Thread: Bhutto Assassinated. What next?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/wo...79493a&ei=5087

I think Ron Paul has the right idea, keep well out of it

You can't keep out of it if you want to control terrorism.

Getting into it is what created the terrorism.

The CIA created the Taliban, literally, fed em with fake Islamic schoolbooks promoting aggression and violence, think "How many bullets does Ahmed have? How many filthy imperialist Russians do you think he could kill with these?"

Then the CIA helped the current dictator overthrow the democratically elected government and have since piled him with billions of dollars for 'security' in the "war on terror' - which of course he used to crush dissent rather than finding Bin Liner.

Then they promoted the idea of Bhutto returning - not a smart move.

I think every day Ron Paul gets proven more and more correct. Bhutto herself said the American support of the dictator was the biggest issue the country faced. The place is a mess, so is Afghanistan, so is Iraq and the nutjobs still want to find an excuse to attack Iran..

If we left them the feck alone terrorism wouldn't be an issue.

I have a friend who's a Pakistani, he's been ranting about this stuff for the last 20 years, but he's correct. So is Ron Paul.

I also note the media tried to make a big deal of RP pointing out "honest Abe" didn't need to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Americans and the 'civil war' certainly wasn't about slavery.

Pakistan's dictator has suspended the constitution, done away with habeas corpus, locked up dissenters... his excuse? "Well Lincoln did it.."

Exactly. He had a fecking dictator complex as well.

Ron Paul's the only one from either party who's studied the history, follows the constitution and knows what he's talking about. The rest just seem to be trying to prove they're as manly as Hillary.



B.

Originally Posted by dg806

You can't keep out of it if you want to control terrorism.

You can control terrorism about as well as you can control hatred or jealousy. You either nuke the whole country or stay out of it completely.

I friend said it best a few weeks ago, and it made excellent sense. Terrorism is like cancer. It is cancer of the country. The only way to kill it is to throw everything you got at it until it is 100% completely gone. There is no half-assing it. You devote 100% of your efforts toward the eradication of it and attack until it is 100% gone or it will come right back.

We have half-assed it the whole time. There is no controlling terror. You either kill them all or stop wasting lives and money. We don't have the voters support to do it right, so the only logical conclusion is to just stay out of their business and let them work it out.

Yep. The absurdity of "Mission Accomplished!" comes to mind. So why still there?

B.

Originally Posted by Biggly

Yep. The absurdity of "Mission Accomplished!" comes to mind. So why still there?

B.

"Mission Accomplished" is how politicians trick middle America into thinking we won, and that this conflict was worth what it cost us.

I have friends who lost their scholarships because educational funding has taken such a huge hit while funding this "absurdity". Luckily for one friend he had other scholarships to a different school through private foundations.

My co-worker's daughter has cancer and is working way too much just to afford the medication that she needs. I feel bad for her, she is close to having a nervous breakdown from over-work and worry.

It isn't until you know someone that is personally being affected by this stupid shit before you really have reality put into perspective.

Nearly everything we have done over the last 6 years in respect to our involvement in the middle east was dumb.

There's been dumbfoolery (new word) for a lot longer than 6 years, heck even Iraq's invasion of Kuwait wasn't as clear-cut as it seemed. Apparantly the US Ambassador told Hussein they didn't care if he invaded Kuwait, suggesting the powers-that-be wanted an excuse to attack.

Again he was our bestest buddy while at war with Iran, a country by the way that resents America because of the overthrow of the popular guy and yet another American puppet (overthrown in the end). Same old story, entangling alliances and interference. At one time the US was funding both sides.

It's crazy, like giving candy to a select few kids in a group, you just pee off the others and sooner or later there's blowback. When you create such hatred that people will kill themselves in order to hurt you there's no way out of that. Sure you can reach agreements with puppet heads but they cannot speak for a pissed-off population (POP).

The founding fathers, vastly more aware of history than the current crop, were right, trade freely with everyone but no taking sides and getting involved in other's squabbles - and certainly not deliberately starting such squabbles for Halliburton's profits and campaign contributions.

It's bad enough that a company gives a politician or twenty a million bucks to make 200 million in tax breaks and 'legal' market advantages but as Ike warned, the military industrial complex is a darker beast. Why have a measly tax break when you can pump cash out of taxpayers? Just start a dumb war somewhere, anywhere, and watch the bank balance soar as the tax cattle nod their heads and wave plastic flags made in China.

Hey I like this forum, I get to discuss politics AND bodybuilding



B.

Whats Next????...




... Hillary?

It's called world stabilization. The US has no interest in taking over anybody or to interfer with other countries. But when they are as unstable as they are, the US must step in and keep somewhat order to keep the world economy going. All these 3rd world countries are idiots. They would not be as civilized if it was not for the US help. And this is what we get.

The entire concept of the nation-state of Pakistan is a farce.

Why?

Because Pakistan was created by a Western colonial power 60 years ago, putting many different groups together in one, single state.

If Musharraf cannot maintain control, there may be 5 or 6 semi-autonomous regions breaking off, or trying to split off.

As for Bhutto, her death is no surprise. She had a lot of enemies.

The USA states it wants "democracy" in the world. Then why is the US in bed with Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in a coup?

Because Musharraf can hold some power and contain this facade of a nation-state, and keep some extremists at bay.

He won't be around for ever, though. Whether he voluntary leaves office, or whether he gets whacked.

Yeah you are kinda right on that. The US wants the person that can maintain the most stability in power. That keeps most of the country happy and keeps most of the worlds economic engine running. That is what it's all about.....Money. If these small 3rd world countries aren't stable, it messes the global economy all to hell.

Originally Posted by dg806

Yeah you are kinda right on that. The US wants the person that can maintain the most stability in power. That keeps most of the country happy and keeps most of the worlds economic engine running. That is what it's all about.....Money. If these small 3rd world countries aren't stable, it messes the global economy all to hell.

I don't know how Pakistan affects the world economy.

But as for the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's volatile, obviously.

The Pakistan military has control of the nukes.

I think what will happen, will happen. Personally, I don't care that much what happens inside Pakistan or Afghanistan.

"Stability" is a nice way of saying "propping up the dollar as the world's reserve currency, so we can carry on printing it out of thin air, thus sucking up the wealth and savings of the entire planet to finance the world's richest nation and most expensive military, a military used to prop up the dollar as the world's reserve currency....

In other words, far from being backed by gold or anything valuable per se, the dollar is backed by M16s, F16s and other people's oil.

Iraq's "WMD"? That Saddam started selling oil for euros.

Afghanistan's "terrorism", well before 9/11 or Bin Liner, ie the decision to attack was already made before then? An oil pipeline that would make it easy for Russia to sell oil to China. For euros.

Iran's "nuke weapon program"? Selling oil for euros.

Chavez in Venua Ven.. V.. however you spell that place in South America, selling oil in a basket of currencies other than dollars.

America is rich because it inflicts "inflation" on the rest of the world. It does this by printing money that is nothing but paper.

Normally that would devalue the dollar so a great form of stealth tax on American citizens but would damage trade over the longer term - but if anyone suggests they might not use dollars for trading modern "black gold", you get the "WMD" sabre-rattling and if still not obeying the Great Empire, they'll get a "coup", an "uprising" orchestrated by the CIA, failing that out come the M16's and F16s.

The primary thing that has held up the dollar in this way since the 50s and especially the 70's is a simple agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia:

"We will flood your country with CIA bods, high-tech intelligence and other such stuff, we will help you remain your tyranical rule and protect you from anyone else, if you price and sell oil in dollars only, using your position as head of OPEC to make the dollar the world's reserve currency".

That was the deal. That is why America can afford to print money at will and other countries have no real choice but to accept the inflated and inflating dollars as they're printed.

Now if forcing people literally at gunpoint to accept your printed paper is "stability" then sure, one could argue that the constant coups, vote rigging, foreign aid bribery, sinister threats and outright invasions over the last 40 odd years have been for stability.

I'd call it classical imperial over-stretch, trying to take over the world on a weakening currency.

History repeatedly repeats itself if you don't learn from it.

The founding fathers knew all this stuff, hence trade with everyone, entangling alliances with none, money must be gold or silver - and restrict the heck out of the federal government or else such a large and powerful country would invariably go the empire route. And that always ends up meaning you lose your freedom at home as you steal from those abroad.

It would be the end of American's freedom.

What's happened? Strong nation left standing after WW2, took advantage to go the empire route, printing fake money, now it's unravelling and sure enough, you're losing your freedoms, heck you already lose habeas fucking corpus, nuff said.

Now, not only are more and more countries selling oil for other than dollars, moving out of dollar dominated securities and so on, but even Saudi Arabia is rebelling against the high level of inflation.

The crap already hit the fan, it's everywhere, all over Latin America, various parts of Africa, in countries bordering Russia, Korea, and a real festering pile in the Middle East.

America's history of entangling alliances and interference in other's countries funded by fake money is everywhere - and it's coming unglued.

Amidst all this mess stands one man, the ONLY politician who has always stood fast on the wisdom of the founding fathers, the primacy of the Constitution, and a real understanding of real-world economics. Ron Paul.

I've known of this guy for about 5 years but didn't think he'd run for president again - that he has is admirable, he could easily retire and let America sink, the guy is over 70 years old, why should he care any more?

But he does, and has taken a stand. That's amazing in itself, that he's finally acheiving the recognition, respect and devoted following he deserves is awesome.

The question is, is there time for Americans to wake up to reality and to get to know Ron Paul in time?

America's position is going to crash. Period. No debate there. With Ron Paul at the controls you could have a controlled crash landing, preserve liberty, mend fences and just go back to the real world without so much fake money and conflict.

Without him there's no telling just what will happen but a nuclear WW3 and or a total financial collapse is quite likely, not to mention a 1984 Orwell state that you're already getting.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with weight training, but there ya go, my 2 cents. I study economics as a hobby but not the crap they teach at school.


B.

Originally Posted by Biggly

"Stability" is a nice way of saying "propping up the dollar as the world's reserve currency, so we can carry on printing it out of thin air, thus sucking up the wealth and savings of the entire planet to finance the world's richest nation and most expensive military, a military used to prop up the dollar as the world's reserve currency....

A few nations have been shifting their allocation of currency reserves out of the US dollar. It's a slow, incremental process. Announcements are made when it happens, but it doesn't make the news to much in the U.S. Even Vietnam recently shifted its currency reserves, recently.

Iraq's "WMD"? That Saddam started selling oil for euros.

And 3 weeks after the Americans invaded Iraq, the Oil was switched back to the US Dollar. I never read or heard about it from the U.S. mainstream media....until about 2 years later.

People interested in this can go back to 1973 and the U.S. made a deal with the Saud family in KSA.

Oh, now I see your point. Good point, Biggly.

The primary thing that has held up the dollar in this way since the 50s and especially the 70's is a simple agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia:

Originally Posted by dg806

It's called world stabilization. The US has no interest in taking over anybody or to interfer with other countries. But when they are as unstable as they are, the US must step in and keep somewhat order to keep the world economy going. All these 3rd world countries are idiots. They would not be as civilized if it was not for the US help. And this is what we get.

I think it has been a poor ass return on our investment. Lets just give stabilization a quantitative measurement for the purposes of this discussion. We are getting a poor amount of units of stabilization for each dollar we have spent. When we pull out, and we will pull out, we will have made little or no difference in the stabilization of the middle eat. I would guess that we have made it worse over the last few decades.

There will always be a US military presence in the middle east. We will never leave.

We will never leave

That's what Napoleon said.

"Napoleon went on to set up an "administrative council" in Egypt, very like the one which the Bush Administration says it intends to operate under US occupation. And in due course the "shayks" and "qadis" and imams rose up against French occupation in Cairo in 1798"

And the British too for that matter.


B.

Originally Posted by dg806

There will always be a US military presence in the middle east. We will never leave.

Pakistan is not in the Middle East.

The US Military is not in Pakistan.

(There may be some limited Special Ops at the most, but the US is not in Pakistan.)

But as for the Middle East, I agree dg806, the US will be in the Middle East for many decades. Until the next power comes to life, if one does.

Originally Posted by Biggly

I think Ron Paul has the right idea, keep well out of it

Stay out of the possible terrorist overthrow of a nuclear nation? Ron Paul is a fool.

Swatting at symptoms doesn't solve the problem.

Maybe the fact Dr Ron Paul is a doc explains why he thinks things through a little more?


B.

Originally Posted by Biggly

Swatting at symptoms doesn't solve the problem.

Maybe the fact Dr Ron Paul is a doc explains why he thinks things through a little more?


B.

fighting terrorists/preventing nuclear proliferation is swatting symptoms? I almost feel sorry for you.

Even the democrats are smarter than that.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

fighting terrorists/preventing nuclear proliferation is swatting symptoms? I almost feel sorry for you.

Even the democrats are smarter than that.

What are we doing about North Korea? Nothing! Not a damn thing. We let them test fire rockets at us. What are we going to do, keep waiting until they get it right?

Seems I am hearing the same lame ass crap I have been hearing for years. Absolutely no consistency in these arguments.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Seems I am hearing the same lame ass crap I have been hearing for years. Absolutely no consistency in these arguments.

what? where did I give them a pass? you're grasping.

regardless.. why not stay on topic? deflecting is definitely "lame ass crap."

Originally Posted by busyLivin

what? where did I give them a pass? you're grasping.

regardless.. why not stay on topic? deflecting is definitely "lame ass crap."

I'm not getting into another dumb argument. You know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about, so enough with the stupid shit.

You can't claim the nuclear program as a reason why we occupy the middle east while we let a psychopath dictator in North Korea dick slap us upside the head and laugh when we don't do shit about it. You Can't! Not in any shape, form, or fashion. If you want to debate facts than lets do it, but if you want to be the typical open chat piece of shit who is only concerned with impressing people with your sarcasm, go fuck yourself. I'm interested in sharing ideas, not practicing for the debate team.

Originally Posted by KelJu

I'm not getting into another dumb argument. You know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about, so enough with the stupid shit.

You can't claim the nuclear program as a reason why we occupy the middle east while we let a psychopath dictator in North Korea dick slap us upside the head and laugh when we don't do shit about it. You Can't! Not in any shape, form, or fashion. If you want to debate facts than lets do it, but if you want to be the typical open chat piece of shit who is only concerned with impressing people with your sarcasm, go fuck yourself. I'm interested in sharing ideas, not practicing for the debate team.

Again, where did I give North Korea a pass?

It's only a dumb argument if I have to repeat myself like this.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Again, where did I give North Korea a pass?

It's only a dumb argument if I have to repeat myself like this.

This is a waste of my time.

North Korea is a red herring.

While Kim test fires some sub par delivery systems with warheads of questionable potency, China builds a Navy that surpasses the Russians and has already embarrassed us on a few occasions.

I think the RIF problem is just going to be a constant poke in the side, with random bombings and incidents that we can't let bother us.

As Russia reconsolidates power and the Chinese keep expanding, we're just looking at another post-WW2 land grab with Islam in the middle again. They'll start fighting the Russians and the Chinese and get off our backs for a bit.

I'd rather take a few glancing blows from Allah while keeping an eye on the big picture...not getting dominated by the Reds.