|
The Economy is a Lie, too By Paul Craig Roberts TV Environmentalist Goes Nuts Over ClimateGate CNBC:The ‘Real’ Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed Forget The Emails, Code Discusses “Artificially Adjusted” Temperatures BBC Climate Correspondent Was Forwarded CRU Emails Five Weeks Before They Were Made Public Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over New EU President Rompuy announces 2009 as “first year of global governance” London Guardian: Global body needed to direct green technology, G77 says Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes Couple Busted for Refusing to Pay Tip June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 "IF YOUR'E GOING TO PUT YOUR FAMILY IN A NURSING HOME... YOU BETTER VISIT THEM AT LEAST EVERY TWO DAYS, YOU BETTER LIVE NEAR THEM, YOU BETTER BRING THEM LUNCH, YOU BETTER SIT THERE AND WATCH TV WITH THEM, YOU BETTER SIT THERE AND RUB THERE FEET AND LOVE YOUR PARENTS (voice raises in anger) THAT WIPED YOUR BUTT, THAT TOOK CARE OF YOU, YOU SCUMBAG YUPPIES!!!"
"What a bunch of garbage, liberal, Democratic, conservative, Republican, it's all there to control you, two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated!" --Alex Jones We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. Author: David Rockefeller, Source: Trilateral Commission meeting, June, 1991
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
The Truth Behind The Iraq “Sovereignty” Propaganda
Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to remain stationed at dozens of U.S. military bases throughout the country
The corporate media is getting all giddy and affording blanket coverage to the story of Iraqis who are “regaining their sovereignty” as U.S. troops are pulled out from Iraqi cities. This is of course lurid and baseless propaganda - hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq stationed at the dozens of military bases that have been built across the country. “As of now, there are approximately 130,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Most of the U.S. soldiers that had been deployed in Iraqi cities are being returned to garrison elsewhere in country. The United States Air Force controls Iraq’s airspace. The United States Navy controls Iraq’s territorial waters,” points out the Cryptogon blog. “Sovereignty: No. Propaganda: Yes.” After the “official” full withdrawal date of 2011, which Admiral Mike Mullen has indicated isn’t even guaranteed, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,” reported the New York Times back in February. “Residual force” is a euphemism for “occupying army,” since only the most stupidly naive could ever believe that Iraq is now nothing more than a subservient client state of the new world order empire. A senior military officer spelled it out more plainly to the Los Angeles Times, “When President Obama said we were going to get out within 16 months, some people heard, ‘get out,’ and everyone’s gone. But that is not going to happen,” the officer said. Indeed, at the last count which took place nearly three years ago, the U.S. military had already built no less than 55 fully functional military bases in Iraq, with funding in place to build many more. Furthermore, U.S. troops aren’t even leaving the cities altogether. Reports confirm that U.S. tanks will continue to patrol the areas outside of the “green zone” and the airport in Baghdad. The streets of major cities will still be patrolled by U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers manning checkpoints everywhere harassing people for ID. In addition, if the Iraqis “request help” from U.S. troops to undertake security procedures, they’ll be right back on the streets just as before. Iraqis themselves are not fooled by the charade. As the New York Times admits, the “celebrations” today “seemed contrived”, “Police cars were festooned with plastic flowers, and signs celebrating “independence day” were tied to blast walls and fences around the city. On Monday, night a festive evening celebration in Zahra Park with singers and entertainers drew primarily young men, many of them off-duty police officers,” according to the report. “There is no doubt this is not national sovereignty because the Americans will stay inside Iraq in military bases,” said Najim Salim, 40, a teacher in Basra. “But the government wants to convince the citizens that there is a withdrawal of foreign troops, although the government could not protect citizens in some cities in Iraq even with the presence of U.S. forces.” According to Websters dictionary, “sovereignty” is defined as “freedom from external control”. Anyone who believes that Iraq is a sovereign country and has “freedom from external control,” or will ever achieve it while hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed at dozens of bases throughout the country, probably still believes that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
Paul Joseph Watson URL to article: http://www.prisonplanet.com... URLs in this post: [1] Prison Planet.com: http://prisonplanet.com [2] Cryptogon blog: http://cryptogon.com/?p=957... [3] reported the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009... [4] Image: http://prisonplanet.tv/sign... [5] Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news... [6] Indeed, at the last count which took place nearly three years ago: http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/ba... [7] New York Times admits: http://www.nytimes.com/2009... [8] Websters dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster....
13 comments from 4 users
1
posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Jun 30, 2009 at 04:23 PM
So.. does this mean that because we still have troops based in such places as Germany, that we still have an "occupying army" there? Bullocks.
Of course we're not completely leaving - that would only allow for the eventual civil war to take place far earlier than anticipated. posted by
Infowar
on Jun 30, 2009 at 04:32 PM
We are not at war with Germany. American troops & Iraqis are not being killed in Germany.
So a big fat BULLOCKS to you. posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Jun 30, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Info.. this is taken directly from what you posted: “Residual force” is a euphemism for “occupying army,” since only the most stupidly naive could ever believe that Iraq is now nothing more than a subservient client state of the new world order empire. Technically, we were at war with Iraq.. or did you forget that it was Saddam that we were after? Who was Saddam? Oh yeah.. he controled Iraq.. the country we have forces in. My argument is that the "residual force" is there to help the Iraqi army via training and special forces back up, and is not an "occupying army." The hand-off today is more symbolic than anything else - it's a step further towards Iraqi control of their own country. We will no longer have tactical command of the counter-insurgency - it's in Iraq's hands now to begin taking the helm.The vast majority of people realize that our involvement in Iraq is not finished. If we withdrew all forces tomorrow, the country would lose any stability it currently has, thanks in part to Iran's continued support of the counter-insurgency.
Your copy and paste once again proves to be lacking in any real depth or analysis, and as usual, you are also lacking in that department.
posted by
Infowar
on Jun 30, 2009 at 04:52 PM
FSG you would be correct if the war on terror wasn't a hoax. Our troops are nothing more than cannon fodder in the eyes of the elite. It's all about destroying nations & setting up puppet governments that are controlled by the Globalist.
Here is another copy & paste job for you. Of course your view is going to trump his because of your intellectual ego. ---------------------------
February 03, 2009 Why No Neocon Assassinations? Because The War On Terror Is A HoaxAccording to If The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated. I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country’s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and The Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed. The "war on terror" is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and There were no al Qaeda in Hamas is the democratically elected government of Hezbollah represents the Shi’ites of southern The Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them. The fact that Israel and the United States carry on endless propaganda to prevent this fundamental truth from being realized indicates that it is Israel and the US that are in the wrong and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans who are being wronged. The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox "News" are forever claiming that The films of Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and appropriating their land. The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people? Clearly, the Muslim countries are complicit with The unsupported assertion that Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
posted by
Infowar
on Jun 30, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Fsg there is no amount of BS you can post that will justify the phony war on terror. You get your talking points directly from CIA infested news outlets. posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Jun 30, 2009 at 05:16 PM
The war on terror is not a "hoax" - but it is a joke, at least the way Bush ran things. I'm not going to bore you with commentary on everything, but here's some more fact and some questions:
There were no al Qaeda in That's true to a point, but a little misleading. There wasn't a real Al Qaeda presence in Iraq until we invaded Afghanistan, at which point Zarqawi moved into Iraq and had medical treatment in Baghdad, later visiting Iraqi Kurdistan where he made connections with Ansar Al-Islam (Kurdish militant Islamic group). The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Hmm.. so extremist interpretation of Islamic law isn't a form of terrorism? The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to The Taliban supported and harbored Bin Laden. I'll be the first to speak out about how we created Bin Laden, so to speak, but our invasion of Afghanistan wash technically justified. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Terrorism begets terrorism? Hezbollah represents the Shi’ites of southern Hezbollah is also funded by Iran, both of which consistently use terrorist principles to further their agendas.
BTW - my talking points come from years of CREDIBLE research from reliable primary sources. If you're unwilling to listen to someone who actually takes the time to, as you say, "do his own research," then I feel extremely sorry for you.
posted by
jfrancais
on Jun 30, 2009 at 05:43 PM
It's all about destroying nations & setting up puppet governments that are controlled by the Globalist. Again this was happening before even you were born (see Spanish-American War, 20th Century Latin American History, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) in the name of neo-liberalism. At what time was you Republic "Great"? What is so different today from the days of yore? What exactly is at stake? What do the globalist control now that they didn't control before (financial institutiona, government infiltration, humanity)? posted by
jfrancais
on Jun 30, 2009 at 05:58 PM
posted by
Infowar
on Jun 30, 2009 at 06:20 PM
The AP story hmmm....looks like some more underlings are going to get burned. Nothing new. Just more good cop bad cop. I don't really have the energy to explain what I just typed. All I can say is, more of the same crap from the powers that be. At what time was you Republic "Great"? To bad evil exist. It's an ever present entity that plagues humanity.
I believe in the vision our founders had for this country. Anything can be exploited to carry out an agenda. Either way I think our Country is done for. I am still going to fight for what I believe in....until I die.
posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Jun 30, 2009 at 06:48 PM
posted by
catpaw
on Jun 30, 2009 at 10:42 PM
When Bush and Powell were making their case for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, I would have bet the farm that Saddam would suddenly accommodate inspectors, show them anything they requested, and make fools of the President and the Secretary of State. He didn't. One woman who was the wife of Saddam's personal pilot noted in her journal that Saddam was advised the US would invade Iraq. Saddam dismissed the idea, convinced moslem nations would not allow Bush to invade a moslem country. He was wrong. So was I. I guess I wasn't thinking like a madman. I have read from a couple of sources that Saddam did not want Iran to know he did not have such weapons. Plausible, but I have not heard of any first hand info saying this. posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Jul 1, 2009 at 06:54 AM
catpaw - I was watching 60 minutes a while back, and they were speaking with the FBI agent who was Saddam's interrogator. Luckily, I found the full interview.. it's really very intriguing.. here's a snippit about the WMD's"
"He [Saddam] told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main 3749494_page4.shtml posted by
catpaw
on Jul 1, 2009 at 07:14 AM
Appreciate the additional insight.
1
Advertisement |