Warnings from world leaders all within 72 hours

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
uh huh. Nobody who says crap like that actually KNOWS Any soldiers do they? Thats the problem with conspiracy theories about soldiers in a long term democracy becoming agents of a new world order.

How exactly is it you plan to convince these average normal people that its in their best interest to not only get shot at, but to shoot their childhood friends and neighbours?

At the post above:

Its wrong in the first few sentances, thats not what De Jure means at all. If they can't get basic english right when explaining something, why should I waste an hour?
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
uh huh. Nobody who says crap like that actually KNOWS Any soldiers do they? Thats the problem with conspiracy theories about soldiers in a long term democracy becoming agents of a new world order.

I know plenty.... but if you thought my above post was supposed to be serious, then it isn't I who has the problems with facing conspiracies, be that semi-factual or farce.

But as a serious question: Why isn't there as much coverage as there once was? Things going bad over there or something? In Coverage, I mean footage of our soldiers actually doing stuff. Some claim it's becoming too dangerous for the media to tag along these days due to the insecurity over there in recent years..... but that should say all that is needed to be said if you ask me..... AKA: The war is not getting any better.
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Soc, you underestimate the power of both Russia and China, but I agree with your last statement...

Good pal Risus good day to you, Russia’s history has been writhen in human blood, the KGB were and to this day still are nothing but communist thugs, Chinese history as well many have died on the altar of sacrifice for peace and they as well are ignorant commy thugs, US no deferent history of bigotry, thugery around the world, all and all three over grown rats....................... that have taken a giant crap on humanity…….many times over……..
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I know plenty.... but if you thought my above post was supposed to be serious, then it isn't I who has the problems with facing conspiracies, be that semi-factual or farce.

But as a serious question: Why isn't there as much coverage as there once was? Things going bad over there or something? In Coverage, I mean footage of our soldiers actually doing stuff. Some claim it's becoming too dangerous for the media to tag along these days due to the insecurity over there in recent years..... but that should say all that is needed to be said if you ask me..... AKA: The war is not getting any better.

It wasn't at you, but on to your question:

You appear to have the media backwards. If things were going badly, there would be more media coverage. People want to see the bad.

People don't want to see the boring empty stretches of third world wasteland and people getting help and or being ignored. No reporters go to Africa and show the humanitarian work (or lack there of) for a reason. Its boring and people are shallow.

There is less coverage of Afghanistan, because by and large its quieting down, its not exciting anymore. It won't get ratings.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Fair enough... but on the flip side, if there is very little coverage of the good things happening there and all we hear are the deaths, or the random ambush, or random car bombing, people will eventually start to question "Why are we there again?" which would probably end up doing more harm then good when it comes to overall support.

As I see it anyways.

If people start to feel it's not that important of an issue to be putting in the news, then people won't think it's that important if we stay.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
The media is not interested (one way or the other) about the best interests of the nation. They are an entertainment medium. If the media was truly something different, it wouldn't have commercials playing (or at least making profit from them), it would be a non-profit charity.
 

Albertabound

Electoral Member
Sep 2, 2006
555
2
18
You make it sound like the media decides what they print and what they don't. In war all media is edited and revised by the defense ministry. You only get to see what they want you to see.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Good pal Risus good day to you, Russia’s history has been writhen in human blood, the KGB were and to this day still are nothing but communist thugs, Chinese history as well many have died on the altar of sacrifice for peace and they as well are ignorant commy thugs, US no deferent history of bigotry, thugery around the world, all and all three over grown rats....................... that have taken a giant crap on humanity…….many times over……..
Maybe they are commie thugs, and I don't condone all the blood shed, but still you can't underestimate their power. They will rise to a top world power. No question about it.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It wasn't at you, but on to your question:

You appear to have the media backwards. If things were going badly, there would be more media coverage. People want to see the bad. --------Not even close.

People don't want to see the boring empty stretches of third world wasteland and people getting help and or being ignored. No reporters go to Africa and show the humanitarian work (or lack there of) for a reason. Its boring and people are shallow.

There is less coverage of Afghanistan, because by and large its quieting down, its not exciting anymore. It won't get ratings.
I can quote several hundred coalition officers diplomats and reporters who disagree. Afghanistan has never been covered properly by Canadian journalists because we don't allow it to happen and if it does it's kept off the big screens by news of Timmies in Afghanistan and the construction of nonexistant schools and industries.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I doubt it. The wave of the future is states giving up more and more autonomy under the guise of 'trading blocs' - EU, NAFTA etc and their relationships with one another. I don't think China and the US will be on the same after the NWO is established. I think the closest China will come to siding with America is forming alliences with South America.

I disagree, the thirty year period we are just exiting is the classic case of surrendered state autonomy, economic, cultural and military. The NWO I think most likely to emerge will be strong state and regional economic and security zones following general global economic contraction. Uncle Sam has all the allies it's ever likely to get and it will increasingly experiance great difficulty holding those alliances together when every one of them with notable exceptions is desperate to decouple from the American wreck and the neo-liberal capitalist nightmare as fast as they can arrange it. IMO
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
I disagree, the thirty year period we are just exiting is the classic case of surrendered state autonomy, economic, cultural and military. The NWO I think most likely to emerge will be strong state and regional economic and security zones following general global economic contraction. Uncle Sam has all the allies it's ever likely to get and it will increasingly experiance great difficulty holding those alliances together when every one of them with notable exceptions is desperate to decouple from the American wreck and the neo-liberal capitalist nightmare as fast as they can arrange it. IMO

I don't agree given that many weaker states have something to gain from strengthening supranational style governments. Members of the EU certaily have. Some might just be to far gone to gain any momentum, though.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I don't agree given that many weaker states have something to gain from strengthening supranational style governments. Members of the EU certaily have. Some might just be to far gone to gain any momentum, though.

We will see what emerges in the place capitalist hegemony, if it dosen't get too bloody, which I'm far from convinced that it won't. I'm hoping for a multi-multipolar world, certainly the EU has geography on it's side and a long history of interconnectivity. I'm very worried about Canadas near future our favourite trading partner has terminal problems that very likely will drag us down with them. I don't relish the near term Said1, our position is bloody awfull in my opinion.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
We will see what emerges in the place capitalist hegemony, if it dosen't get too bloody, which I'm far from convinced that it won't. I'm hoping for a multi-multipolar world, certainly the EU has geography on it's side and a long history of interconnectivity. I'm very worried about Canadas near future our favourite trading partner has terminal problems that very likely will drag us down with them. I don't relish the near term Said1, our position is bloody awfull in my opinion.

Don't be so pessemistic. How much more integration will Canadians put up with? As far as I'm concerned, John Manley can take a flying you know what with his 'Task Force on North America'. He's a supranationalist. That's the new buzz word for the milenneum. And remember, you heard it here first! :lol:
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
We will see what emerges in the place capitalist hegemony, if it dosen't get too bloody, which I'm far from convinced that it won't. I'm hoping for a multi-multipolar world, certainly the EU has geography on it's side and a long history of interconnectivity. I'm very worried about Canadas near future our favourite trading partner has terminal problems that very likely will drag us down with them. I don't relish the near term Said1, our position is bloody awfull in my opinion.

The thing I find amazing is that there is no need for any of this. We don't need giant trading blocks, free trade, etc, it is amazingly harmful to us, our environment and well being. We are being sold a bill of goods by way of smoke and mirrors that somehow this is all good for us and will make our lives better. The magicians behind the curtain have us, like frogs in headlights, and we are daily increasing the weight of the chains that bind us in servitude to them.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Don't be so pessemistic. How much more integration will Canadians put up with? As far as I'm concerned, John Manley can take a flying you know what with his 'Task Force on North America'. He's a supranationalist. That's the new buzz word for the milenneum. And remember, you heard it here first! :lol:

Well the putupwithidness depends on our weaponry and stealth to some extent, since we have neither we are fornicated. Mr Manley and Mr Emerson and the rest of the supranationals should be charged with treason like the law says. Supranationalist is a big buzzword, it's clumsey I prefer fascist it's shorter and easier to spell.:lol:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The thing I find amazing is that there is no need for any of this. We don't need giant trading blocks, free trade, etc, it is amazingly harmful to us, our environment and well being. We are being sold a bill of goods by way of smoke and mirrors that somehow this is all good for us and will make our lives better. The magicians behind the curtain have us, like frogs in headlights, and we are daily increasing the weight of the chains that bind us in servitude to them.
Hey, it's just good business they're not interested in the welfare of anything but accounts. My goodness it's half past toke! talk later must reach smooooooooke
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
A Secret Revival Plan for the November 15 G-20 Summit

According to Webster Tarpley (on Rense.com, 11/10/08), a "British (and, of course, Washington) steered....confidential strategy paper (aims) to impose (an IMF) dictatorship on the entire planet, wiping out all hope of economic recovery, the modernization of the developing countries, and national sovereignty" as well.

It proposes the usual form of IMF orthodoxy - "austerity, sacrifice, deregulation, privatization, union busting, wage reductions, free trade, the race to the bottom, and prohibitions on advanced technologies." Quite literally an agenda from hell. So outlandish that BRIC countries are reportedly objecting - Brazil, Russia, India and China. China wants policies of the type it may pursue in its just announced $586 fiscal stimulus plan - for various internal needs like infrastructure. The IMF plan is mirror opposite in its five points. To:

(1) "require the credit rating agencies to be registered and monitored and submit to rules of governance;

(2) halt the principle of a convergence of accounting standards and re-examine the application of the fair market value rule in the financial field, so as to improve its coherence with the rules of prudence and conservatism;

(3) resolve that no market segment, territory, or financial institution shall escape from a proportionate and adequate regulation, or at the least, surveillance;

(4) set up a code of conduct to avoid excessive risk-taking in the financial industry, including in the area of compensation. Supervisors will have to follow this code in evaluating the risk profiles of financial institutions; (and)

(5) entrust to the IMF the primary responsibility, along with the FSF (Financial Stability Forum - Basel), to recommend the necessary measures to restore confidence and stability.

The IMF must be equipped with the essential resources and suitable instruments to support countries in difficulty, and to exert its role of macroeconomic surveillance to the fullest."

Translation: This is a Washington-UK-IMF scheme to increase their collective power at the expense of and to the detriment of the civilized world. An attempt to suck more of its wealth to the top by extracting it from all others.

Economist Michael Hudson reports that 1% of the US population owns 70% of its wealth, a huge increase over earlier periods. This plan aims to increase it. To turn the US and world economies into banana republics. To make its workers de facto serfs. To crush competition and empower corporate giants. Mostly ones in America.

To end any hope for progressive change at a time all humanity craves it. To revive Chicago School fundamentalism when it's totally discredited. To step back from a new direction that appears little more than a pipe dream. To harden the old failed one and suck us deeper into its quicksand.

It's hoped enough nations will balk, render this scheme dead on arrival, and consign it back to its hellish origins. The alternative is a view of our future. One too disturbing to imagine. That no one should tolerate and be willing to be disruptingly defiant enough to prevent.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Global Economic Tremors