to fame that it is the largest
supplier of raspberries in Europe?
Peter Idiot, do you have a link?
http://www.pfd.org/_pdf/Bosnia_fact_sheet.pdf

or

http://www.sli.lu.se/pdf/SLI_Rapport_20065.pdf
Post by George Orwell
So you are saying that the US will protect democracy if the country
produces raspberries, but won't if they produce cabbage? What do you base
this strange assertion upon?
It's about OIL ONLY.
And Bosnia was about RASPBERRIES ONLY.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...