|
Ted Koppel Reports on Secret Plan for US Domination!!!
Of course this Niteline piece is a propaganda attempt to minimize the actual conspiracy. But it does reveal a grain of the truth!!!
Mainstream media finally admitting that there is a conspiracy (but just a very tiny one): The link is some funky java in the lower right hand of the screen. It is a video link to the Niteline broadcast of 3/5/2003. See it before it is removed! ABC News Front Page - Niteline link in lower right |
It's gone :feels-hot and I don't feel like paying $9.99 a month for a realplayer membership to view the archive.
|
Quote:
Normally you're yelling at everyone that ABC is a tool for the govt to brainwash the masses. The truth is never reported according to you. Now they post the full plan for US Domination and it's propaganda, too? Shouldn't you be happy the big news networks are finally revealing the United States for the imperialistic, world domination seeking bastards we are? |
Quote:
SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :feels-hot :feels-hot Everyone order the video dammit!!!!!!! |
Quote:
I am happy that they are at least admitting part of it. But at this point they have to say something. Just a few weeks ago 30 million people around the world marched against war. The foreign press from Scotland to Asia to Russia are boldly claiming that the Iraq war is simply part I of a conspiracy for global hegemony by Bush and his cohorts. But they are still burying the whole truth under a mountain of propaganda and lies. But a little truth is better than no truth so yes, this is a refreshing turn of events! |
Quote:
who would have thought it would be the guy in the tin foil hat who pieced it all together.:1orglaugh |
The truth is people are stupid. No matter what country you go to.
The whole anti war crowd has no solutions whatsoever. They are just against war. Thats all fine and good, nobody likes war. But this is real life, not fantasy land. If we have a mega terror attack on our soil, it will be those same people blaming bush for not doing enough. Its a no win situation with them. |
Quote:
See ya tomorrow, fruitcake, when once again ABC News is at the top of the list of propaganda tools for the US govt. It is however, very funny watching you say a news source can't be trusted and is for idiots, only to quote it the next day and use it to back up your whacked out conspiracy theories. |
Quote:
a) The mainstream media IS largely a propaganda tool for the military-industrial complex b) In order to maintain the image of "objective" media, they will often report the "Truth" or some aspect of it, BUT ONLY ONCE! And then they will totally bury that one truthful report with a mountain of distracting, trivial crap like the whole Monica Lewinsky stupidity. They key point in using or referencing the major media is point b. When they do finally report some aspect of the truth but later bury it or even contradict it - that is clear evidence that something much deeper is going on. In any case, if YOU consider the mainstream media to be the only measuring stick of reality then order the Niteline broadcast of 3/5/2003 from ABC News. They sell videos of past broadcasts. Watch it for yourself and then you tell me that there is no conspiracy!! I think you are just afraid that the whole Matrix that you have invested in is about to crumble around you in an avalanche of lies. The Iraq invasion was planned years ago by a bunch of CONSPIRATORS. Now everyone is saying it: - The foreign press - Conspiracy "nuts" - And good old maintream ABC News DEAL WITH IT!!!! Now you are the one wearing the tin foil hat. Or is that a dunce cap? |
Quote:
Is everything that isn't beyond far left propaganda to you? They were hardly trying to "minimize" that there was a conspiracy. They dedicated a whole show to trying to prove it is. However, they did at least present both sides. I guess for you, for it not to be propaganda they should only present one side, the far-left conspiracy side. Anyways, it's hardly a conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy, then their intentions would not be publicly known. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The fact is that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many other hawks of the current adminstration drew up war plans years ago. They even published it. Now - shouldn't that be A HUGE NEWS STORY especially in the current climate of invading Iraq? Shouldn't EVERY MAJOR MEDIA OUTLET be talking about that, instead of merely parroting this "weapons of mass destruction" line from the president's press secretary? This should be HUGE. It should be a much larger story than Monica Lewinsky blowing Clinton. Instead, it is reported ONLY ONCE and at that on a midnight show. And believe me, it is NEVER likely to be reported again. If the current adminstration essentially drew up their war plans 4 or 5 years ago to invade Iraq but are now lying to the American people that the invasion is only necessary now because of new "secret evidence of WMD' then that is a monumental lie. We are going to war for reasons of global hegemony and not to "protect the american people from Saddam's non existant WMD. " I hate to use the C word but that is the essense of conspiracy!! |
You are a grade A moron.
The military has plans drawn up for every situation. We probably have a plan drawn up to invade Canada should the need ever arise. http://www.fatpad.com/smileys/fruit_cake2.jpg Fruit cake anyone? |
Quote:
From the Gulf of Tonkin to Iran-Contra to 911 to Iraq... You can't base an empire on lies forever. Eventually something's gotta give... |
i just hope we last until the year 2019 or 2020 when they finally tell us that the CIA killed JFK.
|
Quote:
You did not even see the broadcast. It was not a "contingency plan" by any means. It was a point-blank plan for US domination of the middle east using Iraq as the first staging point. Why don't you just watch something first before attempting to comment on it. Otherwise you come across as even less than a fruitcake or a moran. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It was reported by ABC News. According to your past posts that makes it completely unreliable and nothing but a giant lie. LOL Oh wait, ABC News reported something you agree with, so now they're okay. Til tomorrow. LOL I'm not surprised at your lack of consistency, though. You went from being a Rush Limbaugh hardcore right wing fanatic to being a lefty nutcase fanatic. Take some prozac. Maybe one day you'll be stable enough to take seriously. p.s. The word is "moron", you moran. |
Quote:
It was an all-out plan for US hegemony in the middle east including the pilfering of oil supplies. And yes we can all debate whether that is a good thing or not but it proves that the current adminstration is lying when they say it is about WMD and "liberating the Iraqi people". Bush and his pals are going to invade one country after another in the middle east and may also go after North Korea. No matter how powerful our military is, when you go against the grain of the rest of the world, the rest of the world has a way of banding together and surprising you. All empires have learned that lesson the hard way. The last major time that lesson has been learned is was by Hitler and the German people. |
Quote:
And the point is not whether I am consistent or not. The point is not whether or not I believe in the major media. The point is that YOU AND MANY OTHERS believe in the maintream media. So if that is the case, why don't you watch this broadcast from your beloved mainstream media? Are you afraid, Mr. Fatpad? And by all means, please continue to point out my typos. That definitely means that you are right and I am wrong. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That?s a sad commentary on society. There are about a hundred reasons why we should go to war with Iraq, strategic and humanitarian, but unfortunately the only reason the UN would (potentially) tolerate us going to war with Iraq would be that Saddam harbors WMDs. Never mind the fact that he is about 10x worse that Milosevic. Do you know he?s killed and tortured 4x as many people as Milosevic? |
Quote:
See number 6 & 7 as well as 8. Sound forward thinking planning and is as it should be. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by theking Reasons for war. #1. Iraq was defeated on the field of battle and signed certain terms. Iraq has been in violation of those terms since they signed the terms in '91. The USA has demanded that those terms be complied with and that Iraq remain a defeated country. #2. Iraq attempted to assasinate a former American President. #3. Iraq has fired upon, almost daily, for almost 11 years, USA military forces. #4. Iraq is believed to have, or are acquiring, or are attempting to acquire WMD's. The USA will not allow that. #5. Iraq has, on multiple occassions called for Americans, to be killed where ever they are found. Thus they are a sworn enemy of the USA. #6. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for future military operations against our enemies in the region, which number in the 100's of millions. #7. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for its oil fields and for the surrounding oil fields, for as the worlds oil supplies dwindle the USA will be in a position to control the dwindling oil supplies for its use and the use of its European allies. #8. A take over of Iraq sends a very powerful signal to the other countries in that area of the world that if they don't get their act together they will be next. Any one of the reasons above is a reason for war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Quote:
Good post!!! :thumbsup :thumbsup You've cited 8 of the probably more than 100 reasons why we should go to war with Iraq. In addition to strategic reasons, there are numerous humanitarian reasons. |
Quote:
Did you know that we helped him kill all those people and stood by while he did it? The " 1 million killed by Saddam" figure that is being thrown around the media these days relates mostly to his invasion of Iran in the 1980s. The US not only supported that war, we sold him weapons to fight it, we supplied him with intelligence reports to improve his battle plans, we sold him 80% of the chemicals and biological agents that tipped his warheads. Saddam AND THE USA together are the ones that killed almost 1 million Iranians and Iraqis. And that is a fact. When Saddam gassed 2,000 Kurds in 1988, he used chemical weapons supplied by American labs. Saddam viewed the Kurds as his enemy only because the CIA armed them and led them into a failed invasion of Baghdad in the late 1970s to help our friend, the Shah of Iran. And when Saddam gassed them in 1988, President Reagan and Vice President Bush continued to happily arm him to the teeth with MORE chemical and biological agents. It is a total joke. When Iraq presented that 12,000 page report to the US just a few months ago, the US censored THOUSANDS OF PAGES that detailed all the american companies, from Lockheed to Monsanto, that have supplied Iraq for years - EVEN UP TO 1992, AFTER THE GULF WAR!!!! Now on that Niteline broadcast, they briefly presented the "think tank" that is responsible for the current war plan and referenced their reports. I posted those very reports in this forum a couple of weeks ago. Read the reports. They center more around oil reserves and oil pipelines than anything else. They admit that Iraq will be used as a staging ground for US domination of that area and its energy reserves. THAT is the conspiracy because the major admitted reason we are going to war is barely discussed at all in the mainstream media. All we get is is this crap about WMD (which have yet to be proven to even exist). That is a total red herring. |
Quote:
THE WEST SUPPORTED SADDAM AND IT WAS A MISTAKE!! Yes, the U.S. supplied Iraq with weapons. It was a mistake. But, it was a case of who is a greater evil, Iraq or Iran? Since Iraq is secular and not tied up with the fanaticism that Iran is. People seem to think the U.S. was the only one supporting Saddam. Hardly. England, France, Germany, most of Europe was supporting Iraq. And the French and Germans supplied Iraq with more weapons than the U.S. Shit, the French sold them a nuclear reactor. You have this one-sided view that only America is responsible for everything that's wrong. There's no culpability anywhere else. At least the U.S. and Britain have the spine to correct their mistakes while France and Germany (who supplied more shit to the Iraqis) stand on the sideline. |
Hey PotSticker...err, Wonton..... :winkwink:
this is an interesting article on the humanitarian reasons for ousting Saddam.... The Liberal Case for War Where are all the humanitarian interventionists now? After all, throughout the 1990s they beat the war drums for military intervention against Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, who is responsible for the deaths of only one-quarter as many people as Saddam Hussein. In the vast network of prisons, torture chambers, and poison-gas fields of Iraq and its border areas, Saddam bears responsibility for the deaths of a million people. He instigated the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, during the course of which I watched one of his handpicked generals poke the dead body of an Iranian teenager--killed by chemical weapons--while explaining to reporters that it was like using a spray can to kill mosquitoes. Saddam is not just another dictator with whom we have to live. On a moral plane, even by the dismal standards of the Middle East, he is sui generis. The degree of repression is so severe in Iraq that whenever I would journey from Saddam's Iraq to Hafez al-Assad's Syria in the 1980s, it was like coming up for liberal humanist air. In Syria, despite the repression and the personality cult, you heard grumbling about the regime and could travel freely about the country, talking easily with people. Iraq was like the vast exercise yard of a penitentiary lit by high-wattage lamps, in the sense that nobody whispered a political complaint, and police permission was required to travel from one town to the next. After I had my passport taken away from me for ten days by the Iraqi security police in 1986, an American diplomat in Baghdad told me that Iraq's was the most cowed population in the Arab world, and if the security services get it into their heads that you are suspicious, there is nothing anybody can do for you. Three years earlier, an American technician for Baghdad's Novotel hotel, Robert Spurling, had been taken away from his wife and daughters at Saddam International Airport and tortured for four months with electric shock, brass knuckles, and wooden bludgeons. His toes were crushed and his toenails ripped out. He was kept in solitary confinement on a starvation diet. Finally, American diplomats won his release. Multiply his story by thousands, and you will have an idea what Iraq is like to this day--at least, that is, until a Western leader has the gumption to stop it. The only sensible comparisons with Saddam are Joseph Stalin, Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu, and Ethiopia's Communist tyrant Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose forced collectivization program in the '80s led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands in addition to the million or so who died of famine. Milosevic may be a war criminal, but his dictatorship was in many respects a subtle one that allowed for open power struggles and even for party politics and street protests. Milosevic did his share of political killing, but retaining his hold on power was often a matter of bribing and manipulating his political adversaries. Saddam only kills. After his health minister, Dr. Riyadh Ibrahim, criticized Saddam's handling of the Iran-Iraq war, Ibrahim was shot and his body cut into pieces and delivered thus to his family. There are no politics in Iraq, no engaging coffeehouse discussions to the degree that there are throughout the rest of the Arab world. This is the lone Arab equivalent of the worst East European satellite state during the cold war ice age. Individuality has been so submerged over the decades by fear that man-in-the-street interviews reveal less the expression of the individual than whatever the mass psychology happens to be at the moment: The Iranians are our enemy. The Americans are our enemy. The regime's illegitimacy requires not only repression but the discipline of wartime mobilization to stay in power. Invading Iraq would be a humanitarian intervention if ever there were one. Of course, we will invade primarily for strategic reasons. But that was also true of Bosnia. In foreign policy, moral questions are ultimately questions of power: The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in the early and mid-'90s was coterminous with similar large-scale ethnic killings in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Ossetia. But what gave a particular edge to the moral arguments for intervention in Bosnia rather than in those other places--all in the Caucasus--was the fact that the bloodshed in Bosnia threatened not only the stability of Europe but the very existence of NATO at a time, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, when its mission was uncertain. After our 1995 intervention in Bosnia, the argument changed from should NATO exist to should NATO expand. Intervention in Bosnia made NATO's expansion into Central Europe possible, just as intervention in Kosovo now makes possible a further expansion of the alliance to the Black Sea. Similarly, intervention in Iraq--in addition to decapitating a nuclearizing terrorist regime--will allow us, finally, to extinguish the legacy of the cold war in the Middle East. At the height of the cold war, sectarian dictatorships arose across the Arab world that employed the institutions of the modern European state and the security-service methodology of the East bloc to erect tyrannies more intensely suffocating than any since antiquity. Because Iraq was the most developed of these nations with the most educated populace, and because of its particularly virulent ethnic divides between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, its police state became the worst of all. Iraq is now the reigning symbol of that old order, its Baathist Party, through which Saddam rules--a calcified variant of Marxist ideology. This does not mean that removing Saddam will bring American-style democracy to the Middle East. It would be foolish of us to impose our historical experience on, for example, the peoples of the Maghreb, the Arabian Gulf, and the Red Sea strait, whose kings, emirs, and tribal councils have evolved in ways that allow for their own, ofteningenious brand of consultation with the masses. Rather it means that a display of American power and resolve will, in a more general way, embolden the forces of historic liberalism in the region at a time when militant Islamists are already on the run in many countries. Precisely because we cannot save the old order in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we should at least give direction to the new. The last time an American leader faced this kind of domestic and international opposition and stood fast against it in order to break down the walls of tyranny was in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan deployed Pershing missiles in Western Germany against the advice of the liberal foreign policy establishment and many world leaders. Disarmament demonstrations raged in the United States and in Europe, but Reagan would not yield. Thus, he helped convince a sclerotic Soviet Communist Party that a new, more dynamic kind of leader in the Kremlin would be required to deal with him, and so Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power. Reagan's decision to deploy the nuclear missiles--a turning point in the cold war--could not by itself be defended by any universal morality, but it had a vast and profound moral result. The same will be true of an invasion of Iraq, just as it was of our invasion of Afghanistan. Make no mistake: This is a Reaganesque moment. For years intellectuals have pined for simple and consistent moral leadership on life-or-death foreign policy issues, leadership that does not cleverly parse words or twist and turn in the winds of politics and opinion polls for the sake of a tactical career advantage. Well, now they've got it. All of them, not just the neoconservatives, should support President George W. Bush's and Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposed humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Robert D. Kaplan , a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, is the author of many books, including Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, and Surrender or Starve: Travels in the Horn of Africa, to be republished this year by Vintage. |
Quote:
I'm not going to defend everything Reagan did or Bush does. Hell no. But most of the time their objectives have been noble. Reagan's objective was to topple communism, and guess what, he did a pretty good job. More than any other leader he brought it down. Bush is not conspiratorial. He's not smart enough to be. He's a born-again Christian who thinks it's his moral duty to bring dow Saddam. The brains Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are rightly exploiting Bush's religous fervor. You have to use what you can. And as I said there are 100s of reasons to bring down Saddam. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The world is "real" and not a world of white hats and black hats but a lot of gray hats. It is not, and never will be, a world where truth is truth, and nothing but the truth. Anyone that keeps informed and has the intelligence to read between the lines has some insight as to what is really going on. It is the duty of this government and any government in the world to protect its citizens from enemies and to protect its economic interests, in the present, as well as being forward looking. Fortuantely the USA is forward thinking and has the power to act in, what it perceives to be, its best interests. Some countries do not have this ability. The world is the real world and not some make believe, or idealistic world. In addition WMD's are not a total red herring it is just another reason among many reasons. |
Quote:
If you want every reason, you can read about it in National Review. But WMDs are a major reason to go to war with Iraq. Can you imagine if Saddam did already have nukes? Then we'd have the same problem we have with N. Korea. Why wait until he does? |
Quote:
1 - First arm said dictator AND his enemies to the teeth. Arming both sides of every conflict ensures maximum profits to the BUSINESS OF WAR. We armed both Iraq AND Iran during their war, so the argument put forth by the major media that we "sided" with Iraq during that conlflict for geopolitical reasons does not wash. 2- Once the dictator is armed to the teeth and acts even slightly "independent" of US will, launch a war against him, either directly or by proxy, to oust him. The case of Saddam is unique since he is also sitting on top of the second largest oil reserves on the planet and his country is strategically located in the middle east as a perfect staging ground for future invasions. The argument put forth by such media as the Altantic Monthly (and others) that there are humanitarian reasons for invading Iraq also does not wash. There are far more repressive regimes out there in the world that treat their people far worse than Saddam treats Iraqis. From Nigeria to the Congo to Cambodia to Libya - the list is enormous. The US has always supported the most brutal dictators of all time, from the Shah or Iran to Ferdinando Marcos to Baby Doc Duvalier to Saddam and beyond. The US does not give a shit about how other people are treated by their regimes - never has and never will. US Politicians will use that red herring as an argument because they know it moves the American people (who generally DO have their hearts in the right place). The UN estimates that as many as 500,000 Iraqi civlians will die as a result of Gulf War II. Another 10 million will be displaced and put at severe risk. Whoohoo! Yeah. Let's "liberate" them. If the west did not support and prop up these petty dictators in the first place, no one would need liberating. |
Quote:
And what about Pakistan? The first time the world trade center was bombed in 1993 it was by a Pakistani. The Taliban were trained and supported by Pakistani intelligence. A number of the 911 hijackers and their aids were Pakistani. Imagine if Pakistan was run by a military dictator AND had nukes? Wait a minute! They have both!! And Pakistan scientists were caught leaking nuclear secrets to the Taliban post-911. Gee, it's a good thing we are not attacking Pakistan. Besides the fact that there is huge uneveness in the targets America chooses, if you want to get rid of every dictator who MIGHT have nukes, treats their people like shit and actively hates the US, you will have to invade dozens of countries. It is irrational and counter-productive. It will lead to MORE terrorism not less. It will lead to a a major global conflict, perhaps WW III. This is a global chess game currently being played by the US. It has nothing to do with humanitarian aid. It has nothing to do with eliminating WMDs. It has everything to do with securing all the remaining reserves of shallow-depth oil on the planet and of ruling the planet with an iron-fisted Imperial Military Regime. |
After the next so-called terror attack on US soil, with Bush likely installing Martial Law, perhaps people will then finally wake up. Of course by that time it will be too late but at least you can remember that pot-sticker-Wonton told you so.
:1orglaugh Martial Law, just like income tax will of course be a "temporary measure". Hmmmm. When martial law is imposed and the constitution "temporarily suspended" I wonder what that will mean for the adult community? :thumbsup |
lol, the conspiracy theorists who will tell you the major news networks are 100% bullshit sure change their story when they see something reported that they agree with.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Fact is, we can't commit troops everywhere and there are numerous factors involved in the decision to commit troops. In this case there are more reasons for (and less reasons against) going to Iraq than anywhere else. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh.... You mean like Hitler? Cool. But if he is our historical role model, we might not end up in such a good place when all the smoke finally clears 20-30 years from now. |
Quote:
Iraq has created the current problem, not the USA. Iraq choose to invade its neighbor and was in a position to invade another neighbor. It was defeated on the field of battle. It agreed to certain terms. It did not aibe by those terms. If it would have abided by the terms, there would not have been any sanctions imposed and it would have been left alone and Saddam could have merrily continued to build his palaces with his oil wealth (Oh he did that anyhow at the suffering of his people). As it is he chose to make himself an enemy of the USA and the fact that his country is in the midst of the enemies of the USA it is stratigic forward thinking on the part of the USA to remove him from power and attempt to create a democratic republic which will insure that we are militarily positioned, for many years to come, to deal with our enemies in that region of the world. |
Quote:
And to get them for $9.99. :( |
Quote:
But yes, you're gonna have to fork over $9.99 to get an archived copy. |
Well Hell....
It's 5:45pm here - and I have gone all day without reading anything really stupid or someone's wacko conspiracy theories. Oh Well....... Another angle on what is getting to be the very old U.S. and Bush bashing, lies, bullshit and insane crap like this. Get a hobby - go ride a bike - go bowling - ANYTHING but spreading this kind of nonsense around. Besides - if the fucking joke was true - it would be a far more stable world than it is now. :1orglaugh |
Quote:
did you change sides ? |
Quote:
Ohhhhhh - "the dark and sinister truth" Ahhhhhhhh Man... I think you believe way too much of what you read, see, and imagine. the dark and sinister truth - That's just too fucking funny..... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh |
Quote:
Great ceasar;s ghost - can't you kids even come up with orignal line for your war? Yutes ... |
Quote:
What are you referring to exactly? Niteline ran the episode in question. You can buy a copy direct from ABCnews.com The episode was broacast on 3/5/2003 and the title was: "Is a war with Iraq part of a U.S. secret plan for global domination?" Several other people in this very thread indicated that they watched the episode in question. The conclusion that Koppel drew was that there was a plan of sorts but he did not come down either way definitively. |
None of us can really know how much of the conspiracy theory is true. Here's a bit of fact though:
When the plan to get into the middle east was drawn up, a spot was left saying that the USA needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to get the support of the people. That Pearl Harbor was 9/11. Do I think the USA had planned 9/11? No, not at all. Were they happy it happened? Yes, I definetly think so. They finally had their excuse to go back into the middle east. The "axis of evil" was clearly outlined in the plan and so far they seem to be sticking to their agenda. So are there reasons for war? Sure, but there always are to some degree. Don't believe them when they say that it's for your protection. I'm sure most people would agree that North Korea is more of an immediate threat, but they don't have as much to gain from going to war with them as they do from the middle east. |
Quote:
huh? I've always supported the war with Iraq. What I don't tolerate are people who have bash people simply for having a different opinion. This is a free country and if somebody disagrees with our govt then it's their right. I don't limit freedom of expression to only ideas I agree with. How fucking boring would it be if everyone agreed on everything. G-d bless our diversity of opinion. It's what makes America great. |
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123