I read your source, which made no mention of lost progress. I guess in your world Obama is responsible for a dirt bag making a film designed to foment unrest among Muslim extremists. He did a remarkable jon since 200 years ago none of those countries existed as they are today.
'Obama is responsible for the dirtbag' sounds like an attempt at misdirection. To what remarkable job are you referring? And what does the status of those regions 200 years ago have to do with the current status quo?
Mick...."Dirt bag movie responsible" ? Maybe not ?
"The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact "a terrorist attack" and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning"
Keep on believing everything that this administration feeds you. Appears the Obama administrations initial comments were incorrect. Humm the humiliation of failed policies. Ops there is that word again "Failed" .Kinda describes the last few years.
I believe nothing that can't be proven, which means, basicallly, I believe nothing politicians say. My point was that Obama can't possibly have destroyed 200 years of relations when we have never had 200 years of relations with these countries. That's all. And, yes, I realize that the film may only be an excuse and not the prime cause.
It's worse than that though, with the internet and the dissemination of radical propaganda and the ability to coordinated groups which were formerly uncoordinated we face the biggest threat ever.
Not to mention the flood of modern weapons in these extremist groups and a nuclear threat too. Very dangerous time.
Oh by the way, DHS just bought another 200 million rounds of ammo.
Recent global events give me the distinct impression that those at the top of the pyramid of political and economic power want to see as much trouble in the world as possible. Assuming that to be the case, I find it very strange and counter-intuitive. I mean, you would think that self-interested leaders would prefer to maintain a status quo that provides them with so many privileges and luxuries that the rest of us only dream of. For them to act in ways that appear to stimulate revolutions, economic collapse and regional or global wars is extraordinary, at least to me, because it jeopardizes their position. But maybe it's my fault for forgetting that most at the top think and feel very differently than "the 99%", and that they have trouble with emotions that come naturally to the rest of us. When you're motivated by thrill-seeking and a thirst for power that knows no bounds, empathy and aversion to conflict don't exactly play a part in your worldview. Granted, they have their own psychopathic standards, but, nevertheless, something about their schemes does not sit right with me.
How about power consolidation. What looks like war to you is subjugation to them, what looks like economic collapse to you is economic consolidation. Keep in mind that economic capacity while slowed, is no were near stopped... just shifted and turmoil in many regions of the world bring opportunity..
For example. The US is not the country it once was... but the people (vast majority) think that it still is. As they are stripped of wealth and freedom... someone gains.
Rojo---and Scott----I daresay you are right on the money, the big boys want unrest all over the globe. They gain for themselves-------just as in the movie "Soylent Green". When there is a state of global unrest the powers-that-be can get away with anything they can , and want, to do.
They can , for instance, buy up entire towns which have fallen into bankruptcy. They can pollute the air, water and ground relentlessly because "the people" are totally occupied with survival on a day-to-day basis. They can put anything in our food and we will be grateful not to starve. They can charge any amount for fuel of all types and we can get around, keep warm or cool--or not. They can have cheap crap products made in "3rd world countries" which will, as a result of the redistribution of labor, make US a 3rd world country and the 3rd world countries, the equilivent of the former US of A.
Oh yeah, there is a corporate agenda and it has nothing to do with your, or my, well-being. I realize my view is dark and ominous, the more so because it is true.
I understand what Rojo is saying. Somebody wants war.
Over a year ago, Congress passed a law making it illegal for the U.S. to engage in diplomacy with Iran.
Why? Why take diplomacy off the table - even for the purpose of saber-rattling, what possible upside is there to such a law, and what legal options does that leave The President (whoever that may be) and the State Department?
I can't recall a single time in 230+ years when Congress made it explicitly illegal to engage our enemies - Not with the Brits during our formative years, not the South during the Civil War, not the Germans or Japanese, and not the Soviets, especially after the Missile Crisis.
What is the underlying motivation for such a law if not to trigger yet another military conflict for the U.S. in the M.E., which, of course, may spread to a wider conflict involving Iran's business partners and allies (Russia/China)?
Thanks. Interesting, although I don't know the speficif motivation is to initiate a war. Touchy situation, those two, especially Iran. But then, if left unchecked until the missle is launched or, maybe more probable, a bomb goes off, kinda too late, yes?
No person employed in the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that ... Is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran.
It isn't really, except that historically, severing diplomatic relations is a precursor to war, and diplomacy with anyone has NEVER been made explicitly illegal by Congress.
I read your source, which made no mention of lost progress. I guess in your world Obama is responsible for a dirt bag making a film designed to foment unrest among Muslim extremists. He did a remarkable jon since 200 years ago none of those countries existed as they are today.
ReplyDeleteThe black flag of the terrorist is flying over our consulates.
DeleteObama has sacrificed everything and created a vacuum.
A former first lady, and a charlatan. God help us if we spend four more years in this black hole.
1773-2009
Who are you commenting about... Obama or the dirtbag??
DeleteMick,
Delete'Obama is responsible for the dirtbag' sounds like an attempt at misdirection. To what remarkable job are you referring? And what does the status of those regions 200 years ago have to do with the current status quo?
Jean
Mick...."Dirt bag movie responsible" ? Maybe not ?
Delete"The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact "a terrorist attack" and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning"
Keep on believing everything that this administration feeds you.
Appears the Obama administrations initial comments were incorrect. Humm the humiliation of failed policies.
Ops there is that word again "Failed" .Kinda describes the last few years.
I believe nothing that can't be proven, which means, basicallly, I believe nothing politicians say. My point was that Obama can't possibly have destroyed 200 years of relations when we have never had 200 years of relations with these countries. That's all. And, yes, I realize that the film may only be an excuse and not the prime cause.
DeleteCan't argue with that first sentence, from one cynical skeptic to another :-).
DeleteHaven't heard that it was a terrorist act?
DeleteKeep listening to the MSM and become uninformed.
ReplyDeleteIt's worse than that though, with the internet and the dissemination of radical propaganda and the ability to coordinated groups which were formerly uncoordinated we face the biggest threat ever.
Not to mention the flood of modern weapons in these extremist groups and a nuclear threat too. Very dangerous time.
Oh by the way, DHS just bought another 200 million rounds of ammo.
Recent global events give me the distinct impression that those at the top of the pyramid of political and economic power want to see as much trouble in the world as possible. Assuming that to be the case, I find it very strange and counter-intuitive. I mean, you would think that self-interested leaders would prefer to maintain a status quo that provides them with so many privileges and luxuries that the rest of us only dream of. For them to act in ways that appear to stimulate revolutions, economic collapse and regional or global wars is extraordinary, at least to me, because it jeopardizes their position. But maybe it's my fault for forgetting that most at the top think and feel very differently than "the 99%", and that they have trouble with emotions that come naturally to the rest of us. When you're motivated by thrill-seeking and a thirst for power that knows no bounds, empathy and aversion to conflict don't exactly play a part in your worldview. Granted, they have their own psychopathic standards, but, nevertheless, something about their schemes does not sit right with me.
ReplyDeleteHow about power consolidation. What looks like war to you is subjugation to them, what looks like economic collapse to you is economic consolidation. Keep in mind that economic capacity while slowed, is no were near stopped... just shifted and turmoil in many regions of the world bring opportunity..
DeleteFor example. The US is not the country it once was... but the people (vast majority) think that it still is. As they are stripped of wealth and freedom... someone gains.
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2012/09/19/economic-freedom-of-the-world-were-18/
Rojo---and Scott----I daresay you are right on the money, the big boys want unrest all over the globe. They gain for themselves-------just as in the movie "Soylent Green". When there is a state of global unrest the powers-that-be can get away with anything they can , and want, to do.
DeleteThey can , for instance, buy up entire towns which have fallen into bankruptcy. They can pollute the air, water and ground relentlessly because "the people" are totally occupied with survival on a day-to-day basis. They can put anything in our food and we will be grateful not to starve. They can charge any amount for fuel of all types and we can get around, keep warm or cool--or not. They can have cheap crap products made in "3rd world countries" which will, as a result of the redistribution of labor, make US a 3rd world country and the 3rd world countries, the equilivent of the former US of A.
Oh yeah, there is a corporate agenda and it has nothing to do with your, or my, well-being. I realize my view is dark and ominous, the more so because it is true.
I understand what Rojo is saying. Somebody wants war.
ReplyDeleteOver a year ago, Congress passed a law making it illegal for the U.S. to engage in diplomacy with Iran.
Why? Why take diplomacy off the table - even for the purpose of saber-rattling, what possible upside is there to such a law, and what legal options does that leave The President (whoever that may be) and the State Department?
I can't recall a single time in 230+ years when Congress made it explicitly illegal to engage our enemies - Not with the Brits during our formative years, not the South during the Civil War, not the Germans or Japanese, and not the Soviets, especially after the Missile Crisis.
What is the underlying motivation for such a law if not to trigger yet another military conflict for the U.S. in the M.E., which, of course, may spread to a wider conflict involving Iran's business partners and allies (Russia/China)?
It makes me a little uneasy ...
pfunky,
DeleteTo what law are you referring?
Google "The Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011". H.R. 1905.
DeleteDon't understand pfunky. Could you point to the particular section of the bill that you are talking about.....
DeleteThanks. Interesting, although I don't know the speficif motivation is to initiate a war. Touchy situation, those two, especially Iran. But then, if left unchecked until the missle is launched or, maybe more probable, a bomb goes off, kinda too late, yes?
DeleteJean
@TS
DeleteSection 601 subsection (c):
No person employed in the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that ... Is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran.
I'm sorry. That's "employed with", not "employed in". My typo.
DeleteHow is S601(c) all that much different from severing diplomatic relations? Not a challenge or dispute, just a question.
DeleteIt isn't really, except that historically, severing diplomatic relations is a precursor to war, and diplomacy with anyone has NEVER been made explicitly illegal by Congress.
DeleteI find it ominous.
Just a Carter redux ...
ReplyDeleteView the CONTROL clip herein:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-international/trailers/
It's much worse than a Carter redux---------much worse.
Delete