It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
that's a burn whitechapel, i mean stellar seems like he really knows what he's talking about, i mean no insult, but i simpl;y agree with everything he said.


and I haven't? I provided perfect examples of why what he is saying isn't true, links and all if you care to read them. See my above post...some people are just blinded...




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
white chapel, you think i'm blinded by media and propaganda and news sources, well do you really think that you are not blinded by the American Media and Propaganda also. actually media in the US isn't at all that free of influence, most channel stations in the US are controlled by a few corporations or a few very powerful and rich people, and they are manipulating what the news should actually and are completely providing biased and unfortunatly untrue and unhonest information. for instance when CNN brings somebody who has never studied anything about the middle east or the region or the history of the region, no knoweledge what so ever about what's happening to speak about the ongoing Israeli- hesbollah/lebanon war, only to start talking about how the US completely backs up israel and saying that Hezbollah and the neighbouring arab countries are terrorists and extremists and nutjobs, and saying that Israel has every right to what it is doing, which is killing hundreds of civilians and hurting thousands more(around 360killed, more than a 1100 injured in Lebanon, only about 10 hezbollah militants!), and then going back and saying that Hezbollah are terrorists because they killed only 24 israelis and hurt 30 others, the numbers speak, now tell me who the hell is the bigger terrorist here, the one that's using state of the art equipment and killing 100s and injuring 1000s, or the one that's only trying to recover lost relatives and the west bank, only killing 25 people and injuring maybe a max of 50, now i'm not supporting hezbollah, and i'm not saying it is just and proper to kill civilians or kidnap soldiers, but i'm saying that i know how to look at both sides and not be biased.

and as others said, the US is th eone that has supported countless numbers of sectarian, dictarship-like, unstable and oppressive governments to block the spread of communism, and now it is tasting the sour cup of it's own mistakes. the US media is actually almost completely controlled by the rich upper class, and although the government says it doesn't control the press, it indirectly does because many weak presidents like current president Bush are probably puppets and many senators and representatives are too. that is why i'm saying the rich shouldn't get too rich or too powerful!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel
Of course, politics makes strange bedfellows. The US isn't the first country (nor will it be the last) that is friends with someone one day, and enemies the next. And your assertion that terrorists and rogue states were created by the US implies that the US created every one of them out there, and that's simply not true. Even if the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, they didn't pull the trigger on him using them on his own people so don't try to lay that blame at the US's feet. The same with the chechyn rebels, even IF (and by the way, I doubt they supplied them) they did supply them, they didn't make them take over a school house and kill 400 kids. Those groups are solely responsible for their own actions, regardless of where they actually purchased the weapons.
Your claims of our aging military almost sound like wishful thinking, I wouldn't get too proud in your ivory tower, the US military is going to be alive and kicking for quite some time.


the US supplied Saddam hussein with chemical and biological weapons for him to hit the kurds with it, they knew what he was doing with it and they still supplied him and they knew he was hityting his own people with it, they were actually happy when he was hitting iran and having a war with iran. so please don't say the US ins't to blame for this.

btw what ivory tower are you talking about. and yes the US military is aging, and they need to downsize a little in order to modernize more and get it more manageable!



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006

Originally posted by White Chapel
Of course, politics makes strange bedfellows. The US isn't the first country (nor will it be the last) that is friends with someone one day, and enemies the next. And your assertion that terrorists and rogue states were created by the US implies that the US created every one of them out there, and that's simply not true. Even if the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, they didn't pull the trigger on him using them on his own people so don't try to lay that blame at the US's feet. The same with the chechyn rebels, even IF (and by the way, I doubt they supplied them) they did supply them, they didn't make them take over a school house and kill 400 kids. Those groups are solely responsible for their own actions, regardless of where they actually purchased the weapons.
Your claims of our aging military almost sound like wishful thinking, I wouldn't get too proud in your ivory tower, the US military is going to be alive and kicking for quite some time.


the US supplied Saddam hussein with chemical and biological weapons for him to hit the kurds with it, they knew what he was doing with it and they still supplied him and they knew he was hityting his own people with it, they were actually happy when he was hitting iran and having a war with iran. so please don't say the US ins't to blame for this.

btw what ivory tower are you talking about. and yes the US military is aging, and they need to downsize a little in order to modernize more and get it more manageable!


Do you have proof that the US knew he was going to use his weapons on the kurds? That's a pretty outrageous claim and as you well know outrageous claims require outrageous proof.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
white chapel, you think i'm blinded by media and propaganda and news sources, well do you really think that you are not blinded by the American Media and Propaganda also. actually media in the US isn't at all that free of influence, most channel stations in the US are controlled by a few corporations or a few very powerful and rich people, and they are manipulating what the news should actually and are completely providing biased and unfortunatly untrue and unhonest information. for instance when CNN brings somebody who has never studied anything about the middle east or the region or the history of the region, no knoweledge what so ever about what's happening to speak about the ongoing Israeli- hesbollah/lebanon war, only to start talking about how the US completely backs up israel and saying that Hezbollah and the neighbouring arab countries are terrorists and extremists and nutjobs, and saying that Israel has every right to what it is doing, which is killing hundreds of civilians and hurting thousands more(around 360killed, more than a 1100 injured in Lebanon, only about 10 hezbollah militants!), and then going back and saying that Hezbollah are terrorists because they killed only 24 israelis and hurt 30 others, the numbers speak, now tell me who the hell is the bigger terrorist here, the one that's using state of the art equipment and killing 100s and injuring 1000s, or the one that's only trying to recover lost relatives and the west bank, only killing 25 people and injuring maybe a max of 50, now i'm not supporting hezbollah, and i'm not saying it is just and proper to kill civilians or kidnap soldiers, but i'm saying that i know how to look at both sides and not be biased.

and as others said, the US is th eone that has supported countless numbers of sectarian, dictarship-like, unstable and oppressive governments to block the spread of communism, and now it is tasting the sour cup of it's own mistakes. the US media is actually almost completely controlled by the rich upper class, and although the government says it doesn't control the press, it indirectly does because many weak presidents like current president Bush are probably puppets and many senators and representatives are too. that is why i'm saying the rich shouldn't get too rich or too powerful!


I'm not sure what the Hezbollah conflict has to do with our discussion, but I'll bite. It's pretty simple for me, I really don't care, the whole middle east is a clusterf*ck, no one there is going to get along so I kind of wish one side would wipe the other side out so I can stop hearing about cease fires, the breaks of the cease fire, then treaties, then breaking of the treaties, it's ridiculous and both sides are to blame. If I had to choose though, I'd side with the Israel's because the Jews have never tried to attack the United States as a group or for idealogical reasons. Muslim's have, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend I suppose.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel
Of course, politics makes strange bedfellows. The US isn't the first country (nor will it be the last) that is friends with someone one day, and enemies the next.


The problem is not that the US shift alliances with various sets of 'enemies' ( normally freedom related) but that it has so many permanent 'friends' that hates the same types of freedoms.


And your assertion that terrorists and rogue states were created by the US implies that the US created every one of them out there, and that's simply not true.


It really does not imply that but you really would be surprised to see what massive percentage of terror is related to US action or inaction ( while claiming to fight terror) .

Even if the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, they didn't pull the trigger on him using them on his own people so don't try to lay that blame at the US's feet.


The supported him with more and more WOMD ( not make believe one's BTW) trough the times of his worse atrocities and if that is not sanctioning terror then i do not know what is. To then turn around and call him mass murdering scum is the height of hypocrisy but luckily few reporters point it out.


The same with the Chechen rebels, even IF (and by the way, I doubt they supplied them) they did supply them, they didn't make them take over a school house and kill 400 kids.


Modern fanatical 'Muslim' ( it really isn't Muslim and it's far 'newer than Jewish terror ; the FBI were for most of the last few decades looking for 'Jewish' terrorist) terror has largely been brought about by American geopolitical aims, and moves, and was certainly funded by American intelligence agencies. Iran is a case in point.


Those groups are solely responsible for their own actions, regardless of where they actually purchased the weapons.


You supply the gun ( cheaply, with no licence and against his wife's wishes) your neighbour shoots his wife with and you see how that defense works in court.


Your claims of our aging military almost sound like wishful thinking, I wouldn't get too proud in your ivory tower, the US military is going to be alive and kicking for quite some time.


America lost it's strategic edge against the USSR first in 1963 and then finally in early 1977; it's not recovered since.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel
Well than, with all apologies, you are as clueless as he. Even the articles he referenced don't back up his claim but mearly reinforce that living standard GROWTH has slowed, but living standards are not in decline, which is a HUGGGEEEE difference.


Or , alternatively, not nearly as ignorant as yourself... The article's i referenced do not expressly support ALL my claims ( i would have to add very many more i need to go find) but they did in fact provide enough material to easily substantiate the basis of my claims. What you should rather do is find a few books by Noam Chomsky where all this is made quite clear.

Either way here is a few more 'clues'.


Profits and productivity are at their highest levels on record, but for most Americans, wages still lag far behind—especially for minimum wage workers (see Figure 1 ). Corporate profits have grown 62 percent since just before the recent recession began, while wages have decreased by 0.6 percent.[1] And low-income workers have watched their wages fall even farther. For seven years, the federal government has failed to increase the minimum wage by even a penny. Instead it has remained $5.15 an hour while prices have continued to rise. The federal minimum wage totals just $10,700 a year for a full-time, full-year minimum wage worker—$5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three (see Figure 2).

Furthermore, with the passage of time, today’s stagnant minimum wage has eroded in value (see Figure 3 ). In the 1970s, the minimum wage amounted to about half of what the typical American worker was earning. Today, it has fallen to only 38 percent.[2]

The economy is taking its toll on a broad segment of low- and middle-income families. As wages overall fail to keep up with the cost of living, even middle class families are finding it harder and harder to afford the American dream. They may be the backbone of our economy, but they struggle each day to afford the basics: the mortgage or rent, the medical bills, child care costs, groceries, and electric bills, and sending their sons and daughters to college.

www.policyalmanac.org...



The hypocrisy towards the declining earnings of the U.S. working class reached its zenith last October when Lee Scott, the CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, urged Congress to raise the U.S. minimum wage, which has been at $5.15 an hour since 1997, because his company's "customers are struggling to get by." This one shining example sums it all up -- the world's largest importer of cheap offshore goods, which exploits governments at home and abroad at all levels for exemptions and subsidies and consistently violates both the spirit and letter of U.S. labor law to keep its own labor costs to a minimum, openly advocates a raise in the national minimum wage in order to bolster its own flagging profits!

mrzine.monthlyreview.org...



Employers' wage costs grew 2.3% over the past year, the slowest growth rate on record, according to today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Factoring in the recent energy-driven increase in inflation, the real wage is down 2.3%, also the largest real loss on record for this series that began in 1981.

With hourly wages falling in real terms, the only way working families can raise their incomes is by working more hours-certainly not the path to improving living standards that we would expect in an economy posting strong productivity gains.

This 2.3% rate is a slight tick down from the 2.4%--the previous historical low--that prevailed for the last four quarters. Compensation-wages plus benefits-also grew more slowly in the third quarter of this year, up 3.1% over the same quarter last year, the slowest yearly growth in six years.

www.counterpunch.org...


clinton4.nara.gov... And Clinton admitting a few obvious things.

And all of this is no accident at all....

www.amazon.com...


Plus, one of them appears to be from 1986, hardly relevant today given the huge changes in global economy.


This problem did not start yesterday so why would a paper from the then not help clarify reality? If your uninterested in reading the articles , and learning something, just stay quite as that is the as calling me a liar is not going to 'make me go away'.


I am sorry about getting his country wrong, I was grading papers, oddly enough, about south american trade policies and having just finished had that on my mind.


It's really not surprising to see that your in the education business.


My apologies for that. I can't stand the armchair quarterbacking from people on other continents. It's so easy to take biased newsources and draw your own conclusions, or make huge assumptions based on general stereotypes read in those news sources or heard on tv or from friends of a region.


Ditto. I propose we stick to facts ( yes, that means you as well) to avoid all those problems from popping up.


It's infuriating and you'd think people on a web site such as this would have a much clearer understanding of relevant issues they choose to post on...I guess I was mistaken.


Hey i agree and i wish you would stop cluttering up my browsing experience.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by White Chapel
Well than, with all apologies, you are as clueless as he. Even the articles he referenced don't back up his claim but mearly reinforce that living standard GROWTH has slowed, but living standards are not in decline, which is a HUGGGEEEE difference.


Or , alternatively, not nearly as ignorant as yourself... The article's i referenced do not expressly support ALL my claims ( i would have to add very many more i need to go find) but they did in fact provide enough material to easily substantiate the basis of my claims. What you should rather do is find a few books by Noam Chomsky where all this is made quite clear.




Oh my, I can't believe you referenced Chomsky, if I didn't realize before what you were up to I do know. He is a well known idealogue that criticizes everything the US does. I mean, he's a well known academic who has done some great grammar and psychology work, but he's far left of even the left here in the US. Not exactly an unbiased source. Someone on a conspiracy website should know not to post such biased sources...sheesh...this is getting even more funny.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel
This is all I need to know, this guy has an axe to grind and is clearly dillusional.


Well i do not like seeing ignorance on display but i would hardly call what i am currently doing 'violent' . If you want to see what i can do with a axe your free to stick around and do what your currently doing.


I'm certainly not in favor of everything the US has ever done,


You know people who are?


but to make such a blanket statement when so many of our own people (including members of my own family) and resources have been lost defending countries and people who can't defend themselves is wayyy out of line,


Defending who from what where and when? The first world war was fought over control over middle eastern oil and to basically end British domination of it. World war two was largely started because Wall street funded and helped built both the Soviet empire (1917, the whole revolution was a Rockefeller run affair to start with ) AND the Nazi one ( 1933, Hitler inheriting the military industrial complex already largely maintained and built with wall street funds) and then later forced Japan into fighting for retention of even limited independence. I can go back rather far into American history and show you just what a sham ( and very profitable at that) most wars were. To imagine that they had to do with even American freedom - certainly no one Else's- is a just not born out by the facts and some deductive reasoning.


not to mention even more inaccurate than his previous posts. In fact, it's beyond innacurate and is bordering on insulting. When you're the big dog though, I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.


Only damned if you do your best to disrupt or destroy the struggle for liberty as best you can.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Oh my word man, what do you take me for? I was reading your sources then I realized where they are from. One is counterpunch which is a left-wing anti-Zionist political rag (weird, since you invoked Chomsky who always identified himself as pro-Zionist...weird dichotomy you have going here), one is MrZine which is put out by Monthly Review a socialist and anti-American publisher who's editors are self-proclaimed Marxists, and one from what appears to be the Democratic party (not exactly a reliable source when trying to score points against a republican president). These sources are so far out there, even a left-leaning college professor like myself can't take it seriously.
I get your agenda man...I get it, but it's kind of pathetic that you try to pass it off as scholarly, reliable sources on a web site. Sheesh...



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by White Chapel
This is all I need to know, this guy has an axe to grind and is clearly dillusional.


Well i do not like seeing ignorance on display but i would hardly call what i am currently doing 'violent' . If you want to see what i can do with a axe your free to stick around and do what your currently doing.


Stellar


What the hell is this suppose to mean? You're going to find me and kick my ass? Hahahaha, see what I mean people...delusional.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel
Oh my, I can't believe you referenced Chomsky,


As opposed to referencing known liars i suppose? If you find someone who references his work better , and is generally more credible, give me a call so we can spread the word.


if I didn't realize before what you were up to I do know.


Well you do not seem to understand much about anything so my intent would probably be well beyond your meager means. I suggest you stick to subjects and topics where you might actually be able to produce source material for once?


He is a well known idealogue that criticizes everything the US does.


He only criticizes the criminal aspects of American foreign and domestic policy but is quite clear on the fact that citizens of the USA still have many and great advantages when it comes to fighting towards retaining their liberties. I really suggest you read some of his work before assuming the ideologues you listen to actually know what their talking about when their trying to do their hatchet jobs on those who have the ability to explain how and why we are losing our liberties.


I mean, he's a well known academic who has done some great grammar and psychology work,


Actually he is far more than that but to discover that you would probably have had to know what your talking about. I suggest you read a few bios and books before saying more about his work on 'grammar' ( what a laugh).


but he's far left of even the left here in the US.


If you go as far 'left' as you can go in mainstream media in the USA you will still end up being a radical fanatical right winger in Western Europe. Calling Chomsky radical left wing is basically calling him a centrist ( sane), which is not a bad description.


Not exactly an unbiased source.


Compared to what you consider reality i would pick Chomsky's first essay at age 7.


Someone on a conspiracy website should know not to post such biased sources...sheesh...this is getting even more funny.


I would ask that you stop posting your biased sources but you haven't posted any yet so i'll wait till you do.
We are ALL biased in ways we do not even begin to understand and the best we can do is provide each other with the 'how and the why' we think a particular thing. If you are unable or uninterested in showing me how you arrived at your conclusions you will not be able to teach or convince me of anything if that was your original aim.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I have no interest in teaching you anything, my colleagues and I are having a good laugh at your expense. You are misguided and uniformed...but no one will ever convince you of that. After all, if you know that you're crazy, you're not really crazy.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
white chapel, btw if you would like to know, the USSR was funded very well all through out the cold war and before by Wall street an dbig corporations and estates, like rockefeller and rothschild, etc. in fact the gold mines of the soviet union have run dry because Stalin needed money not gold to modernize and industrialize the whole of the soviet union but he didn't have it so he let the American banks and corporation mine the gold mines of russia and in exchange give him money. Russian gold mines quickly ran out due to this action. in WWII, the US entered the war only because it had to defend itself and because it was defending it's interest in keeping Europe under its hands and under the british hands, Germany grew too big, so they had to enter the war. plus big corporations also had an interest in going to this war, even the Italian Mafia families in the US had a hand in this and benefited greatly from it. Rockefeller benefited from it, banks benefited from it, the arms industry went sky high, so it was all a matter of bussiness. WWII was not to save the jews, or to save the chinese, or to save the phillipenes, if it was so, America would've acted before since 1936 or so, and if america wanted to help it would've took in the jews hitler was wanting to send to america, hitler actually sent a few ships with thousands of jews on them to America, and the US Navy shot on them with Machine guns, probably killed some of the people on board, and of course damaged many of them, the US navy didn't even let the ships dock into US ports, so don't tell me the US was in wars to save 'freedom', as for WWI, same thing war economy boosted big bussinesses, big bussinesses like it so they went to war, and they supplied the Bolshvik revolution, beacuse of the reason stated above, russian gold mines. as for the ongoing war right now in Iraq, it was clearly for oil, imagine what would happen if the US made Iraq a US client state, Oil would be given to the US for a cheap 4 dollars a gallon or so even less, the Saudi arabian economy would've stagnated, the Iranian economy would've stagnated, the russian economy would've crumpled, the venezualan economy would've also been destroyed, basically every country that produces oild would've had it's economy ruined, and then the American banks would come as saviors and load those countries with more and more loans, with interest and those countries would never be able to recover, Iranian people would've probably staged a coup, supplied by the CIA it would probably succeed, and the people there might set up a pro-western economy, as for Saudi arabia, well the banks of America and the west would grow very rich becasue that country would wind up paying a whole lotta interest and little or nothing of it's loans, same thing fro Iraq, the people wouldn't suffer there, but the country will lie in debt for a long time, just like jordan right now, it's a small country, it has about 5-6 billion dollars in debt, and it ahs been that way for 30-40 years. so it's all bussiness, it's not to "protect freedom" it's to protect the Banks and the corporations interests!



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
as for the first gulf war in 1991, well it's basically the beginning stage of this war, it lowered oil prices to 8 dollars a barrel, because saddam was smmugling oil out of iraq so the oil markets stagnated, and the US had an interest in that, as the USSR had lots of oil that was backing its economy, of course also the banks of the US and the west benefited from it since they loaded russia and many countries with loans. as for Vietnam, well that was understood, it was a concept of the cold war, America saw it as a concept of the cold war, while it was a civil war, imagine what would've happened if the US didn't intervene and stay there for 20 or so years, the whole of Asia would've come under Soviet hands, and the US would've lost the war, of course war economy boosts big bussiness too in Amerrica and abroad. as for Korea the same thing.

as for Afghanistan, the soviet-afghan war, the US and big bussinesses in the US had interst in making the Soviets lose that war, they saw the a "free market" would beneift the corporations and banks, since if you look it could've been projecteed that Oligarths as now they are called would spring up and swallow the russian economy, and those oligarths are the same as big bussinesses in the US and there intersts interwine with US big bussinesses interests, so they can make deals that could've put the whole of the russian economy and many country that rely on russia in the SU big bussineses hands and the oligarths hands.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel

Originally posted by INc2006
white chapel, you think i'm blinded by media and propaganda and news sources, well do you really think that you are not blinded by the American Media and Propaganda also. actually media in the US isn't at all that free of influence, most channel stations in the US are controlled by a few corporations or a few very powerful and rich people, and they are manipulating what the news should actually and are completely providing biased and unfortunatly untrue and unhonest information. for instance when CNN brings somebody who has never studied anything about the middle east or the region or the history of the region, no knoweledge what so ever about what's happening to speak about the ongoing Israeli- hesbollah/lebanon war, only to start talking about how the US completely backs up israel and saying that Hezbollah and the neighbouring arab countries are terrorists and extremists and nutjobs, and saying that Israel has every right to what it is doing, which is killing hundreds of civilians and hurting thousands more(around 360killed, more than a 1100 injured in Lebanon, only about 10 hezbollah militants!), and then going back and saying that Hezbollah are terrorists because they killed only 24 israelis and hurt 30 others, the numbers speak, now tell me who the hell is the bigger terrorist here, the one that's using state of the art equipment and killing 100s and injuring 1000s, or the one that's only trying to recover lost relatives and the west bank, only killing 25 people and injuring maybe a max of 50, now i'm not supporting hezbollah, and i'm not saying it is just and proper to kill civilians or kidnap soldiers, but i'm saying that i know how to look at both sides and not be biased.

and as others said, the US is th eone that has supported countless numbers of sectarian, dictarship-like, unstable and oppressive governments to block the spread of communism, and now it is tasting the sour cup of it's own mistakes. the US media is actually almost completely controlled by the rich upper class, and although the government says it doesn't control the press, it indirectly does because many weak presidents like current president Bush are probably puppets and many senators and representatives are too. that is why i'm saying the rich shouldn't get too rich or too powerful!


I'm not sure what the Hezbollah conflict has to do with our discussion, but I'll bite. It's pretty simple for me, I really don't care, the whole middle east is a clusterf*ck, no one there is going to get along so I kind of wish one side would wipe the other side out so I can stop hearing about cease fires, the breaks of the cease fire, then treaties, then breaking of the treaties, it's ridiculous and both sides are to blame. If I had to choose though, I'd side with the Israel's because the Jews have never tried to attack the United States as a group or for idealogical reasons. Muslim's have, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend I suppose.


you see hezbollah doesn't really have much to do with this, but the on going conflict has to do with how the Media controlled by a few very powerful people control the media and give false, untrue, unjust, extremely biased, one-sided, and incredibly uninformative and lying iformation to the public, which unfortunatly believes it. look at the O'reilly factor show, for gods sake that nutjob oreilly actually shuts the person that he brings on the show if they don't agree, he litteraly just shuts people up!!! look at fox news, most news and shows are biased.

if you lok at UN charts and rankings for the most free medias in the world, the US isn't even near the top not even in the top 50, the government intervenes in the media very much in the US adn the big bussiesses and those "powerful few" intervene all too much in the media and what it says and deosn't say. all the US media always give are half truths. please..............



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel

Originally posted by INc2006
the US supplied Saddam hussein with chemical and biological weapons for him to hit the kurds with


Do you have proof that the US knew he was going to use his weapons on the kurds? That's a pretty outrageous claim and as you well know outrageous claims require outrageous proof.


This has SFA to do with the "Red Army", but...

Who cares if they knew who he was going to use them on? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't chemical agents and their use heavily proscribed by the Geneva Convention? If so, why was the US supplying ANYBODY with them in the first place?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by White Chapel

Originally posted by INc2006
the US supplied Saddam hussein with chemical and biological weapons for him to hit the kurds with


Do you have proof that the US knew he was going to use his weapons on the kurds? That's a pretty outrageous claim and as you well know outrageous claims require outrageous proof.


This has SFA to do with the "Red Army", but...

Who cares if they knew who he was going to use them on? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't chemical agents and their use heavily proscribed by the Geneva Convention? If so, why was the US supplying ANYBODY with them in the first place?


I don't know, I haven't seen any proof that they have. I was just going by what that guy was saying.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

you see hezbollah doesn't really have much to do with this, but the on going conflict has to do with how the Media controlled by a few very powerful people control the media and give false, untrue, unjust, extremely biased, one-sided, and incredibly uninformative and lying iformation to the public, which unfortunatly believes it. look at the O'reilly factor show, for gods sake that nutjob oreilly actually shuts the person that he brings on the show if they don't agree, he litteraly just shuts people up!!! look at fox news, most news and shows are biased.

if you lok at UN charts and rankings for the most free medias in the world, the US isn't even near the top not even in the top 50, the government intervenes in the media very much in the US adn the big bussiesses and those "powerful few" intervene all too much in the media and what it says and deosn't say. all the US media always give are half truths. please..............


I don't know, my experience is the media is way more interested in tearing the US and the figures in it down than building it up. But people will see and hear what they want to see and hear that's for sure.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
white chapel, btw if you would like to know, the USSR was funded very well all through out the cold war and before by Wall street an dbig corporations and estates, like rockefeller and rothschild, etc. in fact the gold mines of the soviet union have run dry because Stalin needed money not gold to modernize and industrialize the whole of the soviet union but he didn't have it so he let the American banks and corporation mine the gold mines of russia and in exchange give him money. Russian gold mines quickly ran out due to this action. in WWII, the US entered the war only because it had to defend itself and because it was defending it's interest in keeping Europe under its hands and under the british hands, Germany grew too big, so they had to enter the war. plus big corporations also had an interest in going to this war, even the Italian Mafia families in the US had a hand in this and benefited greatly from it. Rockefeller benefited from it, banks benefited from it, the arms industry went sky high, so it was all a matter of bussiness. WWII was not to save the jews, or to save the chinese, or to save the phillipenes, if it was so, America would've acted before since 1936 or so, and if america wanted to help it would've took in the jews hitler was wanting to send to america, hitler actually sent a few ships with thousands of jews on them to America, and the US Navy shot on them with Machine guns, probably killed some of the people on board, and of course damaged many of them, the US navy didn't even let the ships dock into US ports, so don't tell me the US was in wars to save 'freedom', as for WWI, same thing war economy boosted big bussinesses, big bussinesses like it so they went to war, and they supplied the Bolshvik revolution, beacuse of the reason stated above, russian gold mines. as for the ongoing war right now in Iraq, it was clearly for oil, imagine what would happen if the US made Iraq a US client state, Oil would be given to the US for a cheap 4 dollars a gallon or so even less, the Saudi arabian economy would've stagnated, the Iranian economy would've stagnated, the russian economy would've crumpled, the venezualan economy would've also been destroyed, basically every country that produces oild would've had it's economy ruined, and then the American banks would come as saviors and load those countries with more and more loans, with interest and those countries would never be able to recover, Iranian people would've probably staged a coup, supplied by the CIA it would probably succeed, and the people there might set up a pro-western economy, as for Saudi arabia, well the banks of America and the west would grow very rich becasue that country would wind up paying a whole lotta interest and little or nothing of it's loans, same thing fro Iraq, the people wouldn't suffer there, but the country will lie in debt for a long time, just like jordan right now, it's a small country, it has about 5-6 billion dollars in debt, and it ahs been that way for 30-40 years. so it's all bussiness, it's not to "protect freedom" it's to protect the Banks and the corporations interests!


So do any other countries operate this way, or just the big bad ole' USA?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join