How will the real powers that be “best set the table” for an attack on Iran, and the uninterrupted continuation of current military strategy?
Basically the government has to go. Bush is a spent force; he was good as far as being the guy who after 9/11 enabled indefinite detention of
“terrorist’s suspects” and of course that all important war in Iraq. Why it was this political era that almost certainly saw the establishment
of secret CIA prisons throughout Europe.
EU Complains news.bbc.co.uk...
But the trouble is people are getting fed up. And that’s a real problem because the whole (practical) justification for having the type of democracy
(we have) is to discourage people from revolting.
Certainly in England you can learn about (in advanced history courses) how the dominating fear at the time of democratic reform was “whether reform
should come from above or below”. It’s for this reason that democracy was introduced in stages, and that every stage was a bid to prevent reform
from coming from below (they did not want a revolution like the one in France).
Therefore if group’s like the Bilderberg conspiracy, Friends of Israel and other similar group’s exist as organisation particularly intent on
influencing Western military policy; surely it is time they used their power to change those currently in power at home?
The people might not be on the verge of revolting, but (as a recent American rise in the popularity of Isolationism shows)
many are growing weary of their government’s calls for war.
Therefore if we are to continue towards war with Iran and other military operations afterwards surely it is time we have a Democrat in power? One
1. Withdraws (most-all) forces from Iraq. Not only to free up military personal who will be needed in an Iran conflict; but also (and many times more
importantly) restore public confidence in those acting as government.
As long as we have troops being blown up in Iraq on an almost daily basis surely we can expect anti war feelings to remain high?
2. Improves human rights for most if not all terrorist suspects (there may still be a few exceptions for those who somehow pose an instant threat to
3. Puts those (now retired individuals) responsible on trial, and this may include some now occupying the highest levels of government.
4. (Appear) to show a more friendly approach towards international dialogue.
5. Attack Iran’s military infrastructure and begin the process of liberation.
Clearly sanctions will not be a wise option given the high oil price, the aged Iraqi oil infrastructure-not to mention the daily insurgent attacks
directed at it. Reduced output from both these regions is hardly going to help the Western (and particularly American economies) at a time when they
are already having to deal with other things like cheap goods from abroad, and inflation worries.
Therefore in light of the fact that sanctions are not really on the table, that war will be necessary (particularly given the tough attitude of the
Iranian government), and the fact the public are both less trusting of government and less keen for military intervention; is it not time NWO
sacrificed a few political lambs at the hands of a new batch of political lambs? Ones who will continue with the real work that has yet to be finished
(so be it with a few reversals regarding the treatment of prisoners already detained).
And of course with a change of government in the United States the same should be true in England as a similar cocktail of political problems is
facing NWO there
Two thirds of people say they have little or no power of their government. Is this
good for NWO?
Gordon Brown is hardly the most charismatic of leaders, and a new Conservative government with a young leader could do much to improve public
confidence. But will it be enough?
Personally I feel that for the powers that be (namely the media) to have allowed the West’s governments to engage in torture and more extreme
violations of human rights that are yet to emerge; is a brilliant NWO manoeuvre. It has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with
arming NWO with the very tools it needs to destroy some of the current politicians once it has finished with them.
There is no reason to bring these current politicians to justice for the sake of justice; or for the sake of getting rid of them (at least not once
NWO media has turned against them and taken them out of power). But there is every reason to do so if NWO wants to find a quick, sensationalist and to
all EFFECTIVE purposes propagandas way of restoring public confidence in its acting governments who serve its chosen aims (war and the threat of war
to various countries being a key one of them).
So ATS people don’t you agree with me that NWO needs the peoples government changed?
Surely it’s only a question of getting hold of the telephone numbers of men like Rupert Murdoch who own over 200 television channels, and around 172
newspapers would wide?
And if NWO exists would you not advice them to bring the current generation of politicians to justice, not for justices sake but for the reasons
mentioned? Or won’t this happen? Why not? If NWO has the power to manipulate who the public elects? (Especially if they pretty much determine those
up for election?).
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]