Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Before the next presidential primary of 2012 finds a new presidential candidate the guy in the White house is a failure and BTW democrats grow some balls along with a back bone.

Republicans you won’t need a presidential candidate for 2012, your man is already in the White house, Just reelect the loser Obama and you’ll get whatever you want coz with competitors like that who needs an ally in the White house.

Oh my… I think I’ve just broken one of the cardinal rules IE to never talk about politics, well too late it’s done… now I’m going out to buy ankle high boots to wade through the coming sh!t hitting the aero waves by the democrats explaining and selling how good of a deal they’ve made for the people.

A bit of history; after the conquest of Gallia (present France) Julius Caesar and his legions marched back on Italian soil thus breaking a Roman law not to allow armed barbarians which were amongst his legions by the thousand in Italy.

The Roman senate sent an emissary to warn Caesar not to cross the river Rubicon coz the senate had voted so, one of Caesar generals asked, what are we to do we can’t go against the will of the senate and the people, Caesar replied… the senate has the votes but I have the legions. Well the rest is history.

It reminds our current political and economical situation, the democrats won the White house, the Senate and the house of representative, I can almost envision after the last presidential election some Wall Street broker, a banker or insurance manager asking almost in panic…what are we to do, democrats have the votes while some CEO arrogantly replies… easy boy they have to votes but we have the money.

No I’m not anti wealthy people, the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world inspire me, but the crooks, the skimmers, the dishonest in the financial and political world who have created a system for themselves to acquire money and power under the guise of producing jobs need to be dealt with.

Good news people this is the end of my rant.

Create a need, then fill it:

Mining Companies - Employment in an isolated setting = paid in script; company money worthless anywhere except the company store and company rental housing = financial slavery

The De Rothschild Family - lobby governments for the need for a "stable national currency. = Private National Bank to control currency on a fractal (debt) system.

Haliburton/Blackwater - Any rogue 3rd world nation becomes global threat = Trillions of dollars in government contracts through a "privatized" army.

Any company in the defense/bio-tech/security industry - A Terrorist threat = Trillions of dollars in government contracts.

Any company in the Pharmaceutical industry - A Flu threat = multi-billion dollar government contracts

Any of these companies with a man in said government giving out the contracts = A money tree!

"it's a simple paint by numbers picture"


*

Hayden King wrote:Create a need, then fill it:



*

Right on!

This is the MO to which our democracy and capitalism has been reduced to by the greedy.

Hayden you've listed some artificial needs generated for profit another artificial need may have been exporting terrorism by the CIA...

Oh boy incomiiiiiing!!!!

OK people I know your sincere patriotism may be offended so when you get done shooting at me do some research Google CIA operation “Red cell”. I’d post the link myself but got to go to work.

There is just too much money to waste and not enough time to waste it. When I first saw the UN presentation by Powel about WMDs in Iraq, it was really convincing to me. What no one mentioned was that chemical weapons of the best grade, under perfect conditions, has a shelf life of about ten years. Meaning all those weapons he was referring to, would have been worthless at that time anyway. Did it really matter who would be the recipient of our vengeance from 9/11?

I think Bush believed it himself because the strategy they used during the invasion was clearly an interdiction towards the leadership in Baghdad, not an occupation. It was when they started leaving ammo dumps behind and at the same time the justification was being conveniently altered, to bringing democracy and freedom to Iraqi’s that I became angry. In that case, then what’s the hurry? That mission would require an invasion force meant for occupation. Less jets and technology dependency, much more people. A fighter jet on the tarmac doesn’t do jack to quell unrest a block away. To kick Iraq out of Kuwait, a country about one twentieth the size, they had a combined force double that which was used for the fraudulent invasion and occupation of Iraq. Our generals are not that stupid, even if our representatives are.

So what do you do? “Ooops my bad, sorry for invading you.” It would have been political suicide for Bush to just come out and say: “We were wrong.” But it would have been the right thing to do. I waited for weeks to hear him say it and nope, business as usual.

If he would have said that, we would have been out of there in weeks.

Then as the notion of guilt crept towards the surface for the masses, it had to become some noble reason. We are there for the Iraqi people, yeah that’s it! Not in the defense of our homeland and safety, as per the original justification. What we did was wrong, a mistake to some sure, but still wrong. The problem arises when you take a purely strategic decision and after it’s been executed, put it under the guise of morality.

Now we can’t leave, because just up and leaving would be the wrong thing to do. I can picture the faces of the senior officers who were hell bent and equipped for offensive speed, after they been told the mission has been changed by the morality of the common people, to occupation and defense. Then body armor and under armored humvees became an issue. Because speed of deployment was essential in one scenario and entrenchment in the other. I particularly found it offensive when they attacked Kerry for voting against the entire military budget and painted it that he was against upgrading the body armor the soldiers were wearing. How could they assume the air of indignation, when they were responsible for sending our troops into battle with obsolete equipment in the first place! If we went for an extended occupation, we should have taken plenty of time to prepare.

Then I began reading about where it all went wrong. How could our country be so set on intelligence that obviously proved to be completely false? Well we didn’t, it wasn’t the CIAs intelligence we were acting on, it was Dick Cheney’s. In fact the CIA insisted the opposite, that Iraq wasn’t a credible threat to our safety.

Now either we invaded Iraq for WMDs, or we invaded to give them democracy. If they want to play the game that it was for bringing Iraq democracy. Donald Rumsfeld should be tried for treason and hung. The decisions to leave behind unguarded munitions on the race to Baghdad, the decision to hurry an invasion meant for occupation with obsolete body armor, the decision to use unarmored transport vehicles in direct battle. All lie with him and of how many lives lost and continue to lose in IEDs?

The debacle in Iraq isn’t an accident, it was a carefully choreographed scheme to profit Haliburton and the defense industry. Absolutely NOTHING else. We were sent there for corporate greed, we remain there because the farce depends on the morality of the common people so they can continue to profit.

The shame is we cannot seek out simple and just decisions because of all the different "parties" ( I mean people and groups of people not political parties ) whom only want to fulfill their own greed or agendas.

The problem is much deeper than American politics or policies.

We ( mankind ) are in a struggle of good verses evil.
Simple as that.

It's the identifying which is which... that is the hard part.

lalong wrote: I think Bush believed it himself

Bush lied through his teeth with full knowledge the entire time. I don't see that as debatable. You can go online and witness him lying for hours.

He was the puppet then. Obama (Barry Santoro) is now. They do what they're told just as the 5 presidents before them have.

When we all get hungry enough.........Eat The Rich

Perhaps Hayden, but I don’t think so. As much as I hate Bush for what he did to this country, it’s a huge leap of faith to assume he is a competent mastermind. It would be much easier just to keep him in the dark, less he foul it all up. Besides if you were running the scheme, what could possibly look more convincingly sincere, than sincerity? For long after it was blatantly obvious there were no WMDs he was still searching for them, to the point where it was good material for comedians. Given the choice I don’t think Bush would “want” to play the fool, since he did it enough without conscious effort.

Then afterwards, inform him what he had done. Volunteer to help him out of it by putting a patriotic spin on it and resell it to the public. Now he’s onboard whether he wanted to be or not. Puppet leadership is better manipulated where there is leverage. If he didn’t care about his image going in, there would be no controls over him and you would be assuming Bush was calling the shots over Cheney and Rumsfeld. To me that seems very unlikely. Bush may be many things, but genius conspirator? I don’t see it. Either way, it creates a need and fills it.

Now when it comes to Barack Aboma and Joe Biden, they are outright liars. Nothing fancy about just simply say one thing and do the exact opposite.

Anyone ever see the HBO film “The Pentagon Wars”, about the absurd process during the development of the Bradly? I’m thinking about getting the book, I can’t help but wonder how much of that is really true.

Scratchy I read this review for the book from a retired Lt. Col for defense journal and looks like the book itself is the real deal: http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/may/pentagon.htm
It's tedious scanning the web for tibits, if I can get the bulk of it at once. Then search the validity of key details.

I think you should not only get the book, but get the real story. The movie took 'artistic liberties'.

I was naive once too

If he was on the Cheney/Rumsfeld team from the beginning he would have never chosen George Tenet over them, for leadership in the Afghanistan invasion. Willingly weakening their control over the military in preference of the CIA.

I ran across this PBS special long after the invasion, but it was interesting to see how it all went down: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/