British Hostage David Haines

[nugnug]

China and other countries don't exchange in dollars.  The sale of bonds is how the US spends more than it takes in, in revenue.  The largest foreign buyer is China which doesn't trade oil in dollars.     

You don't seme to know much about economics just the fairytales on the Web.  Why isn't the Canadian or Australian dollars worthless?  What is traded in them? 

In the meantime those that do trade in US dollars only do so on paper they convert to their own currency to pay typically.  The same way that I paid for an item I purchased from the UK in dollars but the payment was converted on paper to pounds so that the recipient received pounds though I paid in dollars.

If the US can't meet its bond payments then you will see the dollar collapse.  That is what makes a currency collapse when there is either hyperinflation or an inability to pay creditors.

If Democrats remain in power that could come to pass one day as they seem to want to spend far more than can be afforded without any care in the World.

chinna only did that recently at the time of the iraq invasion it still was.

fact all the 4 oil producing nations who tried to sell oil in anything other than dollars were attacked or destabelised by the usa.


without the dollar being major currency the fed could of never issued that many bonds and expected anybody buy them.

[Roch]

'What oil is in Syria' I assume you are joking? I predict that Iran will be the next US target. This is all about the US wanting to control the oil - nothing more!

I think during the Bush regime it was also about Israel/Mossad teaming up behind the scenes with US NeoCons/CIA,  to destroy Israel's 'enemies'. 

Remember when the US delegation walked out of the UN conference, after Ahmendinejad gave a speech suggesting three possible options for 9/11 having been an inside job?  He knows the score, as I expect does every security service and notable leader around the world.

Some people seem prepared to accept the notion that the 'US may have known about the pending terror attacks and let them happen' while in the same breath saying 'but I dont believe in 9/11 conspiracies'.  This seems to be a bit of a bizarre position to hold   

[Mr. Gee]

The government are now going to bomb IS targets. Unfortunately they will just end up killing the innocents. You cannot kill a belief with violence or bombs and guns. To win a war with a religion you must first conquer their hearts and minds.

[ngb1066]

The government are now going to bomb IS targets. Unfortunately they will just end up killing the innocents. You cannot kill a belief with violence or bombs and guns. To win a war with a religion you must first conquer their hearts and minds.

Very true Mr Gee.

[tyler]

ISIS isn't about religion. They are there in order to make themselves rich. Why else take over the oil fields?

[Mr. Gee]

ISIS isn't about religion. They are there in order to make themselves rich. Why else take over the oil fields?

Maybe not Tyler, but they are attacting a lot of young men and women that are religious and they use their beliefs in order to get support.

[Roch]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-history-of-isis-beheadings-part-of-the-training-manual-of-us-sponsored-syria-pro-democracy-terrorists/5402566

[Roch]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sotloff-video-found-by-group-connected-to-homeland-security-and-responsible-for-releasing-fake-osama-bin-laden-video/5399056

[Roch]

ISIS isn't about religion. They are there in order to make themselves rich. Why else take over the oil fields?

I'm starting to wonder whether the whole thing is bullshit.  I'm sure they physically exist to some extent.  But who's been paying for them, who's been training them and who's been equipping them?  Who has infiltrated them?  Who is running them?  And for what purpose?  How come they moved like lightening to take over huge swathes of a country which is a similar size to France?   I bet the official story we are being peddled is complete tosh.  I do not believe that security services would not be several steps ahead of any genuine threat from a genuine ISIS (in Iraq / Syria).   I also wonder how easy it is for our Govt to track any ISIS volunteers travelling to or from the area of the middle east in question.  I suspect it is not difficult.

[Roch]

Maybe not Tyler, but they are attacting a lot of young men and women that are religious and they use their beliefs in order to get support.

Looks like they have been set up to draw out loads of stupid young men who are bored shitless with life in the UK (cant blame them).  All of these so called radicalised men or women can then be tracked or pinpointed by intelligence services (which will come in quite handy, as they can be monitored and if neccessary blackmailed or coerced in to doing something that will influence public opinion to be more in favour of military action).  America and others (while in the process of supposedly battling ISIS) can then re-carve up that region of the middle east more to their and Israel's liking (after having originally made a complete hash of previously doing so). 

[Roch]

You seem to be suggesting that the US goal was simply to wage war for no reaosn other than to be able to do so.

PNAC was not the US government yet didn't advocate that either.

You are ignoring that the bullet point you selected states simply they favored the US military being kept at a force level which would enable the US to fight 2 wars simultaneously in 2 different theaters.   That was the same force level we were at during the Cold War they simply advocated returning to such levels.

The rationale behind wanting Saddam replaced was to get rid of his WMD threat.  So long as he remained in power he was a threat to his neighbors and we had to keep our forces in Saudi Arabia which happens to be a major reason Bin Laden wanted to hit the US- because he wanted our infidel forces out of Saudi Arabia.

 

Scip...  Let's see what Gen Wesley Clark had to say about what he was told in late September/October 2001...

[Mr. Gee]

Scip...  Let's see what Gen Wesley Clark had to say about what he was told in late September/October 2001...

<iframe width=\"420\" height=\"315\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Very worrying. I always thought they went to war with Iraq on the false assumption that they had weapons of mass destruction as a distraction because they couldn't fins Osama Bin Laden? And after many years of searching where did they find him? In his house.

[scipio_usmc]

Scip...  Let's see what Gen Wesley Clark had to say about what he was told in late September/October 2001...

<iframe width=\"420\" height=\"315\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Clark tried to run against Bush in 2004 but lost the nomination he is a Democrat who made the nonsense just to attack Bush.

The US didn't go to war with Iraq until 2003 an donly after giving Saddma more opportunities to comply.

Clark refused to identify the supposed person so the perosn could not be asked if Clark lied or even if he told Clark but was lying himself.  There obviously was no such person nor is this alleged memo credible:

"So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

No such memo was found by those who investigated the invasion afterwards though they had classified access to the records.  The reason why is it clearly didn't exist.  The US took no efforts to do anything in any other countries.

Clark has a history of lying.  He also went on TV and claimed that he received a phone call from people in the White House telling him to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq.  He was eventually forced to admit he received no such calls from anyone in the US government he claimed it was someone from a Canadian Think Tank named Thomas Hecht.  Aside from not being connected to any governments, Hecht said that he merely discussed with Clark that there were possible links between Iraq and international terrorism in general because iraq was harboring known terrorists.

It was so absurd the mainstream press that hated Bush didn't even bother printing his nonsense.

 

[nugnug]

intresnting vid here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhvVsEhFOY

[scipio_usmc]

intresnting vid here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhvVsEhFOY

Is is BS though.  The Mujahideen were not Islamic fundamentalists and far from the US stirring them up we simply help arm them better than they already had been and helped them coordinate their efforts better. After the USSR left they each had control of certain areas. It remained that way until Pakistan helped the Taliban take control.  The Taliban were Islamic fundamentalists.  The Taliban established control over much but not all of the country some was stilll held by warlords who had been part of the Mujahidden.  The US helped these groups to drive the Taliban from control.