BUSH on Lebanon/ Middle East - interview
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
Here we are:
It was a 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah. The real victims were the civilians in Lebanon.
Now this video says the soldiers were in Lebanon when they captured.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/14.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/14.html
I just finished listening to that video!!!! What an eye opener!!! Thank you ever so much for posting it, MHz!!
About the soldiers... it all depends who you listen to!! Israel, a proxy of the neo cons, will say they were on the Israeli side. This video really makes things clear!!
I want Beaver and Mikey listen to it too!
Thanks again!
That site has a pretty good list of videos, I haven't watched very many yet but the categories look interesting .
When in doubt about what the truth is you have to research who did it benefit. Most red-flag operations has one side clearly gaining the most.
When in doubt about what the truth is you have to research who did it benefit. Most red-flag operations has one side clearly gaining the most.
Hey Loon,
All Bush is doing now is posturing in the part of the world he thinks he knows. Bush is arrogant and ignorant too. His claim at attending some premier US institutions of higher learning is really translated as he was there on campus. If you went to a Harvard football game at their stadium you could claim you've been to Harvard, right? His speech in Tel Aviv was another attempt to garner some applause to salve his wounded ego. Bush is an ignoramus and I hope Mc Bush doesn't show us more of the same. The Middle East tensions would ease considerably if the US stayed out of the area and quit sending Condi in there to upset it more. Our intel assessments are a comedy leading to more failures on the part of the US.
All Bush is doing now is posturing in the part of the world he thinks he knows. Bush is arrogant and ignorant too. His claim at attending some premier US institutions of higher learning is really translated as he was there on campus. If you went to a Harvard football game at their stadium you could claim you've been to Harvard, right? His speech in Tel Aviv was another attempt to garner some applause to salve his wounded ego. Bush is an ignoramus and I hope Mc Bush doesn't show us more of the same. The Middle East tensions would ease considerably if the US stayed out of the area and quit sending Condi in there to upset it more. Our intel assessments are a comedy leading to more failures on the part of the US.
Hi, Norm;
I think you have fallen into a trap!! Did you not listen to the video? The Neo-Cons, including Mr. Bush, are doing very well. Bush is not required to know anything, as long as he plays the front lier... the real planners and shakers and movers are behind him!
I recommend you listen to that video from MHZ, although it takes 30 minutes, but those 30 minutes are well spent.
How long has that 3rd war been going on? If you consider the very few who could have any influence over US foreign policy it would most likely be the bankers. That would make that war several hundred years old already.
That video stated that Israel was in Lebanon fighting a proxy war for the US. That point might not be the whole story. I would be more comfortable with that statement if Israel didn't have as much influence in American politics as it does. That only means Israel was given a green-light rather than getting 'marching orders'.
That still leaves the bankers, the ones who pocketed money because the attempted invasion cost money. Both sides spent funds and money has only one stop once it is in circulation, right back where it started from. If the very start of the circulation was aimed at a piece of equipment that would be used for war (the only option given, no weapon=no money) then it makes little difference where that piece is manufactured.
Too bad Mike Gravel or Ron Paul weren't elected as VP. Both have similar policies and a 'clean-up' usually has to start at home. The Prez deals with foreign policy and the VP deals with internal policy.
Bankers see the world much like a "Risk" board except they deal out money at the beginning of the game and collect it all at the end, it always belongs only to them and they more or less get the say what it is spent on.
That video stated that Israel was in Lebanon fighting a proxy war for the US. That point might not be the whole story. I would be more comfortable with that statement if Israel didn't have as much influence in American politics as it does. That only means Israel was given a green-light rather than getting 'marching orders'.
That still leaves the bankers, the ones who pocketed money because the attempted invasion cost money. Both sides spent funds and money has only one stop once it is in circulation, right back where it started from. If the very start of the circulation was aimed at a piece of equipment that would be used for war (the only option given, no weapon=no money) then it makes little difference where that piece is manufactured.
Too bad Mike Gravel or Ron Paul weren't elected as VP. Both have similar policies and a 'clean-up' usually has to start at home. The Prez deals with foreign policy and the VP deals with internal policy.
Bankers see the world much like a "Risk" board except they deal out money at the beginning of the game and collect it all at the end, it always belongs only to them and they more or less get the say what it is spent on.
Bush launches political rocket from Israel
U.S. President George Bush has set off a political furor back home following a speech in Israel where he suggested that some politicians are ready to "negotiate with terrorists."
Marking the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding, Bush told members of Israel's legislative body at the Knesset that he condemned "the false comfort of appeasement ... that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
He then compared such a strategy to speaking with Hitler and the Nazis in the lead up to Germany's takeover of Poland and the start of the Second World War.
While he did not mention Barack Obama by name, Democrats accused Bush of cheap political posturing.
The White House denied Bush's comments were aimed at Obama.
But Democrats lashed out at what they perceived as an attack on their presumptive leader. Delaware Senator Joe Biden didn't mince any words.
"This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement."
Meanwhile, other aspects of Bush's speech before the Knesset left many Israeli politicians disappointed. ....
In his speech Bush said that Palestinians would have a homeland and people in the Middle East will live in "free and independent societies."
Bush added, "a desire for peace (will be) reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade."
But he didn't mention any specific steps that would need to be taken to achieve the broad aspirations he described.
"It was an embarrassing speech, a collection of slogans that somebody wrote for him in order to be nice to Israel, or what he thinks is Israel, and to steer well clear of anything concrete," said Israeli lawmaker Yossi Beilin, a key architect of the Oslo peace accords. "It's a shame and a scandal, in my opinion."
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc...asement_080515
---------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, he made a fool of himself!
Norm, he proved you right!
But his vision for free and independent Middle East societies sounds nice to me, only he contradicts himself by also saying one shouldn't talk to terrorists. Except for Israel, aren't they all terrorists down there?
Perhaps he had too much good Israeli wine!;-)
U.S. President George Bush has set off a political furor back home following a speech in Israel where he suggested that some politicians are ready to "negotiate with terrorists."
Marking the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding, Bush told members of Israel's legislative body at the Knesset that he condemned "the false comfort of appeasement ... that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
He then compared such a strategy to speaking with Hitler and the Nazis in the lead up to Germany's takeover of Poland and the start of the Second World War.
While he did not mention Barack Obama by name, Democrats accused Bush of cheap political posturing.
The White House denied Bush's comments were aimed at Obama.
But Democrats lashed out at what they perceived as an attack on their presumptive leader. Delaware Senator Joe Biden didn't mince any words.
"This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement."
Meanwhile, other aspects of Bush's speech before the Knesset left many Israeli politicians disappointed. ....
In his speech Bush said that Palestinians would have a homeland and people in the Middle East will live in "free and independent societies."
Bush added, "a desire for peace (will be) reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade."
But he didn't mention any specific steps that would need to be taken to achieve the broad aspirations he described.
"It was an embarrassing speech, a collection of slogans that somebody wrote for him in order to be nice to Israel, or what he thinks is Israel, and to steer well clear of anything concrete," said Israeli lawmaker Yossi Beilin, a key architect of the Oslo peace accords. "It's a shame and a scandal, in my opinion."
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc...asement_080515
---------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, he made a fool of himself!
Norm, he proved you right!
But his vision for free and independent Middle East societies sounds nice to me, only he contradicts himself by also saying one shouldn't talk to terrorists. Except for Israel, aren't they all terrorists down there?
Perhaps he had too much good Israeli wine!;-)
There have been wars since time immemorial! It's the 3rd one within one generation.
Yes, 'green light' is a more appropriate description. It is the Israelis who control America, as Mr. Sharon once said.
I need a little visual help to comprehend what you are saying...So, money is loaned to a company that produces weapons. This company sells the weapons with profit, and pays the banker back the original loan plus interest.. The country buying the weapons borrows money from the banker in order to pay for the weapons. This country now owes the banker an x amount of money plus interest. This country now uses these weapons to fight a war. The weapons get used up. The banker wants his original amount back plus the interest. Where would this money come from? The citizens? But who pays the citizens? Their government. Really? No! The citizens have to work to produce goods. Goods get sold for profit... citizen gets paid, many citizens pay government some of their earnings. Government now has money to pay banker for the weapons that got used up.
The banker has collected interest twice for the same money. Is that not fair? It costs money to build the bank and to pay all the employees and banker himself.
So, why are we supposed to be mad at the bankers? All they are doing is to make money work for them.
http://www.justiceplus.org/bankers.htm
I have no problem with that.
Perhaps it is the way they put that money to work that we should be concerned about. If a bank loans money to both sides of a conflict and the total cost of that conflict is $600B. The 3% charge for printing that money is $18B, the actual rate it is loaned out at could be higher than that. They want/need to keep money (at least a certain portion) in circulation, war is expensive, it can bring in a high return in a short period of time.
Google video should have this title "Banksters: Exposing the International Banking Elite", another good one is "Ring of Power".
Since darkbeaver is on dialup a normal search should get some text documents like this
http://syninfo.com/ian/sfg/sfg0009.html
(in part)
"Three Types Of Conquest
History reveals nations can be conquered by the use of one or more of three
methods. The most common is conquest by war. In time, though, this method
usually falls, because the captives hate the captors and rise up and drive
them out if they can. Much force is needed to maintain control, making it
expensive for the conquering nation.
A second method is by religion, where men are convinced they must give their
captors part of their earnings as "obedience to God." Such a captivity is
vulnerable to philosophical exposure or by overthrow by armed force, since
religion by its nature lacks military force to regain control, once its
captives become "disillusioned."
The third method can be called economic conquest. It takes place when
nations are placed under "tribute" without the use of visible force or
coercion, so that the victims do not realize they have been conquered.
"Tribute" is collected from them in the form of "legal" debts and taxes, and
they believe they are paying it for their own good, for the good of others,
or to protect all from some enemy. Their captors become their "benefactors"
and "protectors." Although this is the slowest to impose, it is often quite
long-lasting, as the captives do not see any military force arrayed against
them, their religion is left more or less intact, they have freedom to speak
and to travel, and they participate in "elections" for their rulers. Without
realizing it, they are conquered, and the instruments of their own society
are used to transfer their wealth to their captors and make the conquest
complete. In 1900 the average American worker paid few taxes and had
little
debt."
When the World Bank makes a loan to a 3rd world country it usually take
their natural resources as collateral. If that loan is to be repaid via
income from the sale of oil (for example) everything is fine as long
as oil remains high, if that price crashes the loan cannot be repaid.
Collateral can be anything, land, water, the thing is the bankers have enough influence
that they can cause events that make sure that loan cannot be repaid.
Once they have their collateral the price for that item can rise a lot.
It's one thing to have all the money, but if you have the money and
control what items are worth, well the rest of the people are your slaves.
Hi, MHz...
in summary, could you and I agree with Jefferson?
http://www.heartcom.org/banksters.htm
in summary, could you and I agree with Jefferson?
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
to our liberties than standing armies."---Thomas Jefferson
to our liberties than standing armies."---Thomas Jefferson
http://www.heartcom.org/banksters.htm
I would agree with that. A standing army is nothing to throw rocks at either though.
If you want to do a little reading, goto http://prairieboys.com/ and click on publications. The e-book is about what one person went through when dealing with banks, in this case the Alberta Treasury Bank. 3 of the 5 articles cover the same topic. An interesting and true story, Banksters and the Prairie Boys.
While International bankers have the ultimate power, even at the lower levels everyday citizens can have a bad time when bankers enter the picture. The worst part of ATB is that the taxpayers are on the hook for their loses, or they were the last time I looked it up.
If you want to do a little reading, goto http://prairieboys.com/ and click on publications. The e-book is about what one person went through when dealing with banks, in this case the Alberta Treasury Bank. 3 of the 5 articles cover the same topic. An interesting and true story, Banksters and the Prairie Boys.
While International bankers have the ultimate power, even at the lower levels everyday citizens can have a bad time when bankers enter the picture. The worst part of ATB is that the taxpayers are on the hook for their loses, or they were the last time I looked it up.
" "negotiate with terrorists." ... He then compared such a strategy to speaking with Hitler and the Nazis ""
There is a great irony to all this in that the majority world view is that Bush is the closest thing to Hitler in modern history! Sadly, the world's appeasement of Bush is what is stimulaitng him to threaten Iran and to promote more war.
There is a great irony to all this in that the majority world view is that Bush is the closest thing to Hitler in modern history! Sadly, the world's appeasement of Bush is what is stimulaitng him to threaten Iran and to promote more war.
you are so right. That speech in israel was so embarrassing, as he was in front of the
Israeli parliament, and he began to do domestic political trashing instead of addressing
the palestinian/israeli situation which they were waiting for him to do.
The israelis were dissapointed with his speech.
I was impressed with Obama's speech this morning which addressed the imeptness of
george bush and john mc cain.
Israeli parliament, and he began to do domestic political trashing instead of addressing
the palestinian/israeli situation which they were waiting for him to do.
The israelis were dissapointed with his speech.
I was impressed with Obama's speech this morning which addressed the imeptness of
george bush and john mc cain.
Bush came to Israel to patronize his big money donors and then promptly went to Saudi Arabia to hold hands with King Abdulla and get the bad news that the oil production would not be increased but "Oh by the way, George, leave the satchell with the tribute you pay me in the corner, would you." That was the only thing accomplished there. The Arabs can't stand us but they sure like our money and our women.
The "right" interpretation of Bush's speech:
Today, President Bush in his address to the Israeli Knesset, made several magnanimous remarks intended at making the Israeli people feel a sense of accomplishment on both their sixtieth anniversary of statehood and their surviving the horror of the Holocaust under Nazi Germany.
Unless you work for the administration of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's a commonly held, mainstream historical opinion that the Munich Agreement of 1938 between Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy enabled Hitler to ready himself for conquest of not only the rest of Czechoslovakia, but all of Europe. The lesson we all learned in History 101 was that you don't negotiate with tyrants, you resist them. Hence, President Bush's comments to the Knesset in which he said:
Again, what is the context of this speech? Bush is speaking to the Jews on the occasion of their sixtieth anniversary, a people who are profoundly and quite sensitively aware of the fallout – six million human beings converted to air pollution in Nazi crematoriums – from a failed appeasement strategy.
Yet, in all this, who would have known that out of the blue, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, would have decloaked himself and claimed that Bush's speech was actually a cheap shot against him!
To quote Hamlet, "What! Frighted by false fire?" Surely Barack Hussein Obama must have a guilty conscience or at the minimum a fragile self esteem, because nowhere in that speech does Bush make mention of him.
COCKTAIL PARTY EFFECT, FREUDIAN SLIP, MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, YOU DECIDE!
(See the President's full speech in context here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....e-19d1d92a4a6a
Today, President Bush in his address to the Israeli Knesset, made several magnanimous remarks intended at making the Israeli people feel a sense of accomplishment on both their sixtieth anniversary of statehood and their surviving the horror of the Holocaust under Nazi Germany.
Unless you work for the administration of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's a commonly held, mainstream historical opinion that the Munich Agreement of 1938 between Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy enabled Hitler to ready himself for conquest of not only the rest of Czechoslovakia, but all of Europe. The lesson we all learned in History 101 was that you don't negotiate with tyrants, you resist them. Hence, President Bush's comments to the Knesset in which he said:
When I heard Bush's comments, my first thoughts as a political scientist regarding the "some who seem to believe we should negotiate" was that it was a generalized statement towards supporters of peace at any price doctrine, as evidenced by his historical reference to Senator Joseph Kennedy and his implicit reference to Neville Chamberlain's infamous role in procuring what he called "peace for our time" via the Munich Agreement.
Again, what is the context of this speech? Bush is speaking to the Jews on the occasion of their sixtieth anniversary, a people who are profoundly and quite sensitively aware of the fallout – six million human beings converted to air pollution in Nazi crematoriums – from a failed appeasement strategy.
Yet, in all this, who would have known that out of the blue, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, would have decloaked himself and claimed that Bush's speech was actually a cheap shot against him!
To quote Hamlet, "What! Frighted by false fire?" Surely Barack Hussein Obama must have a guilty conscience or at the minimum a fragile self esteem, because nowhere in that speech does Bush make mention of him.
COCKTAIL PARTY EFFECT, FREUDIAN SLIP, MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, YOU DECIDE!
(See the President's full speech in context here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....e-19d1d92a4a6a