20th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq

No he nor they made the argument that Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attack.

You have yet to cite him stating that Saddam had a role in the attack, please do so.

 

They weren't and no it wouldn't. The 9/11 attack was just one of MANY AQ operations. You have claimed Bush stated Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attack and since then you have shift to vague innuendo trying to create something.

Cite Bush stating this.

 

I think the poster can speak for themselves.

 

Bush openly and factually talked about Hussein's connections and interfacing with terrorist organizations including al Qaeda, but he never ever tied Hussein to 9/11.

 

You missed it?

He spoke not only of just the military complex for the scientific complex. Of how vital and necessary are both and how we must maintain them but with that BALANCE of the citizenry because either could tip that scale of balance we must always be aware. It was not an attack on either.

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

 

You are confusing international trade and relations with globalism.

International trade has always been based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of each nation to determine their own parameters and agreements in trade, and self determination in law and culture.

Globalism as defined by the globalists is intended to destroy national sovereignty and impose top-down international socioeconomic control over all nations.

As Richard Gardner wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1974,

The ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…, an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault…” (Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order, Foreign Affairs, April 1974.)

-------------------------------

They've been working for decades to attack our economy, subvert our rule of law, erase our borders, weaken our culture, and ultimately destroy our Constitution as a means of ultimately making us submit to top-down global governance - in whatever form they can initially achieve it.

As I said, they've been writing about these things for decades.

 

that wasn't the point. The point was the conspiracy theories, namely and specifically, the antisemitic conspiracy theories you are citing, whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

[/QUOTE]

Then we disagree on what is globalism and this shadow "they" group.

 

I'd hardly call the CFR a "shadow" group. You can read they're treasonous BS if you want. And since every who's who since 1922 has always belonged to this "shadow" group - I reckon they carry a little clout.

Every President, Sec. of State, Federal Reserve, Harvard, Yale, military, media, etc, etc.

It boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people simply can't see that our nations decline/demise is intentional, for very logical and rational reasons - from the perspective of the globalists.

The average citizen is incredibly naive.

 

Not "theories", facts.

You can't refute, comment on in good faith, or debate in context anything I say, so you disparage and dismiss - typical.

All the while America keeps circling the toilet bowl, while Americans bicker about why, but only within prescribed parameters that lead to no understanding.

I've already told you - read Quigley if you have any curiosity as to what got us into this mess.

I'm sure you're a fan of Bill Clinton... well, Quigley mentored Clinton, so maybe reading his books might open your eyes??

I don't agree with Bill Clinton or Carroll Quigley on anything, but I read his books because I wanted understand why our government and economic system are so F***ed up.

Bill Clinton became President of the United States - maybe he was on to something?? Ya think??

 

That seems an odd response...but...OK.

 

Ooops.... I claim temporary disfuzzlement.

 

Happens to the best of us....

 

Oh I've been reading about them for the past 50 years.

 

The CFR isn't the hub of influence and treasonous activity it used to be, but it is still an Establishment institution, and it's purpose is definitely to influence those who are invited in to adopt ever more globalist views that chip away at our sovereignty.

In 1921 when it was founded, it was primarily made up of the most influential lawyers, Wall Street heavyweights, and international banking, central banking people.

Their purpose was to use their money, power and influence to effectively takeover all of America's matters related to foreign relations.

In short order they were able to gain complete control of the State Department.

From there they expanded their outreach to bring in influential people from other fields, most notably - the military, media, academia, and politics.

Admiral Chester Ward was recruited into membership, but resigned in disgust after seeing behind the curtain. Admiral Ward was a patriotic man and wanted no part of what he saw. In 1975 he wrote the following,

“[the CFR has as a goal] submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.… this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.… In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First’” (Admiral Chester Ward, Kissinger on the Couch, pp.144-150. 1975.)

-------------------------------------

The CFR is just a convenient place to start pulling on the thread.

Today, we are so far removed from the principles our country was founded upon that collapse is inevitable.

Once there, the globalists will move quickly to deliver us into a system of global governance.

 

It's been proved scientifically that the OCT is a lie - look up The Hulsey Report form University of Alaska Fairbanks.

 

An excellent paper, if you can find it (the original link is currently down), is The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel by Stephen J. Sniegoski (2003). Here a a few key paragraphs:


In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote,

It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state.

Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests?

To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel.

For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: "Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy." And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote:

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him. But the style is the same."

To understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is first necessary to take a brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of expelling (or, in the accepted euphemism, "transferring") the indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. Historian Tom Segev writes:

The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... "Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer — or its morality.

However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to lose the world's sympathy."

It was during the 1980s, with the coming to power of the right-wing Likud government, that the idea of expulsion or "Disappearing" the Arabs resurfaced publicly. And this time it was directly tied to a larger war, with destabilization of the Middle East seen as a precondition for Palestinian expulsion. Such a proposal, including removal of the Palestinian population, was outlined in an article by Oded Yinon, titled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," appearing in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982. Yinon had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The article called for Israel to bring about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings. Thinking along those lines, Ariel Sharon stated on March 24, 1988, that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide "the circumstances" for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel proper.

Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi critiqued the war/expulsion scenario — referring to "Israeli intentions to impose a Pax Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them harshly" — in his very significant work, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal, given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the weakest Arab state — Lebanon — will disabuse people of similar ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to achieve the overall goal.

-----------------------​

Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s" is expanded upon here:

The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

Hmmm, the dissolution of Iraq into small units... now doesn't that ring true...

 

shock and awe baby! america can flatten tin pot dictators who never attacked the usa.

 

I've read most of Kissinger's books, he is an incredibly intelligent man. And what misguided tragedy our invasion of Iraq was, it led to Obama who corrupted the FBI and Federal Agencies, and attacked his successor like has never occurred in the history of our peaceful transitions of power.

Kissinger Surveys the World as He Turns 100

'The great strategist sees a globe riven by U.S.-China competition and threatened by fearsome new weapons and explains why he now thinks Ukraine should be in NATO.'

'What Mr. Kissinger sees when he looks at the world today is “disorder.” Almost all “major countries,” he says, “are asking themselves about their basic orientation. Most of them have no internal orientation, and are in the process of changing or adapting to the new circumstances”—by which he means a world riven by competition between the U.S. and China. Big countries such as India, and also a lot of “subordinate” ones, “do not have a dominant view of what they want to achieve in the world.” They wonder if they should “modify” the actions of the superpowers (a word Mr. Kissinger says he hates), or strive for “a degree of autonomy.”'

HE EXPLAINS HOW NATION'S THINK AND ACT DIPLOMATICALLY:

“The French approach to discussion is to convince their adversary or their opposite number of his stupidity.”

'The British “try to draw you into their intellectual framework and to persuade you. The French try to convince you of the inadequacy of your thinking.”'

'“The American view of itself is righteousness. We believe we are unselfish, that we have no purely national objectives, and also that our national objectives are achieved in foreign policy with such difficulty that when we expose them to modification through discussion, we get resentful of opponents.” And so “we expect that our views will carry the day, not because we think we are intellectually superior, but because we think the views in themselves should be dominant. It’s an expression of strong moral feelings coupled with great power. But it’s usually not put forward as a power position.”'

OTHER NATION'S DO NOT BUY OUR ASSERTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS:

'“No, of course not.” Does Xi Jinping buy it? “No, absolutely not. That is the inherent difference between us.” Mr. Xi is stronger globally than any previous Chinese leader, and he has “confronted, in the last two U.S. presidents,” men who “want to exact concessions from China and announce them as concessions.” This is quite the wrong approach: “I think the art is to present relations with China as a mutual concern in which agreements are made because both parties think it is best for themselves. That’s the technique of diplomacy that I favor.”'

HE SEES BIDEN'S CHINA POLICY AS AS BAD AS TRUMPS

“It’s been very much the same. The policy is to declare China as an adversary, and then to exact from the adversary concessions that we think will prevent it from carrying out its domineering desires.”

“I see China, in the power it represents, as a dangerous potential adversary.” He puts notable stress on the qualifier. “I think it may come to conflict. Here we have two societies with a global historic view, though different culture, confronting each other.”

He says he wouldn't have supported the Iraq war if he had known that they did not have nuclear weapons and that we planned a long occupation to reform their society.

https://theworld.org/stories/2014-0...orted-iraq-war-if-hed-known-what-he-knows-now