Cheney Determined To Strike In US With Weapons of WMD This Summer

anyone who uses big macs as an example of a good thing, is not just brainwashed, but seriously malnourished. i remember when a five hour drive would take you past a hundred mom and pop restaurants, some horrible, some amazingly good. there were handmade goods and foodstuffs, like jam and honey and maple syrup, for sale at the counter. hamburgers were made by hand. now, you get one effing mcpukes every 100 kilometres(60 miles), and mom and pop are sweeping the floors for minimum wage.

"thanks, america"!? i thought you were fighting communist regimes, and yet, the total monopolization of industry by megacorporations is effectively exactly the same. there is no more, 'have a good idea, get rich', there is only, 'have a good idea, and try and sell it to a major before they find a way to steal it legally'.

911 was an inside job, and millions of people believe it. there. it is easy to make sweeping statements which are unsupported by any research. oh wait, that particular argument is supported by research, polls, and reams of discussion and investigation.

Originally posted by SwatMedicReally? So, if the USA took the track of negotiations, emissaries, and diplomats to stop Hitler and didnt lift a military finger in Europe you guys wouldnt be speaking German?

No, for what stu said and the following - If the Germans couldn't invade at the very height of their power, what makes you think they could do it after the mess they put themselves in against the Soviets?

I've always felt that those who actively seek power, like the career politicians we have today, are precisely the very people who should never hold power.
The idea that most, if not all, politicians are in power to look after the rest of us and the country's best interests are laughable.
If this were the case there'd be no need for the big lobbying companies, both domestic and foreign, who contribute large sums to political parties, on both sides, to secure favourable policies that enrich them rather than the country as a whole. Politicians spend more time pimping themselves out to big backers than they do actually representing the people.

So, what we have are a power elite. Sure, they'll make the public statements condemning the members of the opposition - for appearances sake - but need to keep the status quo in place to maintain power. It's not like they fear losing their jobs and lucrative campaign donations if their party loses at the elections.

These power mad elitists will go to any lengths to keep the power and put themselves above the law, as we have seen time after time. It's certainly within the realms of possibility that they'd plot against the very people they supposedly represent in order to gain support for their agendas. After all, we're just the cash cow that keeps them in place, but heaven help anyone who steps out of line and threatens to expose them. They are aided in all of this by a compliant corporate media, eager to be seen to be supporting the winning side so anything that shows them in a bad light can be suppressed or receive reduced column inches somewhere in the back of the papers, after all the pulp we are fed about Paris Hilton, the Beckhams and Harry Potter.
However, they can only hide so much and things start to get out and scandal after scandal and dropping public support makes them more and more dangerous. Pushed into a corner, who knows what they'll deliver to hope we take our eyes off the real issues concerning their conduct.

Phew! That was a rant... sugar rush or something

Sorry to be off-topic, but does nobody ever recall hearing about the siege of Stalingrad, when the Russians held out against and finally defeated the German 6th army? That had at least as much to do with Hitler's defeat as the U.S. coming into the war. And they didn't join out of any altruistic impulse. The American population were dead set against their joining the Allies, until their own territory was attacked by the Japanese. If they had occupied the Hawaiian Islands the U.S. mainland would have been within easy reach of their navy and long range bombers.

As for Cheney's statement, it has been shown that he and Bush (and Blair) lied through their teeth during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Given the death-toll from that war, why would the deaths of a few thousand more Americans (probably democrats, as seen during Katrina) bother them?

And as for the blatantly racist comment about the Iraqis that are dying being nothing more than potential immigrants that will not be able to "slum up" our cities, well that is a deeply saddening statement. I would rather this country was 90% Iraqi than 10% American, if your views are indicative. This site is supposed to be about denying ignorance, not admitting to it, and being proud of the fact.

Karilla, StuMason and DGT, great posts, all. And thanks Stu for the WW2 bacground, I wasn't aware of what you told us.
Sometimes, I think we Americans are far more impressed with ourselves than we should be. NO country is ever 100% right, yet America seems to think they are the exception and that our govt can do no wrong. Our govt.'s history is rife with bad judgment, corruption, honest mistakes, scoundrels, etc., same as any other country.

I believe that Cheney has been running things for quite some time. From his statements, actions and presentation of himself, I think he's arrogant, power-hungry and evil. I woulnd't be a bit surprised if he attacked the U.S. and lied about it.

BTW, Webster Tarpley, author of the article, is a well-respected journalist. I do have issues with him, but for the most part, I think he's pretty accurate.

Originally posted by dgtempe

Neocons prefer a coup d'etat to an election!

Not everything on Rense.com are lies. Heed the warning. These people are capable of anything.

Was Cheney ever a liberal? I don't think so. That would exclude him from being a "neocon."

What is your definition of a neocon? Mine is a person that has given up on the failed policies of liberalism and becomes a conservative. I believe that is the original meaning of the term.

By saying "not everything on Rense.com are lies." That could mean 1% of what they spew is true? Anyway Rense.com is not a proven source of truth.

Originally posted by RRconservative
By saying "not everything on Rense.com are lies." That could mean 1% of what they spew is true? Anyway Rense.com is not a proven source of truth.

Unfortunately, the same can be said of Fox, CNN, BBC and all the other big corporate media outfits. Real journalism seems to have died these last few years with government statements rarely analysed or criticised, just printed as presented by the governmental spin doctors.
I think this is where the Internet has become a danger to the power elite. They cannot, at present, control what is reported by so many online sources who are free of corporate control.

As one of the brits on this board i have to say to Swat medic that the reasons we dont speak German is the fact that our grand parents and great grand parents fought throughout the whole World Wars since day one of the campaign.
Please thank your relatives for me that helped us but be under no mistake us limeys are the reason we dont speak german

As for your big mac comment,I realy dont know what to say!well i dont want to be banned so i better not say anything about your pathetic reasoning for that logic you gave

lol that you believe people hate your freedom!

edit
Have to agree with karilla,Hitler made a massive blundergoing that direction and opening up another front!Russia scared the hell out of the germans and thier troops and weather pushed back the then undestroyable war machine resulting in morale dropping quicker than britneys knickers
I passed over swats racist/iraq commentsi,but can see it now

racists realy are vile people,hopefully he can change his ways


[edit on 22-7-2007 by noangels2006]

Originally posted by RRconservative
Was Cheney ever a liberal? I don't think so. That would exclude him from being a "neocon."

What is your definition of a neocon? Mine is a person that has given up on the failed policies of liberalism and becomes a conservative. I believe that is the original meaning of the term.

That is the original meaning of the term, back in the 70's. However, it can now also be applied to anyone who subscribes to neocon views, whether they used to be a liberal or not. And I wouldn't describe it as "a person that has given up on the failed policies of liberalism" because:

a) "failed" is such a subjective term. They are just former democrats who disagreed over certain key elements of democrat policy. You might think "Liberalism" is failed, but to be honest, go anywhere else other than the US and actual, real Liberalism is quite alive and kicking, as opposed to the two-party system with skewed labeling you guys love so much.

B) They are not Conservatives either, as they differ with them also.

Personally, I would use it as any other word that began with "neo", ie; New. Neo Nazi's are the "new nazi's", with neocon's being the "New Conservatives". Neither Liberal or Conservative.

Here' a thought though. Have Americans ever tried thinking outside the stupid political labels you guys give yourselves? Your "with us or against us", or "Liberal or Conservative", "Patriot or Traitor".

It might seem like a surprise but hardly anything is so black and white.

Originally posted by RRconservative
By saying "not everything on Rense.com are lies." That could mean 1% of what they spew is true? Anyway Rense.com is not a proven source of truth.

By checking the source, many articles on rense can be found to have come from either the MSM or another "recognised" agency. The constant barrage of abuse rense gets is funny, as someone will happily believe the same article of it were on cnn, and many times over, all rense does is repost articles.

Nice post dgtempe

I don't see why everyone has such a hard time believing something like this could actually happen?
As far as the VP being involved with a nuclear attack....Who knows? I have no proof to offer that would connect him to an act of treason. .....And that is kinda what the article is insinuating,IMO..However there is no proof that He ISN'T involved with such a thing.

I like alot of us on ATS, and throughout the world firmly believe that the U.S had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. I'm not saying George W. hired the terrorists ,or insinuating any deffinite connection, other than the Bush Administration knew, and they did nothing to stop it.My opinion nothing less , nothing more.

The OP has good reason to be concerned. I'll admit, I've contemplated this idea alot. Especially right now..

Our beloved president's aprovall ratings are at an all time low.

The support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low. The American economy is stretched.

The people as a whole want change, and the talk of impeachment is a very real issue right now.

I don't forsee Iran backing down anytime soon, and the threat of a full scale war in Isreal could happen any day. Not to mention the strained relations with Russia, and all the cold war rhetoric being slung back and forth.
Indeed it's hard to stay optomistic about the whole situation.
Regardles of what I or other people think of G.W and D.C they are powerfull men driven with the compulsion of there own agenda. They lied to us about Iraq,hnn.us...

As usual its become almost impossible to keep up with a thread when you have to wear hip waders to sift thru all the BS.

So, I am to understand that England and Europe would have defeated Germany all on their own with no American assistance?

As usual its become almost impossible to keep up with a thread when you have to wear hip waders to sift thru all the BS.

So, I am to understand that England and Europe would have defeated Germany all on their own with no American assistance?

Originally posted by SwatMedic
So, I am to understand that England and Europe would have defeated Germany all on their own with no American assistance?

Actually I think they would have, it would just have taken longer. Hitler made the same mistake as Japan did, they woke a sleeping giant.

Good post, I just put a post on my site to the same effectwww.revolution2008.net

two reasons to speculate on these matters:

1) If it actually happens, everyone who read this thread, or this story will instantly know what happened.

2) It makes terrorists less likely to do it if people have heard about it.

Who said that?! Not me, I merely mentioned the fact that without the RUSSIANS we would in all likelihood have lost the war with or without your country's help. It seems that many Americans, you included, forget that they took part at all. We wouldn't be speaking German, or whatever other euphesism you care to use, after all Germany doesn't speak English, and during the war not one of the countries that Germany invaded were forced to learn German.

Originally posted by SwatMedic
So, I am to understand that England and Europe would have defeated Germany all on their own with no American assistance?

Read some history that wasn't written by an American for gds sake.

The Battle of Britain was OVER by the time the US joined the war. The Germans would not have tried invading GB again, it couldn't.

You guys didn't join the war to help anybody but yourselves. The UK has only just finished paying you guys for your 'help'.

As has been said Russia did more to defeat Germany than ANY of the allies.

Sry to burst your, 'we are the greatest and you'd all be speaking a foreign language if it wasn't for us bubble', but the reality is not what you've been conditioned to believe.

Hitler made the same mistake as Japan did, they woke a sleeping giant.

What giant was that? England?

By the way, I was the originator of that big mac comment either. Although my usage is accurate imo. Not looking or asking for the Brits to bow down and pay homage to the US for their involvment in ww2. Not asking for free rolling stones tickets, or even a thank you. Just a tiny shred of respect that might just make you hold your tongue before you start ranting and raving about the US and it "horrible policies" around the world and our suppposed "fake war" on terrorism.

I dont think its asking alot.

Originally posted by ANOK
Read some history that wasn't written by an American for gds sake.

The Battle of Britain was OVER by the time the US joined the war. The Germans would not have tried invading GB again, it couldn't.

You might want to look into V1 and V2 rockets. That's also a part of history.

Not that that would quell the Brits spirit.

I gotta strongly agree with ANOK that THE turning point in WW2 was the Battle Of Britain, long over before the USA entered the conflict. Without that decisive battle there would have been few options from which to stage a D-Day invasion with adequate supply lines. Read a bit of REAL history folks and stop believing the 'junk' taught in American history classes.

AncientMariner

Originally posted by SwatMedic

Hitler made the same mistake as Japan did, they woke a sleeping giant.

What giant was that? England?

Um, no. Does Russia ring a bell?

Just a tiny shred of respect that might just make you hold your tongue before you start ranting and raving about the US and it "horrible policies" around the world and our suppposed "fake war" on terrorism.

I dont think its asking alot.

And these can't be mutually exclusive? Sure America did wonders in WW2, does that mean that people have to accept the insane foreign policy that exists today? That make NO sense.