 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
–Question 1:
Background: The aims of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II period were essentially to enforce a global system in which the Western powers under American leadership would maintain global dominance. This essentially meant being in control of the world’s resources at the expense of non-Western nations.
This fundamental objective of U.S. foreign policy in the post-war period shines through with bare-knuckled candor in a TOP SECRET policy document written by George Kennan in February 1948. He was head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, and this was its first memorandum. Here is an excerpt:
“We have about 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. … Our real task in the coming period is to maintain this position of disparity. … To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming. … We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism. … We should cease to talk about vague, unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we will have to deal in straight power concepts.”
Lead-in: Five years after approval of the basic policy aim of controlling more than our share of “the world’s wealth,” the policy was implemented by throwing millions of dollars at the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran. You see, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh had the revolutionary, unacceptable notion that more of the profits from Iranian oil should stay in Iran for the Iranian people and not simply go to oil giants like the predecessor of British Petroleum (BP).
The Question: Do you think we had a right to overthrow the leader of Iran in 1953? And would you again give millions of dollars to the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government under your presidency?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Answer:
We have no collective right, that is a very big lie, a very effective method of turning Honest Productive People into accessories to legalized crime; just as the Nazi propaganda had done in it's time - big lies for big crimes. The total for the German form of Legal Crime was roughly 6 million legally murdered and tortured. A bigger lie was used in Russia, by Stalin, and all the accessories to those crimes, there, where the total was roughly 20 million.
There is no such thing as a collective right. There is a collective power, as all the people who are made to believe in the big lie send their hard earned surplus wealth to one big pot of wealth, which is power, and then someone, or some group, spend that power. When they spend that power they spend it on whatever works to keep the power flowing to them, they are not shackled down by any chains of morality, or right, or anything whatsoever, other than a greater power, such as the power that can be collected among an informed populace.
It is past time to stop believing in these lies, and to stop providing the means by which we suffer, sending our hard earned power to criminals so that they can pass laws that allow them to perpetually commit crimes upon us. Well past time to stop lying to ourselves, as you are doing with this loaded question.
Please stop the bullshit - it is worse than being counter-productive. It is downright destructive in nature. Lies are meant to injure. What volunteer to be injured - why read from the false script?
Next question.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
–Question 2
Background: Further on Iran: During the Dec. 5, 2006, Senate hearing on the nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense, he was questioned by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat to Israel if it did. Gates said that he believed Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and was lying when it said it wasn’t.
However, amazingly, Gates added that Iran’s motivation was largely self-defense. Sen. Graham asked: “Do you believe the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel?”
Gates replied: “I don’t know that they would do that, Senator. … And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.”
This remarkably candid reply explains Iran’s possible motive in seeking nuclear weapons as deterrence against aggression by nuclear powers in the region, including Israel and the United States. In other words, according to Gates, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons to prevent others from attacking it, rather than to attack other states — like Israel.
This comes close to saying that the U.S. should be able to live with a nuclear-armed Iran (and Israel should be able to as well). And, remember, all this talk is properly put in the subjunctive mood. It remains a very big IF; namely, on whether or not the Iranian leaders opt to go for a nuclear weapon.
We were formally reminded last March that the jury is still out on this key question. James R. Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, testified to Congress that the intelligence community judges that Iran has not yet made that decision. So, despite all the current media hype regarding Iran’s nuclear program, there remains some reason to hope against hype, so to speak.
In the above reply, Gates also acknowledged what U.S. officials officially seek to obfuscate: that Israel has nuclear weapons. Remember, that at the time of his confirmation hearing, Gates had already served as CIA director and held other senior national security position in several administrations.
He had been around long enough both to know the details of Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal and the longstanding U.S. policy NOT to acknowledge that Israel has nukes. That policy was designed to have the double benefit of not undermining Israel’s policy of studied ambiguity on the issue and of not requiring the U.S. to take a position for or against Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons and its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed.
America’s supposedly “objective” FCM also readily puts on the blinders when focusing on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program and simultaneously ignoring Israel’s real one. The truth is that there are no U.N. weapons inspectors crawling into crevices in Israel, as they regularly do in Iran.
Lead-in to question: A portion of intelligence funding goes to support intelligence analysis. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates worked in the analysis part of the CIA. [Actually, as an apprentice analyst 40 years ago, he worked in the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch that I led. His portfolio was Soviet policy toward the Middle East.]
Fast-forward 35 years to Dec. 5, 2006, when the Senate held a one-day hearing on Gates’s nomination to become Secretary of Defense. When Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Gates whether he thought the Iranians would consider a nuclear attack on Israel, Gates answered:
“I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.”
This is tell-it-like-it-is intelligence analysis [which exceeded my hopes as his erstwhile mentor]. It even included matter-of-fact mention of Israel’s nuclear capability, which President Barack Obama himself has refused to acknowledge. When Helen Thomas pressed the issue at Obama’s inaugural press conference (Feb. 9, 2009), the President awkwardly ducked the question, explaining he did not want to “speculate.”
The Question: Do you agree with Mr. Gates that Iran would see a nuclear capability “in the first instance as a deterrent?” And how many nuclear weapons do Western experts believe Israel has? President Carter has said 150, but that was some time ago.
A Follow-up: Let’s assume Iran does get a nuclear weapon: Do you think it would commit suicide by firing it off in the direction of Israel?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Answer:
More loaded questions. To presuppose that there is an entity that can act as one and at that same time that one entity is every person living in one area, such as Israel, or U.S.A., or Iran, is a big lie, a very big subliminal, unconscious, lie. One that big lie is exposed, and discarded, the question then becomes a simple power struggle concerning specific people who have names, and these specific people with names live on Earth, and they walk, and they talk, and they wear clothes, and they control such things as weapons of mass destruction. Who gave them the power to control weapons of mass destruction? Who would be so stupid as to give anyone, ever, a weapon of mass destruction? The answer is easy to see, and the answer is that no reasonable, honest, productive person would give a weapon of mass destruction to anyone were it in their power to do so, and therefore it can be known, by anyone with a brain, that the people who have control of these things are unreasonable, and they took these things, they had to have committed serious crimes against humanity to build these things, they are criminals, they have names, they live on Earth, and if their potential victims are ever going to avoid being victims the control over these things will be removed. These things will be removed, and disarmed, and they will never be produce again, or else.
If you don't like the truth, that is your problem, not mine. The truth is what it is, a weapon of mass production.
Lies are weapons of mass destruction - particularly these lies that presume absurdities such as the legitimacy of creating, maintaining, and the employing weapons of mass destruction - supposedly: "for their own good".
Whose own good?
Why do you read from the false script - whose paying you - how do you profit by such destructive behavior?
Next question:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
–Question 3
Background and Lead-In: This question deals with torture, an issue that has been given new life recently, with more and more Republican presidential candidates speaking in favor of it. We have surely come a long way since Virginia patriot Patrick Henry insisted passionately that “the rack and the screw,” as he put it, were barbaric practices that had to be left behind in the Old World, or we are “lost and undone.”
The Question: On Sept. 6, 2006, Gen. John Kimmons, then head of Army intelligence told reporters at the Pentagon, in unmistakable language: “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.”
Gen. Kimmons knew that President George W. Bush had decided to claim publicly, just two hours later, that the “alternative set of procedures” for interrogation — methods that Bush had approved, like water-boarding — were effective. Whom do you think we should believe: President Bush? Or Gen. Kimmons?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Answer:
With almost no exceptions the people who have stolen offices of the supposed government can be trusted to lie, they are hired to lie, that is their job. I know that George Bush lied, that is his job, what does that have to do with belief?
Patrick Henry blew the whistle on The Constitution, it was a usurpation from a working Democratic Federated Republic under The Articles of Confederation into a working Despotism (Legal Crime). There were, perhaps, more exceptions to the rule (Legal Criminals Lie) back in Patrick Henry's day compared to today.
Listening to, and heeding the warnings of, representatives who are hired to speak the truth has been effectively made unlawful, see, for example, the 16th Amendment concerning what cannot be questioned.