Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > Politics / Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 25-09-2012, 09:44 AM   #21
ritchs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ultima Thule
Posts: 7,588
Likes: 422 (225 Posts)
Default

I agree that attacking Iran will be an act of lunacy.
They have missiles that can cover much of the mid east and possibly into much of Europe

They have (3) kilo class submarines purchased from Russia.
They have many ships of various type. A weak navy compare to USSA and the former USSR. But they have enough grit to take an eye out of any of the giant countries leaving them with one eye

tinyint is correct. I would reckon they should not be fucked with, its really insane when you think about it. And the fact that TPTB have thought about it and still want to attack them confirms they are psychopaths of the first degree

Disregarding nuclear missiles altogether, a few dirty bombs, air-bust, of Anthrax is not pleasant to comtemplate

They could send Europe back to the Dark Ages of the Plague

Mitt would have an erection thinking about that. Obummer will do as he is told, like Mittens






__________________
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

Last edited by ritchs; 25-09-2012 at 09:48 AM.
ritchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 11:42 AM   #22
joho
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Today's News
Posts: 1,525
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

that is why the real reason for sanctions has been to weaken them obviously the real people in charge do not feel they are weak enough yet
joho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 01:40 PM   #23
motleyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,987
Likes: 787 (355 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by himitsunomiko View Post
They have different ideas on how to run things, so I don't really see how you can say it will be the same no matter what when even their core principles are different.
Because their ideas on how to run things is a paper veneer being used to make you think there's a real difference between the two. When you look at who is financing, backing, and promoting their campaigns, these are who they will be beholden to after they're elected, and they're both almost exactly the same - corporations, Wall Street, and the big banks. Bring in the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Their "core principles" are all emotional wedge issues that they use to divide people. These "core principles" are ideologies, they're not what's actually wrong with the country. We're not broke and have a corrupt govt because of gay marriage, obamacare, abortion, or the environment, but these are the issues they want you to focus on while your economic future and your human liberties are being stolen from you.

.
__________________
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it ... It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." -- Thomas Paine
motleyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 01:44 PM   #24
motleyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,987
Likes: 787 (355 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mind radio View Post
why dont you vote for the candidate that will repeal the anticonstitutional ndaa, or the candidate that will stop spending half the economic resources on expansionist wars? What about the candidate that says liberty is more important than security or that tsa searches will be declared illegal? You know which candidate i mean, the one that really does intend to operate under the constitution. The candidate that really does believe in freedom, republic and democracy. You know the candidate that no party political wing of the single party state will put because it will broadcast the wrong message to an increasingly dumbed down sheeple. Election 2012: We are the sheeple!
boom!

.
__________________
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it ... It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." -- Thomas Paine
motleyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 09:56 AM   #25
david chow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 236
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arcyclus View Post
I don't think Romney is any more of a warmonger than obama. Obama has a statistic of being a warmonger. Romney does not.

As far as the Zionist thing goes, with all the groveling these two have done before Israel,
It's hard to say, who is more of a Zionist.
Obama is by no means a warmonger. If you really seen it feasible for him to pull out all of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan then you are either a strategic genius or simply clueless as to how that would work. However, Romney is a warmonger. Romney openly supports war with Iran and even more alarming, he supports a full confrontation with China(I'm not speaking of invading China, let's keep it realistic). Check into his China policy and what he plans on doing. Romney would seriously attack China in many ways economically to start off his term. He would openly support military intervention in any pacific conflict or standoff that has to do with China. He would not hesitate to go to war with China.

It would all be interesting to see, too bad Obama will be serving his second term.
david chow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 10:53 AM   #26
david chow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 236
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritchs View Post
I agree that attacking Iran will be an act of lunacy.
They have missiles that can cover much of the mid east and possibly into much of Europe

They have (3) kilo class submarines purchased from Russia.
They have many ships of various type. A weak navy compare to USSA and the former USSR. But they have enough grit to take an eye out of any of the giant countries leaving them with one eye

tinyint is correct. I would reckon they should not be fucked with, its really insane when you think about it. And the fact that TPTB have thought about it and still want to attack them confirms they are psychopaths of the first degree

Disregarding nuclear missiles altogether, a few dirty bombs, air-bust, of Anthrax is not pleasant to comtemplate

They could send Europe back to the Dark Ages of the Plague

Mitt would have an erection thinking about that. Obummer will do as he is told, like Mittens

A war with Iran would be much quicker than you think. Every single detail about Iran's military and every location of interest has been locked on for years now. This "nuclear standoff" has been going on for years now, don't forget. They are not weak against comparable nations, but in this day and age they stand no chance of even giving a black eye to the U.S., let alone taking an eye out. There's plenty of unseen technology worthy of a test in a conflict with Iran. If this were a joint attack led by U.S. forces, Iran would be crippled after one week and the civilian casualties would be in the tens to hundreds of thousands unfortunately. Every avenue of Iranian retaliation(including options in the Strait of Hormuz) have been accounted for. The two areas of concern is Israel crying about not wanting to take the brunt of the Iranian retaliation(there's no way around that), and Iran's Basij tactics.

I am not personally labeling Iran the villain, it's just that their current regime and who they support has no place in the future(same scenario with Syria). That's not what I support, that's just me telling you what's going on and you have to trust in the bigger picture. IF we were planning on going to war with Iran in the coming months, Iran scrapping their nuclear programme would be the worst scenario for the U.S., Israel, and allies. Their nuclear programme is a blessing in disguise, it's the ticket in(without a false-flag even happening, nobody likes executing false-flags). This is about regime change and as long as Iran keeps up it's nuclear ambition, it will be the card used when attack does happen. If Iran does scrap it, they will be seen by their people as weak and lose a lot of support. If they keep it up(which they will for a little while longer), it's our excuse to take them out. It's a win-win.

Attack on Iran is not imminent. Until Syria's regime officially goes down, nothing is going to happen to Iran.

My personal view is that war with Iran will not happen on this grand scale. It doesn't need to. Syria's regime will fall by spring, making Iran the lone focus of the Middle East. The Iranian currency is already in free fall and it's only beginning. When Iran is convinced a U.S. led joint war is imminent, they will scrap their nuclear ambitions, probably sometime in late 2013. They will lose support of their people, unprecedented sanctions, and they will face the same uprising Syria is going through. Why go to war with a nation when you can force them to go war with themselves. I do believe the U.S. would intervene in an Iranian uprising though, Israel would stay out of it and rightfully so.

Last edited by david chow; 03-10-2012 at 10:59 AM.
david chow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 09:49 PM   #27
arcyclus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dreamland Villa
Posts: 11,620
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
Obama is by no means a warmonger.
The troop build ups, the daily drone killings, the covert ops, are all just obama blowing kisses and hugs to the rest of the world, Right?

"A bipartisan group of congressmen is filing a lawsuit against the president for pursuing an illegal war. The speaker of the House warned the Obama administration it would soon run up against a 90-day deadline, after which it will be “in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.” Who ever would have thought this would be happening to Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama?"

Read more: EDITORIAL: Obama, warmonger - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz28H8NDvB8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
If you really seen it feasible for him to pull out all of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan then you are either a strategic genius or simply clueless as to how that would work.
How does it work? Easy! You pull the troops out! Just like we did in Vietnam, Korea, WW2. No need to be a strategic genius or clueless, just pull the troops out.

It's easy to do when you don't have a warmongering agenda
__________________
"people don't like communism because they like to own stuff"!
-Frank Zappa

Last edited by arcyclus; 03-10-2012 at 09:53 PM.
arcyclus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 12:26 AM   #28
tenzingnorgay
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,441
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
Obama is by no means a warmonger. If you really seen it feasible for him to pull out all of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan then you are either a strategic genius or simply clueless as to how that would work. However, Romney is a warmonger. Romney openly supports war with Iran and even more alarming, he supports a full confrontation with China(I'm not speaking of invading China, let's keep it realistic). Check into his China policy and what he plans on doing. Romney would seriously attack China in many ways economically to start off his term. He would openly support military intervention in any pacific conflict or standoff that has to do with China. He would not hesitate to go to war with China.

It would all be interesting to see, too bad Obama will be serving his second term.
Obama is a warmonger who enjoys killing children with drones. If he didn't, he wouldn't be doing it.

Nothing that eitehr Obama or Romney says is honest. They are both palying to their voting base. Obama and Romney are owned by the same players. Neither one can take a shit without getting permission from their owners. All wars have to be cleared with their owners. Neither Obama nor Romney will be going to war unless their owners tell them to do so.
tenzingnorgay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 03:52 AM   #29
david chow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 236
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arcyclus View Post
The troop build ups, the daily drone killings, the covert ops, are all just obama blowing kisses and hugs to the rest of the world, Right?

"A bipartisan group of congressmen is filing a lawsuit against the president for pursuing an illegal war. The speaker of the House warned the Obama administration it would soon run up against a 90-day deadline, after which it will be “in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.” Who ever would have thought this would be happening to Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama?"

Read more: EDITORIAL: Obama, warmonger - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz28H8NDvB8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




How does it work? Easy! You pull the troops out! Just like we did in Vietnam, Korea, WW2. No need to be a strategic genius or clueless, just pull the troops out.

It's easy to do when you don't have a warmongering agenda
What war did Obama start? Obama didn't start any of these wars and the usage of drones has been going on before his term. He isn't a model for peace, but labeling him a warmonger isn't right, I wouldn't even label his predecessor a war monger, this is above them. Even though he is the president he is still not in the position to do the things you think are so easy to do. He simply can't just suddenly pull out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, no, it doesn't work that way. Theoretically if he could, the situation in those countries would be anarchy and on top of that we have a lot of investment especially with Afghanistan that would be lost. Understand the rare earth industry and it's importance in the future and you will see the fortune we now control.

The use of drone strikes is not Obama's idea. Sure you've heard he has to "authorize" these strikes, but this is purely military business. Think of it as the company Christmas letter you get with your boss's signature photocopied at the bottom, he sure as hell didn't personally send you that letter. Obama is not personally sending out these strikes, but he has to trust his military officers that they know what they are doing. He isn't the one devising or executing these strikes. Drone strikes are tragic if you ask me, and the truth is 99% of them are just for testing purposes. We are mastering the craft.
david chow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 04:00 AM   #30
david chow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 236
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay View Post
Obama is a warmonger who enjoys killing children with drones. If he didn't, he wouldn't be doing it.

Nothing that eitehr Obama or Romney says is honest. They are both palying to their voting base. Obama and Romney are owned by the same players. Neither one can take a shit without getting permission from their owners. All wars have to be cleared with their owners. Neither Obama nor Romney will be going to war unless their owners tell them to do so.
I can't disagree with most of what you said here. Big decisions like going to war or pulling out troops is something that is above the president and with that being said, I don't understand why you still consider Obama someone who enjoys "killing children". That's not true. Believe me he hates hearing about it when it happens. I know there are evil people out there in the military and beyond that do enjoy it, but Obama is not one of them. Neither is Romney, not even Bush.
david chow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 04:58 AM   #31
tenzingnorgay
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,441
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
What war did Obama start? Obama didn't start any of these wars and the usage of drones has been going on before his term. He isn't a model for peace, but labeling him a warmonger isn't right, I wouldn't even label his predecessor a war monger, this is above them. Even though he is the president he is still not in the position to do the things you think are so easy to do. He simply can't just suddenly pull out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, no, it doesn't work that way. Theoretically if he could, the situation in those countries would be anarchy and on top of that we have a lot of investment especially with Afghanistan that would be lost. Understand the rare earth industry and it's importance in the future and you will see the fortune we now control.

The use of drone strikes is not Obama's idea. Sure you've heard he has to "authorize" these strikes, but this is purely military business. Think of it as the company Christmas letter you get with your boss's signature photocopied at the bottom, he sure as hell didn't personally send you that letter. Obama is not personally sending out these strikes, but he has to trust his military officers that they know what they are doing. He isn't the one devising or executing these strikes. Drone strikes are tragic if you ask me, and the truth is 99% of them are just for testing purposes. We are mastering the craft.
Yes, of course our troops can be pulled out. That is an undeniable uncontested stone cold FACT. What happens after we leave is that those countries become free to sort out their problems. They were not our concern when we invaded and they are not our concern now. We do not own the Afghan rare earths.

Obama has invaded Pakistan and Yemen and helped NATO destroy Libya.

Obama is the one approving the unconstitutional and cowardly drone strikes that are killing children and civilians. He is the commander in chief. The buck stops with him.
tenzingnorgay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:00 AM   #32
tenzingnorgay
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,441
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
I can't disagree with most of what you said here. Big decisions like going to war or pulling out troops is something that is above the president and with that being said, I don't understand why you still consider Obama someone who enjoys "killing children". That's not true. Believe me he hates hearing about it when it happens. I know there are evil people out there in the military and beyond that do enjoy it, but Obama is not one of them. Neither is Romney, not even Bush.

If he didn't enjoy it, he would stop it. If I were President I would stop it. Yes, I might be taken out, but I still would not kill children. Obama is as evil as those who are telling him to kill children.
tenzingnorgay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:02 AM   #33
arcyclus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dreamland Villa
Posts: 11,620
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
What war did Obama start? Obama didn't start any of these wars and the usage of drones has been going on before his term. He isn't a model for peace, but labeling him a warmonger isn't right, I wouldn't even label his predecessor a war monger, this is above them. Even though he is the president he is still not in the position to do the things you think are so easy to do. He simply can't just suddenly pull out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, no, it doesn't work that way. Theoretically if he could, the situation in those countries would be anarchy and on top of that we have a lot of investment especially with Afghanistan that would be lost. Understand the rare earth industry and it's importance in the future and you will see the fortune we now control.

It's not about, "what war did obama start"? It's about, "what wars did obama support"? He supported many, and still does, and the list grows.

You are trying to polish a turd here. It is undeniable that obama supports war. Hence, warmonger!

Apparently you did not read the provided link above that tells of obama being brought to trial for, "illegal wars", where obama didn't seek congressional approval?

Yeah, that's right,....... obama himself wanted war. Here is something you can't blame on anyone other than obama (not even Congress).

Saying obama is not a warmonger is being ridiculous.

To argue it's not obama's fault on some kind of technicality about it being out of obama's hands, solves nothing, and doesn't say much about obama himself?

Is he or is he not the, "Commander and Chief?

If it happens during obama's time in office, obama did it! That is the way it has always been understood. If it happened during Bush's time in office, Bush did it!

That's the way the cookie crumbles!
__________________
"people don't like communism because they like to own stuff"!
-Frank Zappa

Last edited by arcyclus; 04-10-2012 at 05:19 AM.
arcyclus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:27 AM   #34
bobfitz2012
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 144
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Can't see Obama getting the boot.

He's in office already, he does what he's told and goes with the program - big time. If the money boys call for another war (or bailout, or civil liberties outrage), he'll go right along. It's not like he runs anything or has any real power. He's not even rich. So, what's the point of swapping him out for another puppet?

Obama's the nice face they put on the crimes. The folks on the right don't care about the crimes (Bush/Cheney fans) and the folks on the left refuse to see them with their guy in the White House (Clinton/Obama fans). It's a perfect set up.

Romney is an asshole with asshole money and asshole friends, Mormon baggage, and a stone freak of a father whose skeleton is just waiting to jump out of the closet and rattle around the oval office. Plus, Ryan...ain't no Cheney.

So all they can do is screw things up. Obama's in for four more years, the beat goes on.
__________________
Dedicated to the proposition
bobfitz2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:34 AM   #35
blissed
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 319
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Both of them will fuck us over. Can I say the word "fuck" on this forum? lol

It's a little surprising anyone has any faith in them at all on a conspiracy forum. They all have the same agenda. I think in both cases the rich will stay rich and the poor will get more poor. Though I think a lot of the rich could lose wealth too.

You can't blame the presidents totally though. It takes a team effort to severely fuck over the world.
blissed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:34 AM   #36
saint_frankenstein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ohio, to my misfortune.
Posts: 4,345
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david chow View Post
I don't understand why you still consider Obama someone who enjoys "killing children". That's not true. Believe me he hates hearing about it when it happens. I know there are evil people out there in the military and beyond that do enjoy it, but Obama is not one of them. Neither is Romney, not even Bush.
And how the hell do you know that? Big league politicians are usually psychopaths. The psychology of psychopathy is the best fit to achieve success in a political career in America.

If they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't be lying and getting us into wars we don't need, and drone bombing villages. They don't give a fuck, and they most likely get pleasure out of it on some level.

Last edited by saint_frankenstein; 04-10-2012 at 05:36 AM.
saint_frankenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:43 AM   #37
arcyclus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dreamland Villa
Posts: 11,620
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobfitz2012 View Post
Can't see Obama getting the boot.

He's in office already, he does what he's told and goes with the program - big time. If the money boys call for another war (or bailout, or civil liberties outrage), he'll go right along. It's not like he runs anything or has any real power. He's not even rich. So, what's the point of swapping him out for another puppet?

Obama's the nice face they put on the crimes. The folks on the right don't care about the crimes (Bush/Cheney fans) and the folks on the left refuse to see them with their guy in the White House (Clinton/Obama fans). It's a perfect set up.

Romney is an asshole with asshole money and asshole friends, Mormon baggage, and a stone freak of a father whose skeleton is just waiting to jump out of the closet and rattle around the oval office. Plus, Ryan...ain't no Cheney.

So all they can do is screw things up. Obama's in for four more years, the beat goes on.
Why anyone would consider obama for a second term is beyond me. Obama has given us NDAA and a 1.7 trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class.

Now, you can bad mouth Romney and speculate on how bad his presidency would be?

But you got to admit....obama is a hard act to follow. Even by Satan's standards.

Not just any ol' one can dream up, indefinite detention of Americans with no recourse to trial, and the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

"judge them by their fruits". Obama's Tax increase and NDAA comes from a mind that hates Americans.
__________________
"people don't like communism because they like to own stuff"!
-Frank Zappa
arcyclus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 01:37 PM   #38
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

Romeny
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19824465
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:38 PM   #39
springcleaningyet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 559
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
springcleaningyet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 09:08 PM   #40
himitsunomiko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 4,061
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Puh-Lease, Romney's debate was full of lies. Sure, Obama wasn't on his a-game, but it came nowhere close to a "fucking".
himitsunomiko is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.