PDA

View Full Version : Why the US is planning war with Iran



Alois B.
Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 08:19 AM
In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for its 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 its 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 switched 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. Global U.S. dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession which the United States endured began and ended within the same time frame as that during which 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. Its 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 staple of money supply measurement and transparent disclosure since the Fed was founded. In his report, What’s the Fed up to with the money supply?, Robert 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 https://www.technicalindicatorindex.com/Default.asp (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tec hnicalindicatorindex.com%2FDefault.asp))

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.


About the Author: Ed Haas is a freelance writer and author originally from Mt. Penn, Pennsylvania. He currently resides in beautiful Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. To learn more about Ed's work, please visit craftingprose.com. http://www.craftingprose.com (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.craf tingprose.com%2F)

Source (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.team liberty.net%2F)

Ahren_
Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 08:49 AM
The U.S. certainly has the strategic upper hand to deal with Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Iran is one of the few governments advocating the destruction of "Anglo-Saxon civilization" , so if Iran stays on the map or not would mean nothing to me as long as Israeli troops stay there to occupy. There will be no more coddling the Ayatollahs as Jimmy Carter had done.

dehook
Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 01:31 PM
The U.S. certainly has the strategic upper hand to deal with Iran.

Iran is one of the few governments advocating the destruction of "Anglo-Saxon civilization" , so if Iran stays on the map or not would mean nothing to me as long as Israeli troops stay there to occupy. There will be no more coddling the Ayatollahs as Jimmy Carter had done.
Yes, it's scary. Jews are largely behind the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization, but if America withdraws its aid the Israelis will be less able to defend themselves against the Arabs. Israel will go down, then they move on to the next target, and the next, until they've finished their "master plan" and attacked all of their "29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West". I hate Israel as much as anybody, but I can't help but think that there isn't much choice. It's a war between barbarism and civilization. I get the feeling that European-Americans who care about their heritage are in a sort of catch-22 situation at the moment, when it comes to their political decisions. I'm starting to sound like a neocon now so I'll shut up...

Weg
Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 03:27 PM
http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/ill/2005/10/26/h_9_ill_703674_00632412.jpg

http://www.economist.com/images/20051105/4505MA1.jpg

Imperator X
Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 08:35 PM
It has been my firm opinion all along that we should've invaded Iran instead. Consider: Iran is the seat of militant Islam, it is a Shi'a theocracy. It is the seat of major Islamic education centers, madrassas. Iran is the true possessor of WMDs, just look at them conspiring to develop 20 nuclear facilities.

Saddam Hussain was a secularist, he was no Islamic miltant and actually helped to keep militantcy down. The Baath party, while totalitarian, was essentially socialist. What are most of the governments of Western Europe? Socialist. You are not going to get much more civilized of a government than that in that part of the world.

Certain inpertinent points which only I would appreciate about the toppling of Iran, which I will bring up for the Hell of it:

Iran has been heckling Hindu India for years, the Shi'as established Hyderabad and, along with their Sunni counterparts the Mughals, oppressed Hindus.

The Muslims ousted the original ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism from Iran forcing the Zoroastrians to migrate to India, so vengeance for the moderate Persians and assorted Persian folk cults/tribes has been a long time coming.

In closing, this whole situation with IRAQ is stupid, they oust Saddam Hussain a secular dictator and replace him with an Islamic cleric (Ayatollah Sistani) who is Shia and along the same lines as the Ayatollah of Iran. What does this create? One big Shi'a powerbloc that is just waiting to fund terrorist campaigns against Hindu India and the entire world.

Ahren_
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 12:27 AM
Eliminating the Mujahideen from the planet would be a good start. The barbarism they got away with in Bosnia and Kosovo should never be forgotten. Whether they are Shiite Hezbollah or Sunni Al Qaeda, they are breaking international law by existing. It is an illegal army which does not play by the rules of war and uses U.S. and U.N. liberal policy to mock us. Any country harboring these rodents should be held accountable.

But this conflicts with my other opinion which is that Europeans should not expand beyond their capabilities. As the Roman empire expanded rather quickly and without much forsight into the future, they ended up having to comply with foreigners to keep themselves safe from revolt or invasion. It was a real tragedy that European powers could not help one another when they had the chance to neutralize the real enemies.

CountBloodSpawn
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 12:35 AM
why invade that part of the world at all? Iran and Iraq have posted no direct threat to america or our people at all,not to mention at all if anything Iran and Iraq could have made great business and trading partners(that Bush and his stupid democracy speech,he wouldn't know good international diplomacy if it bit him in the ass) the states army actually should have invaded Columbia, its a main source of communist insurgencey in our part of the world(insurgencey that has showed hostility toward the USA) ,illegal business that has created much corruption within american borders, not to mention we would be gaining imperial power again in the southern american part of the world/also great amounts of wealth and land seized on Columbia for our people as a result, we would be returning to the good old days of manifest destiney that Teddy Roosevelt lived up to

Ahren_
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 12:40 AM
I don't see narco-terrorism as top priority for the U.S. at the time. In fact I think Drug addiction is a somewhat efficient way at ridding society of weak and unwanted people.

CountBloodSpawn
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 12:52 AM
I don't see narco-terrorism as top priority for the U.S. at the time. In fact I think Drug addiction is a somewhat efficient way at ridding society of weak and unwanted people.

all drug addiction does is provide obstacles
and health hazards for our people, ones who are truely weak usually get rid of themselves one way or another

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 12:55 AM
The first article was very good and gives us something to consider. I think it may be the motivation for non-Jewish financial interests to go along with plans for Iran's demise but otherwise there are problems with it. For instance, King George the Easedropper couldn't understand it in a million years even with all his advisors coaching him. For King George there are only three basic reasons to attack Iran: Israel, Israel and Israel. Look at what he said after meeting with Angelia Merkel, words saying that threatening Israel was unacceptable. Unacceptable to who? To the wacko Christian Fundamentalists, that's who. Bush is a simple minded moron who should never be credited with higher brain functions. "His" Neo-Cons lead him around by the nose, sprinkling in biblical prophesy as motivation.

The simple fact is that a land invasion of Iran is impossible for the US military to maintain and win at this time. Air strikes will not do the job. Israel would have to overfly Iraq, now under US control and Iran would see this, rightly, as an attack by both countries. Israel hasn't got the muscle to deal with Iran by itself.

The fact that it is all an Israeli problem is evidenced in Bush's statements about Iran threatening its neighbors. Neighbors alike Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan could care less. They are certainly not threatned. If Iran had missiles which could hit Europe, it would be Bulgaria or Greece. Are Bulgaria and Greece showing signs of fear? Iran's neighbor, Russia, is selling Iran missiles. No sign of fear there. China is and will take Iran's side in the United Nations. Iran can't possilbly hit the USA. So who is fearful? Only Israel.

Bush and his Red State religious wackos actually think the purpose of the United States of America is to safeguard Israel. They actually think that the lives of our soldiers should and must be sacrificed so that the lives of Israeli boys can be spared. They think the entire economy of the United States and its entire military should be on call for Israel's benifit. Even the civil and Constitutional Rights of the American people should be subjugated to the greater good of rounding up Israel's enemies. I swear this is the truth no matter how crazy it must sound to Europeans.

Why is the US planning war with Iran? The reason is that nobody, no agent of our press, no governmental official, nobody rising above the level of bar-room talk will question where this President's loyalities lie. Do his primary loyalities lie with Israel or the United States? He needs a loyality check but in the Land of the Free, nobody will give it to him or even question him on this.

Deling
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 01:10 AM
Iran has nothing to do with islamistic ideologies a la Qutb or wahhabism. It's a SHIA islamic republic. The iranians have a different history and culture than Arabs-North African muslims (sunni), and to equate these cultures is like equating Russia and Anglo-America.

Iran is center of a coming shia-Aryan civilisation/sphere of influence, not the leader of militant islam or the entire islamic world. After getting rid of its Parthian/persian, then califate/Mongol, heritage and the cultural coma Iranian civilisation endured during Western world rule, it's starting to awaken. ...I don't think some people realize WHY Iran is the ONLY center of SHIA, while the rest are SUNNI. Just as Christianity didn't erase Paganism in Europe, but got absorbed into it eventually, Islam in Iran absorbed Zoroastrianism and adopted to the historical civilisation.

USA can't invade and occupy Iran. It will take atleast 1.5 million men, and atleast 15.000 casualties (in battle). USA won't in any way be able to occupy Iran, that's certain, and should create any debate.
Israel-America can bomb Iran back to the stoneage though, applauded by the rotten Arab sheiks celebrating the end of "heretical Shia"...and the elimination of an oil competitor (Iran has nationalized oil since the 1950's/1979).
The only ones benefitting from Iran's destructions are the Jews, the Arab leaders and the Anglo-Americans (and of course: real vulture-states like Turkey/Russia/EU core states). Arab-Jewish-Angloamerican elites are the cockroaches that are stirring up the dust. USA isn't fighting Arabs, if some may believe that, it's protecting its Arab-Jewish protegé states from being slaughtered by the masses.
And Iran is neither protegé nor Arab-Jewish...

Imperator X
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 08:27 PM
The US has overstretched itself, the ousting of those Buddha-smashing Talibani barbarians was righteous, Iraq was pointless, but Iran was the real enemy all along.


Iran is center of a coming shia-Aryan civilisation/sphere of influence, not the leader of militant islam or the entire islamic world. After getting rid of its Parthian/persian, then califate/Mongol, heritage and the cultural coma Iranian civilisation endured during Western world rule, it's starting to awaken. ...I don't think some people realize WHY Iran is the ONLY center of SHIA, while the rest are SUNNI. Just as Christianity didn't erase Paganism in Europe, but got absorbed into it eventually, Islam in Iran absorbed Zoroastrianism and adopted to the historical civilisation.


Pray tell how was Zoroastrianism in any way absorbed or has influenced Iranian Shia Islam? There are approx. 200,000 Zoroastrians still left in the world, and 30,000 of them still live in Iran. Zoroastrianism peaked with the Sassanids and remained in Parthian Persia. There are still 3 major living Zoroastrian temple sites in Iran, the foremost of which is in Yazd. While the Zoroastrians have been able to practice there, they remain under threat from the Shia's. The Shia' Muslims forced the majority of Persian Zoroastrians to migrate to India, where they were given certain requirements by the then Hindu king, for settlement:

That they adopt Gujurati language instead of Persian.

That they adopt Gujurati dress.

That they perform certain Sanskrit rites (very related to Persian) during their wedding ceremony and finally,

That they only marry within their own community (known in India as the Parsi).

Now it is claimed by many that conversion to Zoroastrianism is impossible unless full-blooded Persian or Parsi, this is not the case. This belief was perpetuated by the above-mentioned requirement imposed on the Parsi of INDIA.

There are actual converts in the West in mostly what is called "Gatha only" traditions, the Gathas being a compendium of supposed sayings by Zoroaster AND evidence has been found that Zoroastrianism in ancient times spread as far afield as China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yazd_fire_temple.jpg
^ living example of a Persian Zoroastrian fire temple, NOT A RUIN.

Jack
Monday, January 16th, 2006, 09:05 AM
Yes, it's scary. Jews are largely behind the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization, but if America withdraws its aid the Israelis will be less able to defend themselves against the Arabs. Israel will go down, then they move on to the next target, and the next, until they've finished their "master plan" and attacked all of their "29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West". I hate Israel as much as anybody, but I can't help but think that there isn't much choice. It's a war between barbarism and civilization. I get the feeling that European-Americans who care about their heritage are in a sort of catch-22 situation at the moment, when it comes to their political decisions. I'm starting to sound like a neocon now so I'll shut up...

There is a solution, one perhaps palatable to the Jews but I think it would involve a hell of a lot more blood than world war two spilled: combine Bush's new neo-Anglo-Imperialism with blood nationalism, throw the constant word of 'freedom' out the window (a self defeating idea, witness the conversion of Iraq into an official Muslim republic) and put 'the West' in its place. The middle east could be flattened, Israel can live in peace, we can have our oil, dump the Jews in Israel, let Western companies have the oil and make them hire mercenaries to protect their oil fields.

America's support for Israel is largely due to the numbers of Jews, combined with their sense of identity, in the states of the US where they can be the deciding vote in the US electoral college. Disproportionate representation in the media and movie industries by Jews is also responsible, as well as the ability to summon Christian fundamentalists to their aid, as well as their being rather adept at coalition forming.

The United States made a blunt mistake in invading Iraq and turning it into a colony, true. That said, Iran needs to be taken on, because with Iraq currently in chaos, Iran can use its religious loyalists in Iraq (Iraq is around 70% Shi'ite) to bring Iraq's government into its sphere of influence. From there, a political union is not out of the question, given the fact that religion accounts for power conflicts in the middle east far more than blood or state-patriotism. A militant Shi'ite republic spanning a large section of the middle east with a knife pointed straight at the heart of Saudi Arabia is doubly dangerous, not merely because of the rather simple possibility of invading it, but because Saudi Arabia is a despotic royal dictatorship, and so fanning the flames of the Saudi govt. not giving a damn about its citizens, in contrast to the more socialist, communal bent of purified Islam, would be a sure way for the West to get choked by the throat via the oil supply. And don't go pretending they wouldn't if they could.

Of course, no one has the balls to blast Iran to hell with nuclear weaponary, which would rather simplify the matter.

Rhydderch
Monday, January 16th, 2006, 11:03 AM
(a self defeating idea, witness the conversion of Iraq into an official Muslim republic)Saddam's Iraq was almost certainly less free than an average Muslim state.

Ĉmeric
Monday, January 16th, 2006, 03:45 PM
America's support for Israel is largely due to the numbers of Jews, combined with their sense of identity, in the states of the US where they can be the deciding vote in the US electoral college. Disproportionate representation in the media and movie industries by Jews is also responsible, as well as the ability to summon Christian fundamentalists to their aid, as well as their being rather adept at coalition forming.

Actually The States where Jews are concentrated are already heavily titled to the Democrats ( the "Blue States"), states like New York (one Jewish Senator ), New Jersey ( one Jewish Senator), Maryland (the suburbs of Washington D.C.) , Pennsylvania (one Jewish senator), Michigan (one Jewish Senator), Illinois and California ( two hardcore feminist Jewish Senators). The only state with a significant Jewish population that is competitive is Florida but this means pandering to the Cuban community in Miami. Basically their financial power and domination of the media is more important. This explains their power in places with small Jewish populations like Minnesota (one Jewish senator, third in a row in what is called a Jewish seat), Oregon (one Jewish senator) and Wisconsin (TWO JEWISH SENATORS!).

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, January 17th, 2006, 04:44 AM
Actually The States where Jews are concentrated are already heavily titled to the Democrats ( the "Blue States"), states like New York (one Jewish Senator ), New Jersey ( one Jewish Senator), Maryland (the suburbs of Washington D.C.) , Pennsylvania (one Jewish senator), Michigan (one Jewish Senator), Illinois and California ( two hardcore feminist Jewish Senators). The only state with a significant Jewish population that is competitive is Florida but this means pandering to the Cuban community in Miami. Basically their financial power and domination of the media is more important. This explains their power in places with small Jewish populations like Minnesota (one Jewish senator, third in a row in what is called a Jewish seat), Oregon (one Jewish senator) and Wisconsin (TWO JEWISH SENATORS!).

I disagree completely. What you have described, Anglo-Hoosier, is the old Jewish paradigm. This happened sometime during the 1960s when Israeli interests actually offered to completely finance the presidential campaign of JFK in return for complete access to CIA files. JFK declined. Meanwhile, Jews set about controlling the media and finance and bribing politicans with campaign contributions which they completed by 1968 as evidenced by the US "Vietnamization" of the war in Viet Nam. US troops were needed to protect the homeland (Israel) and had to be on call for that purpose. This "Eastern Liberal Establishment" stayed intact until G.W. Bush.

With Bush came the "Neo-Cons" who were the same Eastern Liberal Establishment types who did a party change from Democrats to Republicans. Why did they do this? Simple, to enlist the help of the Red States and their dumbed down, whacked out, Christian Fundamentalists who fawn in delirium over anything Jewish. For them, advancing Israelis over their enemies is advancing Christianity and assuring their own place in heaven. Pat Robertson is more exteme in this than Ariel Sharon---think about how this is possible.

Now Zionism has it's claws in both major political parties without losing anything. They still control finance and the media and still bribe our politicians through campaign contributions. Through purchased politicians, they have managed to control the most powerful military in the world which now does their bidding. Meanwhile, their financial control allows them to print up US dollars to finance the war out of paper and charge the debt to the US taxpayers. Their media parrots the mantras of "weapons of mass destruction", "Al Quada links", "removal of Saddam is a good thing", and "democracy", each in fashion as justification for the war. Likewise, the ignore Ariel Sharon's inditement for War Crimes at The Hague and paint him as a hero, savior of Israel and friend of America. They are willing to slap down anyone in disagreement, including even Pat Robertson.

While this is going on, the Media drumbeat centers on Al Quada morphing into a multiple-headed hydra. What has actually happened is that Judah/Zionism/Neo-Cons have morphed into a multi-headed hydra.

Rhydderch
Saturday, January 28th, 2006, 03:00 AM
Saddam Hussain was a secularist, he was no Islamic miltant and actually helped to keep militantcy down. The Baath party, while totalitarian, was essentially socialist. What are most of the governments of Western Europe? Socialist. You are not going to get much more civilized of a government than that in that part of the world.The fact that Iraq was a socialist state says a fair bit about why the UN, leftist European countries and the socialist media are so opposed to the war. Iraq was doing a "good job" as the stronghold of socialism right in the heart of the Middle East.
And then, Oh dear, George Bush came and wrecked it all.

BTW, Iraq was a typically totalitarian, barbaric state. Secularism and socialism are by no means civilising influences; in fact, quite the opposite. The only reason secular states are not (yet) barbaric in the West is that they have counted on the relative civilisation already in existence.

Indeed, the civilised character of most of the West has also meant that the would-be Communists (or something close to it) have not been able to grab control by revolutions and violent enforcement of their utopian ideology; instead, they're doing it by stealth, using the means available to strangle and destabilise society; using things like immigration, brainwashing young people, frequent shifting of traditional boundaries (such as Shires in England) and breaking up families in order to destroy peoples' sense of coherence, stability, loyalty, heritage and knowledge of the past (particularly that of their own nation), .

These are all typical Communist tactics, except that in other countries they've done it by violence and terror. They're good at adapting their methods to individual situations and countries.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, January 28th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Sometimes I wonder if Australians such as Lucifer and Rhydderch can appreciate the workings of the George W. Bush mind. It is not that your analysis of the situation is incorrect. It is just that the Australians I have met have all been straight-forward people and I have never met one who got anywhere near the religious-nuttism of G.W. Bush. I am not saying Australians are stupid only that Bush's mind-set seems so distant from our norm, let alone your norm. I wonder if even John Howard, who has met Bush, can appreciate what is going on in that little brain of his.

The good news is that Bush has only 2 1/2 more years. He is bogged down in five or so scandals here. His Iraq war is going nowhere, with no end in sight. Army recruiting is down. A Republican Jewish lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, has been caught bribing members of the Congress. Hurricane Katrina is forcing an expensive rebuild of New Orleans. His "democracy" in the Near East has just backfired with Hamas. The National Security Agency is now spying on American citizens illegally. Bush's approval figures are at an all time low.

Congressional/Senatorial elections are coming in Nov. 2006. If the Democrats regain power, Bush might be tied up for the last two years and essentially powerless as Clinton was during his last two years. But Clinton tried to boost his falling poll figures with a war in Serbia. There is always the chance that Bush will do the same in Iran.

Alois B.
Saturday, January 28th, 2006, 06:47 AM
Why I Am Now In Favor of the War in Iraq (http://anti-state.com/blog/2005/10/20/why-i-am-now-in-favor-of-the-war-in-iraq-and-any-other-war-that-the-us-government-wants-to-start/)
Joel Wilcox @ 10:56 am


Over the last few years, I have grown tired of arguing with friends and family who support the war. It is not the endless debating that bothers me nor is it hearing the same poor excuses and false justifications. What bothers me most is a realization that by speaking out against the war I am, in actuality, acting in the best interest of the United States.


I first made this realization when I suddenly noticed what strange bedfellows I have been keeping. I found myself reading, and loving, articles by such men as Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts (http://antiwar.com/roberts/)and William Lind (http://antiwar.com/lind/). I now have a subscription to American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/)and I frequently read articles from The John Birch Society’s publication, The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/cat_index_1.shtml). How could this be? Did I make a wrong turn somewhere or did they?
My friends and family have often attributed my anti-war stance to my “anti-Americanism” or to me being a “leftist.” However, it dawned on me that the aforementioned writers and publications are neither anti-American nor leftist and, in fact, they could not be any more pro-American or pro-right. And that is when I realized that these men are the real patriots and they oppose the war because it is destroying that which they love most, the United States of America.


After this epiphany, I became increasingly frustrated when arguing with America loving warmongers. I could not make them see that opposing the war was actually in their best interest. I began to question my own opposition and to voice my disappointment. This past August, I wrote this in a letter to a friend:


“As you know, ultimately I want the US to fail completely and for this, I am actually torn on the war. If I desire to see the demise of the US come as quickly as possible then I should become the greatest war cheerleader you have ever seen. I should call for the US to stay in Iraq for years and to begin drawing up and executing plans to invade other lands throughout the world.


I should want the US to lose and waste massive amounts of military resources that would be stretched way too thin and for them to spend trillions of dollars, bringing the state closer to bankruptcy. I should want the government to breed more and more enemies, at home and abroad who will oppose its tyranny and imperialism thereby helping to delegitimize the State.”


Unfortunately, my words, once again fell on deaf ears and I refuse to argue any longer for that which is best for the USA when those who claim to be patriots continue to schizophrenically argue for a policy of self-destruction.
A prolonged policy of war will weaken and bankrupt (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts128.html)the state and serve to destroy its legitimacy (http://antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702). Through continued war the machinery of the US military will be used up and stretched thin while the lives of the most violent, primitive, and dangerously stupid element of society will be extinguished (http://icasualties.org/oif/). Because of this I now support the Iraq war and any other military misadventure that the rocket scientists running the US government want to start. Why should I waste anymore time trying to save something that I want to see destroyed?



http://anti-state.com/blog/category/iraq/

Rhydderch
Monday, March 13th, 2006, 04:29 AM
It is just that the Australians I have met have all been straight-forward people and I have never met one who got anywhere near the religious-nuttism of G.W. Bush.I think his religious nuttism consists of his ideological attachment to the idea that all religions are equal and lead to the same God, and that Islam is essentially a peaceful religion.