War as a Business

[wibble]

It has long been known that the Americans treat war as a business. Their biggest industry (and one of Britains biggest) is war and the services surrounding it.

 

The novel Catch 22 captures the absurdity of this "industry" where otherwise everyday items become very profitable in the theatre of war.

 

It is well known, for example, that the UK finally paid off it's "debt" to America from WWII in 2006.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4970720.stm

 

So much for our wonderful allies.

 

The Neo-Cons have long time ties to the US war industry.

 

E.G. Cheney - CEO of Haliburton before becoming VP.

 

With the Bush families oil industry ties, the thought of making money out of a war in a country with loads of oil must have been all too tempting.

 

The opportunity for all of these jokers to make squillions of dollars - all paid for by a gullible US public and by the "Allies" was what drove the invasion of Iraq - not some greater desire to bring democracy to a country like Iraq.

 

There are lots of other reasons for war on Iraq, not least the pressure that Saddam was putting on others to trade oil in Euros rather than dollars, but a quick buck on behalf of those who own the war sevices industry seems to have been a huge driver.

 

Watch and read more here: http://iraqforsale.org/

 

 

There are many facts that point to the US administration having some prior knowledge of the 911 attacks. It seems that nothing much was done to investigate these warnings.

 

911 was the incident that ensured the US public supported the war in Iraq.

 

The UK report on Weapons of Mass Destruction sealed the case.

 

Is it truly unthinkable that people who stood to make billions of dollars from the business of war would stand by and let such a thing happen?

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

[Stewart MacD]

And Britain, totally bankrupted by the war, got sod all from the Marshall Plan. Still had to pay for decades for the coffin ships.

[Bigsmak]

There are lots of other reasons for war on Iraq, not least the pressure that Saddam was putting on others to trade oil in Euros rather than dollars, but a quick buck on behalf of those who own the war sevices industry seems to have been a huge driver.

 

Iraq had signed something with France that said that from now on Iraq would sell its Oil in Euro's rather than dollars. Saddam was trying to convince the Saudis and the rest to do the same.

 

When America (with the help of the UK) 'Liberated Iraq', the first thing they did was tear up these changes. Yes, before looking for those pesky WMD's.

 

Strange:eek:

[Boris]

The military/industrial complex is nothing new in the USA. President Eisenhower warned against it near the end of his Presidency.

 

The film "Seven Days in May" brilliantly shows this.

[Drew]

Why do you think we owed America money after the war? Maybe something to do with all the money they lent us?

 

Perhaps America knew there was a risk of something along the lines of 9/11 happening, but it is ludicrous to assume that any democracy would actually let thousands of its own citizens be killed and do nothing to stop it.

[Boris]

 

Perhaps America knew there was a risk of something along the lines of 9/11 happening, but it is ludicrous to assume that any democracy would actually let thousands of its own citizens be killed and do nothing to stop it.

 

I agree with you re 9/11 - a terrorist attack plain and simple.

 

But...how about a democracy using a private army (Blackwater) in a whole host of scenarios...Iraq, New Orleans for example. Has Neo-con economics gone so far as toprivatise the Armed Forces? Where is the democracy there?

 

The US of A ain't no democracy.

[wibble]

Why do you think we owed America money after the war? Maybe something to do with all the money they lent us?

 

Perhaps America knew there was a risk of something along the lines of 9/11 happening, but it is ludicrous to assume that any democracy would actually let thousands of its own citizens be killed and do nothing to stop it.

 

Well the facts remain that they were warned about it at Presidential level and the fact remains that nothing was done.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

 

So many other questions remain unanswered, unfortunately many have been clouded by ridiculous conspiracy theories.

 

Simple questions have to be asked though:

 

Why would the President of a democratic country (your words) and his VP refuse to testify to a commission under oath? Surely they had nothing to hide?

 

Why would Condoleeza Rice also refuse to testify to the same commission?

 

Why would links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan be completely overlooked in any kind of investigation?

 

Why would war be declared against a country that had no connection whatsoever with these events?

 

Explain what kind of a democracy does all these things before you declare that the democracy is not capable of these things.

[wibble]

My original post is not about the 911 events as such, it is more about the wholesale fleecing of the taxpayers of the USA and the UK in order to line the nests of the ruling classes who own the arms industry and the services industries and priviledged contractors who get paid ridiculous amounts of money to do jobs that real soldiers could do for 1/3 of the money.

 

When billions of pounds of profit are up for grabs I am sure that those who benefit lose all sight of democratic principles.

[allanio]

What an unbiased source based on inference and conjecture.

 

Brilliant.

[Nelly Terraces]

Why do you think we owed America money after the war? Maybe something to do with all the money they lent us?

 

Perhaps America knew there was a risk of something along the lines of 9/11 happening, but it is ludicrous to assume that any democracy would actually let thousands of its own citizens be killed and do nothing to stop it.

 

They did use it as leverage to illegally invade Iraq again and try their hand in Afghanistan though. 2 fronts that have been an unmitigated disaster. There's nothing the US Govt will not do to assert it's influence around the world, of course they knew nothing about the 2001 attacks but they've certainly cashed in on it since with their moronic posturing. And money certainly plays a massive part in it all (OIL).

[Drew]

I can't really be bothered getting into another "why are we in Iraq" debate, I'm sure someone else will do that for you. I don't see how any of those points make the US any less a democracy. There are certain things you can't have in the public domain.

 

And you totally contradict yourself with your second post, either you are talking about the 9/11 events or you aren't.

[hmfc_steve]

My original post is not about the 911 events as such, it is more about the wholesale fleecing of the taxpayers of the USA and the UK in order to line the nests of the ruling classes who own the arms industry and the services industries and priviledged contractors who get paid ridiculous amounts of money to do jobs that real soldiers could do for 1/3 of the money.

 

When billions of pounds of profit are up for grabs I am sure that those who benefit lose all sight of democratic principles.

 

spare a thought for those of us employed in this industry

[Drew]

They did use it as leverage to illegally invade Iraq again and try their hand in Afghanistan though. 2 fronts that have been an unmitigated disaster. There's nothing the US Govt will not do to assert it's influence around the world, of course they knew nothing about the 2001 attacks but they've certainly cashed in on it since with their moronic posturing. And money certainly plays a massive part in it all (OIL).

 

Yes, it's a real shame the Americans tried to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, they were such nice places before...

 

I agree that oil has a part to play, but more in the sense that America saw a duty to prevent one nation dominating the middle east and thereby dominating the oil from that region.

[Scallywag]

If you think Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters you have obviously been buying shares in the wrong corporations !

 

Certain people have done very well out of these "liberations". It was jst so lucky that 9/11 gave the neo-cons their "New Pearl Harbour" so they help their corporate backers bring freedom to the people of the middle east and help liberate their oil & gas reserves.

[wibble]

If you think Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters you have obviously been buying shares in the wrong corporations !

 

Certain people have done very well out of these "liberations". It was jst so lucky that 9/11 gave the neo-cons their "New Pearl Harbour" so they help their corporate backers bring freedom to the people of the middle east and help liberate their oil & gas reserves.

 

It does seem outrageously convenient that the "New Pearl Harbour", that Rumsfeld himself had wished for and that PNAC - an influential neo-con thinktank - had said was "critical" to moving along the militaristic vision, appeared under the watch of 3 of the most right wing lunatics in world history.

 

PNAC website - scary bedtime reading http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

Wiki on PNAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#External_links

 

I suppose we all have to be thankful that the Yanks fecked up royally yet again. Hardly a Roman Empire, A Third Reich or a British Empire are they?

[Scallywag]

It was very conveniant for the PNAC that 9/11 happened only a year after they identified a need for a New Pearl Harbour to rally the American people behind their strategic plans.

 

Then of course there was the insider trading on the day of the attacks, the numerous warnings from other nations, the standing down of the military to take part training excercises...etc, etc.

 

They also had their homeland security bill waiting on the shelf with 9/11 given them the excuse to begin a huge crack down on American public.

 

A lot of things coincidences if the attacks were really a suprise !

[Nelly Terraces]

Yes, it's a real shame the Americans tried to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, they were such nice places before...

 

I agree that oil has a part to play, but more in the sense that America saw a duty to prevent one nation dominating the middle east and thereby dominating the oil from that region.

 

There's a lot of not very nice places in the world, and I've not seen them trying to 'liberate' them. Lets invade Zimbabwe? Nah, didn't think so.

 

For what it's worth, I like America, and have been there loads down the years and my brother's lived there for 15, but it's true to say that some of the views expressed here could see you having a 'little 'visit' from certain people. To say the US is a democracy is, on the face of it, true, but in reality, freedom of speech as we know it here is pretty much frowned upon and views seen as 'anti amercian' (this would include speaking out against the disasterous wars in the middle east) are a definite no-no. As for impartial news reporting - Fox News anyone???

[Boris]

 

I agree that oil has a part to play, but more in the sense that America saw a duty to prevent one nation dominating the middle east and thereby dominating the oil from that region.

 

 

You surely mean challenge their (the US) hegemony?

[Maximus]

(Right I'm going to go on a long post that is a bit OT.)

 

What sort of democracy is America? What sort of democracy are we? We should really all be asking this question.

 

I have reccently discovered (through the fantastic documentary series, The Trap) the origins of the ideology behind the reccent campaigns of 'intervention'. There are actually 2 defined types of liberty that are at play - positive liberty and negative liberty. In the west we have been brainwashed into unquestioning acceptance of the latter, it has for example been promoted extensively by the 2 Rands, the American think tank and the author. This is the brand of freedom we are trying to spread around the world. It is an extremely narrow, rigid view of freedom based on the idea that all humans are narrow minded, self interested, paranoid creatures that are only out for themselves. This is directly opposed to positive liberty, that is a view that assumes a common goal of freedom based on certain shared ideals and often positive liberty is based on revolution and rejection of a world based only on self interest.

 

Negative liberty is a free market ideology, it is basically the mindset that lies behind greedy corporations and it spreads greed like wildfire, it is the people who posses this very mindset (the elite) who have spread it like a disease first to the populations of the 'free' world and now to those in the developing world. This is what it is being forcably spread in the middle east and partly why the wars are so profitable. When Iraq was 'liberated' the entire civil structure of the country was removed and is being replaced with a model based on negative liberty. It has been opened up for Western opertunists, most of the billions sent into Iraq have dissapeared back into Western pockets rather than into the construction of a new Iraq. This same form of liberty was implimented in Russia after the collapse of communism and led to the greedy oligarchs taking the country by the balls and creating a new type of elitist tyrany based on self interest, the people were completely disempowered and this is why they turned against this ideology. This is what we should be doing now!

 

Can you not see the horrible impact this ideology of negative liberty has played in making our own society what it is today and what it's limitations have meant for us? What is the ultimate goal of negative liberty? Why is it opposed? It is ultimately a construction by the elite for the elite, as it seeks to further the gains of those at the top of society while claiming to offer a more open and fair system of society free from rigid systems of control. It actually strengthens these systems because the ideology itself is so limited and short sighted.

 

By 'liberating' society from all forms of control you give the illusion of freedom, safety and the chance of betterment but what also happens is that it act to remove all forms of collective responsibility and regulation, so it removes the shackles on those at the top of society. That is why under negative liberty the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those in the middle stand still. It is an illusion of freedom which is actually a process of disempowerment. A trap.

 

Negative liberty has become a self fulfilled prophecy. By infecting people with this ideology you actually MAKE them self interested, paranoid drones. You encourage mistrust. Negative liberty assumes that all the people and institutions that claim to be for the public good are actually corrupt by nature, by applying negative liberty this mistrust is perpetuated and it becomes a reality because replacing positive liberty has ensured the institutions, civil services and politicians are motivated only by self interest and this simply reinforces the ideology of negative liberty because everything around us now does not represent the public good. This is why we had mass privatization and the introduction of league tables and 'target' based systems, the very things that have aided in the complete and utter corruption of our health service, police service and education system. This ideology has helped to destroy the idea of the family and the community as within NL the people are nothing more than selfish individuals, there is no room for altruism or humanity. We have become simply numbers in a machine that can be grouped into statistics, charts, targets and tables. For this to continue and indeed spread relys on each person to subscribe and confrom to the view of a 'normal' human within negative liberty, that is where NL media, corporations, politicians and 'thinkers' and now psychiatry come in and they are doing a damn good job of keeping people in the grip of negative liberty.

 

**** negative liberty!

[euan64]

(Right I'm going to go on a long post that is a bit OT.)

 

What sort of democracy is America? What sort of democracy are we? We should really all be asking this question.

 

I have reccently discovered (through the fantastic documentary series, The Trap) the origins of the ideology behind the reccent campaigns of 'intervention'. There are actually 2 defined types of liberty that are at play - positive liberty and negative liberty. In the west we have been brainwashed into unquestioning acceptance of the latter, it has for example been promoted extensively by the 2 Rands, the American think tank and the author. This is the brand of freedom we are trying to spread around the world. It is an extremely narrow, rigid view of freedom based on the idea that all humans are narrow minded, self interested, paranoid creatures that are only out for themselves. This is directly opposed to positive liberty, that is a view that assumes a common goal of freedom based on certain shared ideals and often positive liberty is based on revolution and rejection of a world based only on self interest.

 

Negative liberty is a free market ideology, it is basically the mindset that lies behind greedy corporations and it spreads greed like wildfire, it is the people who posses this very mindset (the elite) who have spread it like a disease first to the populations of the 'free' world and now to those in the developing world. This is what it is being forcably spread in the middle east and partly why the wars are so profitable. When Iraq was 'liberated' the entire civil structure of the country was removed and is being replaced with a model based on negative liberty. It has been opened up for Western opertunists, most of the billions sent into Iraq have dissapeared back into Western pockets rather than into the construction of a new Iraq. This same form of liberty was implimented in Russia after the collapse of communism and led to the greedy oligarchs taking the country by the balls and creating a new type of elitist tyrany based on self interest, the people were completely disempowered and this is why they turned against this ideology. This is what we should be doing now!

 

Can you not see the horrible impact this ideology of negative liberty has played in making our own society what it is today and what it's limitations have meant for us? What is the ultimate goal of negative liberty? Why is it opposed? It is ultimately a construction by the elite for the elite, as it seeks to further the gains of those at the top of society while claiming to offer a more open and fair system of society free from rigid systems of control. It actually strengthens these systems because the ideology itself is so limited and short sighted.

 

By 'liberating' society from all forms of control you give the illusion of freedom and the chance of betterment but what also happens is that it act to remove all forms of collective responsibility and regulation, so it removes the shackles on those at the top of society. That is why under negative liberty the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those in the middle stand still. It is an illusion of freedom which is actually a process of disempowerment. A trap.

 

Negative liberty has become a self fulfiled prophecy. By infecting people with this ideology you actually MAKE them self interested, paranoid drones. You encourage mistrust. Negative liberty assumes that all the people and institutions that claim to be for the public good are actually corrupt by nature, by applying negative liberty this mistrust is perpetuated and it becomes a reality because replacing positive liberty has ensured the institutions, civil services and politicians are motivated only by self interest and this reinforces the ideas of negative liberty because everything around does indeed not represent the public good. This is why we had mass privatization and the introduction of league tables and 'target' based systems, the very things that have aided in the complete and utter corruption of our health service, police service and education system. This ideology has helped to destroy the idea of the family and the community as within NL the people are nothing more than selfish individuals, there is no room for altruism or humanity. We have become simply numbers in a machine that can be grouped into statistics, charts, targets and tables. For this to continue and indeed spread relys on each person to subscribe and confrom to the view of a 'normal' human within negative liberty, that is where NL media, corporations, politicians and 'thinkers' and now psychiatry come in and they are doing a damn good job.

 

**** negative liberty!

 

Basically up the revolution!

[Boris]

Spot on Maximus.

 

There was a good article in the Times a few years ago about the Ukraine and how the "Blue" side were shunned by the West as they didn't adopt a free market approach. The conclusion was why should any democracy have to be a carbon copy of the US, especially in terms of its economy. Similarly one of the iconic images of the collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't the fact that there was now a Duma elected by the people, but rather that there was a McDonalds on Red Square. Yeah Capitalist Liberal Democracy.....

[wibble]

Maximus, i think you give Negative Liberty a bad press. What you describe in today's western world is a tyranny presented as Negative Liberty.

 

True NL would grant us all certain freedoms, however the truth of Western society is that these freedoms are being stripped from us every day.

 

We are expected to submit all our decision making to layer upon layer of government and the only input we have to decision making is via a vote in a rigged election once every 4 years. Party politics has ensured that we are faced with a Catch-22 where the outcome is the same whichever way we choose to vote.

 

The policing of society is now multi-level too. Whereas 20 yrs ago it was only a police officer (or two police officers) who could arrest you, there are now dozens of people in society who have been granted the power to curtail your liberties in one way or another.

 

Anyone remember the good old days before Stewards at the football? Anyone remember when the ticket price suggested that it didn't include an hours wages for some fat ***** in a yellow jacket?

[wibble]

I agree with you re 9/11 - a terrorist attack plain and simple.

 

But...how about a democracy using a private army (Blackwater) in a whole host of scenarios...Iraq, New Orleans for example. Has Neo-con economics gone so far as toprivatise the Armed Forces? Where is the democracy there?

 

The US of A ain't no democracy.

 

Even their Wikipedi page makes for frightening reading.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

[Drew]

There's a lot of not very nice places in the world, and I've not seen them trying to 'liberate' them. Lets invade Zimbabwe? Nah, didn't think so.

 

Zimbabwe doesn't in any way threaten western interests.

[allanio]

(Right I'm going to go on a long post that is a bit OT.)

 

What sort of democracy is America? What sort of democracy are we? We should really all be asking this question.

 

I have reccently discovered (through the fantastic documentary series, The Trap) the origins of the ideology behind the reccent campaigns of 'intervention'. There are actually 2 defined types of liberty that are at play - positive liberty and negative liberty. In the west we have been brainwashed into unquestioning acceptance of the latter, it has for example been promoted extensively by the 2 Rands, the American think tank and the author. This is the brand of freedom we are trying to spread around the world. It is an extremely narrow, rigid view of freedom based on the idea that all humans are narrow minded, self interested, paranoid creatures that are only out for themselves. This is directly opposed to positive liberty, that is a view that assumes a common goal of freedom based on certain shared ideals and often positive liberty is based on revolution and rejection of a world based only on self interest.

 

Negative liberty is a free market ideology, it is basically the mindset that lies behind greedy corporations and it spreads greed like wildfire, it is the people who posses this very mindset (the elite) who have spread it like a disease first to the populations of the 'free' world and now to those in the developing world. This is what it is being forcably spread in the middle east and partly why the wars are so profitable. When Iraq was 'liberated' the entire civil structure of the country was removed and is being replaced with a model based on negative liberty. It has been opened up for Western opertunists, most of the billions sent into Iraq have dissapeared back into Western pockets rather than into the construction of a new Iraq. This same form of liberty was implimented in Russia after the collapse of communism and led to the greedy oligarchs taking the country by the balls and creating a new type of elitist tyrany based on self interest, the people were completely disempowered and this is why they turned against this ideology. This is what we should be doing now!

 

Can you not see the horrible impact this ideology of negative liberty has played in making our own society what it is today and what it's limitations have meant for us? What is the ultimate goal of negative liberty? Why is it opposed? It is ultimately a construction by the elite for the elite, as it seeks to further the gains of those at the top of society while claiming to offer a more open and fair system of society free from rigid systems of control. It actually strengthens these systems because the ideology itself is so limited and short sighted.

 

By 'liberating' society from all forms of control you give the illusion of freedom, safety and the chance of betterment but what also happens is that it act to remove all forms of collective responsibility and regulation, so it removes the shackles on those at the top of society. That is why under negative liberty the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those in the middle stand still. It is an illusion of freedom which is actually a process of disempowerment. A trap.

 

Negative liberty has become a self fulfilled prophecy. By infecting people with this ideology you actually MAKE them self interested, paranoid drones. You encourage mistrust. Negative liberty assumes that all the people and institutions that claim to be for the public good are actually corrupt by nature, by applying negative liberty this mistrust is perpetuated and it becomes a reality because replacing positive liberty has ensured the institutions, civil services and politicians are motivated only by self interest and this simply reinforces the ideology of negative liberty because everything around us now does not represent the public good. This is why we had mass privatization and the introduction of league tables and 'target' based systems, the very things that have aided in the complete and utter corruption of our health service, police service and education system. This ideology has helped to destroy the idea of the family and the community as within NL the people are nothing more than selfish individuals, there is no room for altruism or humanity. We have become simply numbers in a machine that can be grouped into statistics, charts, targets and tables. For this to continue and indeed spread relys on each person to subscribe and confrom to the view of a 'normal' human within negative liberty, that is where NL media, corporations, politicians and 'thinkers' and now psychiatry come in and they are doing a damn good job of keeping people in the grip of negative liberty.

 

**** negative liberty!

 

I raise you Kosovo and East Timor. How does that fit into your 'negative liberty' - or, as it should correctly be called, cultural universalism?

 

Also, what of CEDAW? Surely for such an instrument - or any Human Rights instrument - that states have voluntarily chipped away their own sovereignty, an element of universalism is necesarry? Extreme relativism would undermine the whole ethos of the project.

[wibble]

Zimbabwe doesn't in any way threaten western interests.

 

We could make something up. After all, that's what we did with Iraq.

 

Just remember to kill the guy that writes the report so there's an immediate scapegoat.

[allanio]

We could make something up. After all, that's what we did with Iraq.

 

Just remember to kill the guy that writes the report so there's an immediate scapegoat.

 

Actually, the legal justification was the lack of a sunset clause in a Security Council Resolution. Pre-emptive self-defence and humanitarian intervention were trumpeted in the media, but not in legal forums.

[wibble]

Actually, the legal justification was the lack of a sunset clause in a Security Council Resolution. Pre-emptive self-defence and humanitarian intervention were trumpeted in the media, but not in legal forums.

 

.. but only after the Attorney General had his nuts put in a vice. The troops were on the border waiting when he finally said that it was legal.

 

A high profile member of his staff made all of that clear in her resignation letter.

 

I still hope that one day Tony Blair faces a war cimes tribunal.

[allanio]

.. but only after the Attorney General had his nuts put in a vice. The troops were on the border waiting when he finally said that it was legal.

 

A high profile member of his staff made all of that clear in her resignation letter.

 

I still hope that one day Tony Blair faces a war cimes tribunal.

 

Regardless, that doesn't detract from the viability of the legal argument. It's just literalism.

[wibble]

Regardless, that doesn't detract from the viability of the legal argument. It's just literalism.

 

Who would have the final say on whether the AG was correct or not in his assessment?

 

Presumably the UN themselves could declare it illegal if they so wished?

 

Sounds like you know a bit.

[allanio]

Who would have the final say on whether the AG was correct or not in his assessment?

 

Presumably the UN themselves could declare it illegal if they so wished?

 

Sounds like you know a bit.

 

*Non-partisan hat on*

 

Essentially, the fact that the UN haven't condemned the actions could be taken either way. [To my knowledge, happy to be proven wrong]

 

The same happened post-Kosovo: many argued it was an illegal case of humanitarian intervention (in the sense that all military action outwith the UN Charter system, Chapter VII and Art.51 self-defence is illegal)

Then, following NATO's action, the UN, through a Security Council resolution, 'took over' to rebuild. Certain serious academics took this is a tacit acceptance of NATO's legality of action; others took it as an inevitable 'mopping up' of the illegality and saw it as far from condoning, or even, legitimising the behaviour.

 

You can apply that to Iraq, although it hasn't been as widely taken over by the UN as Kosovo. The UN Security Council, if it wanted, could explicitly denounce the action as illegal but, since the UK, France and US make up 3 of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council - each with their own veto - this will never happen. Essentially, it's then down to interpretations of Security Council resolutions and applications of international legal principle.

 

Many argue Kosovo was morally acceptable but, nevertheless, illegal. You could certainly argue that Iraq was legal but morally unacceptable. Then again, could you? Or would the same apply?

 

Essentially, I'm undecided on the issue; I just like to play Devil's Advocate.

[Charlie-Brown]

Lusitania, Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11 all manipulated the USA into Foreign wars.

[Maximus]

Maximus, i think you give Negative Liberty a bad press. What you describe in today's western world is a tyranny presented as Negative Liberty.

Well it's mixed with other theories as well, but basically it is the social elite's interpretation of NL, this is what they are branding and marketing in our society and across the globe. This is why you have the constant media attacks and fear mongering against the social work department, NHS, Police etc, it is not these institutions that are bad it is the ideology that has infected them, the same ideology that has infected our culture as a whole. The attacks are just part of the systemised undermining of the ideas of community and a greater common good, it is about harbouring mistrust and paranioa and reinforcing individualism and self interest. By doing this you make people afraid of each other and remove their appitite to come together, to share ideas and thoughts and quell their ability to work their way out of the trap.

 

 

[david mcgee]

Warren Buffet recently described the credit crisis as an " economic Pearl Harbour", i asked on kickback what poeple made of that comment, and was met with stoney silence.

 

Pearl Harbour to most people represents a vindication for war. Is this what Buffet means?

 

Does this mean the credit crisis was contrived?

 

How and why did the experts turn a blind eye to the impending bursting of the bubble, when lesser mortals forecast the catastrophic end which we are now witnessing?

 

There were plenty of whistle blowers but they were either sacked or dismissed as mad!

 

One things for sure, many peoples fortunes will be wiped out, the working class will have to work longer and harder, taxes will increase, wars, civil disobedience and racism will escalate. A climate of fear will permiate the globe.

 

The richest people will become richer in real terms, and people will still follow the likes of Warren Buffet like sheep.

 

Stop being sheep, make up your own minds, follow your own instincts and your hearts, dont automatically believe in what you read or what you see, do your own investigation.

 

Feel free to call me anything you like, and pray that we can live in a society where we can all express our own opinions without fear.

[wibble]

There are certainly common patterns and themes in all of these major events and it is easy to see that the whole truth is not told in almost any of these circumstances. Neither is justice dealt to the real perpetrators in many of these events - justice is served on those that most benefits the judges.

 

I agree that the credit crisis was allowed to happen. The worlds shrinking population was getting richer and was happy to retire at 60 or 55. The number of worker ants was shrinking and it was time to make the poor poorer.

 

Cue Western support for wars that mean lifestyles can be maintained at the expense of lesser nations.

 

Iran and Pakistan better watch out.

[allanio]

Warren Buffet recently described the credit crisis as an " economic Pearl Harbour", i asked on kickback what poeple made of that comment, and was met with stoney silence.

 

Because maybe it was a simple metaphor that you're reading too much into?

 

Pearl Harbour to most people represents a vindication for war. Is this what Buffet means?

 

No, it was a disaster and a crisis. That is the parallel with the economic crisis. There isn't any deeper meaning to it than that.

 

Does this mean the credit crisis was contrived?

 

Just think about that for a couple of minutes. Why would the 'elite' contrive something that has a discernable and tangiable effect upon their own fiscal futures? Surely it'd have made sense to keep things rosy and given extra credence to the hedge fund boys?

 

How and why did the experts turn a blind eye to the impending bursting of the bubble, when lesser mortals forecast the catastrophic end which we are now witnessing?

 

Because an economy is cyclical: when you're on the top of a wave, you want to ride it for as long as possible. Often blind optimism is the active element.

 

Feel free to call me anything you like, and pray that we can live in a society where we can all express our own opinions without fear.

 

Just a question, what 'fear' do you have now about expressing yourself? The fact that some may disagree?

[david mcgee]

Because maybe it was a simple metaphor that you're reading too much into?

 

 

 

No, it was a disaster and a crisis. That is the parallel with the economic crisis. There isn't any deeper meaning to it than that.

 

 

 

Just think about that for a couple of minutes. Why would the 'elite' contrive something that has a discernable and tangiable effect upon their own fiscal futures? Surely it'd have made sense to keep things rosy and given extra credence to the hedge fund boys?

 

 

 

Because an economy is cyclical: when you're on the top of a wave, you want to ride it for as long as possible. Often blind optimism is the active element.

 

 

 

Just a question, what 'fear' do you have now about expressing yourself? The fact that some may disagree?

 

You have read my views and appear to have dismissed them all out of hand.

At least you read them.

 

I have read your views and dont dismiss any of them.

I would rather have an open mind than no mind.

 

As i said before, all i would ask is people do the research and make their own conclusions.

[allanio]

You have read my views and appear to have dismissed them all out of hand.

At least you read them.

 

I have read your views and dont dismiss any of them.

I would rather have an open mind than no mind.

 

As i said before, all i would ask is people do the research and make their own conclusions.

 

 

Not true, I asked you 5 questions.

[wibble]

Not true, I asked you 5 questions.

 

There's only 3 question marks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So, after all this philosophical debate, what's on TV so that I can put my brain into neutral?

[Scallywag]

Allanio here is my views

 

1, You may be right, only the man who said "economic pearl harbour" could clarify what he actualy meant.

 

2, Pearl Harbour was certainly viewed as a disaster and a crisis by most people. But since more info has been made released there is an extremely strong case that it was engineered to get a passive American public to take a side in the war.

 

3, Why would the elite contrive a credit crash ? ....buy high, sell low. In my opinion the answer can be found if you look into peak oil theory. So far I have had an open mind but in the last few years the experts on this have predicted events with alarming accuracy.

 

4, Why turn a blind eye ? Most of the peopel who flagged the impending crash within the industry were dismissed. When business is booming you don't last long playing carefully.

 

5, What fear do you have about expressing yourself ? At the moment not much, but cival liberties have been removed at a truely frightening rate in recent years. Thankfully the US looks like they elected someone who at least will try to change things for the better.

[wibble]

Well said Scallywag.

 

I think what many people these days realise is that all accidents are not accidental. All baddies are not necessarily bad and that sometimes the goodies are really the worst baddies.

[Maximus]

Just think about that for a couple of minutes. Why would the 'elite' contrive something that has a discernable and tangiable effect upon their own fiscal futures? Surely it'd have made sense to keep things rosy and given extra credence to the hedge fund boys?

They benefited from the Great Depression. I guess it depends on who you mean by the elite though. Anway, hundreds of banks and businesses collapsed during the depression but the most lucrative ones were bought up. When a crash happens it is the most powerful who hoover up the tastiest morsels and come out the other side the strongest. Just look what J.P Morgan, the Kennedys, Rockefeller and Rothschild got up to then. For instance, some reprasentative from J.P Morgan (or Lehman Brothers, can't mind) was sent out to make it look like they (the cartel) were valiantly trying to 'revive' confidence in the stock market, when they made a big scene out of buying up some of the best shares above their value (which of course would be basically zilch) when everything started to go tits up. Then there was the gold seizure . These folk want the 'bubbles' to inflate until they get out of control, the bigger the bubble the better because the bigger the pop the longer their shopping list becomes.

 

Now look what is going on in the currect crash, the markets are shrinking, with banks and businesses collapsing all over the place or being eaten up by bigger fish/nationalised. So when we come out the other side we will have a less competitive market and those who are left will be in a stronger position and be able to exert even greater control.

 

At the centre of all this is the Federal Reserve. Since it's creation, boom-bust cycles have now become calculated events. Just read a little bit about it or watch one of the many excellent documentaries. The real elite are the group who operate the Fed, IMF and World Bank and their allies. The banking cartel. In effect they work above the level of government because it is them who own national debts and those debts are the ultimate spoils of war and of the boom-bust cycle because debts = slavery = power. What are the reccent bailouts? Stupendous amounts of new debt, that is what they are. The cartel snap up the tasty bits of action while the governments create even more debts to buy up the **** that is left over.

 

IMO the whole (global) economy will soon reflect the pharma industry, each sector will have just a handful of massive companies (conglomerates even) that will be impossible to challenge = Corporatism.

[wibble]

 

IMO the whole (global) economy will soon reflect the pharma industry, each sector will have just a handful of massive companies (conglomerates even) that will be impossible to challenge = Corporatism.

 

 

Would you call that a New World Order?

[allanio]

There's only 3 question marks.

 

Because maybe it was a simple metaphor that you're reading too much into?

 

 

 

No, it was a disaster and a crisis. That is the parallel with the economic crisis. There isn't any deeper meaning to it than that.

 

 

 

Just think about that for a couple of minutes. Why would the 'elite' contrive something that has a discernable and tangiable effect upon their own fiscal futures? Surely it'd have made sense to keep things rosy and given extra credence to the hedge fund boys?

 

 

 

Because an economy is cyclical: when you're on the top of a wave, you want to ride it for as long as possible. Often blind optimism is the active element.

 

 

 

Just a question, what 'fear' do you have now about expressing yourself? The fact that some may disagree?

 

 

...Funny, I count 5...