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.

 

Why Republicans will be blamed for WWIII

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
FYI: I am a Conservative Independent. That's means I don't have to love the Republican Party I just agree on some of their ideas. But consider this:

I don't see this conflict being US led. I see it being NATO led. All signs point to a stronger NATO, that is basically Obama's military strategy. Use NATO for everything, maybe so it looks less like he's a war-monger too. He also recently stated that he would like US to be "just another country" and basically to start planning for a world government. Probably run by NATO. Obama has taken a back step in most major conflicts around the world.

This is also why I am hesitant to vote for anybody else in the 2012 elections but Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman. Neither of them want wars. The other republicans are all too happy to pull the trigger. If the TPTB really want WWIII that badly they will let the republicans win in 2012. As all signs point to 2012 for things to escalate even further. Especially with Obama backing every policy he can think of past 2013. So that the republicans can be blamed.

Actually part of me wants Obama to win, if the economy collapses and WWIII starts under his 8 year term, he can no longer hide under the cloud of the media! He would be considered worse than Bush (to some he is already) and most likely one of the worst presidents in history if these things happen under him.

EDIT: PLEASE NO REPUBLICAN AD-HOMINEM BASHING PLEASE

edit on 7-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


The simple fact is this...... If world war 3 starts, there won't be any Republicans or Democrats left around to blame, social structure as we know it will completely break down and our pathetic two party system will break down and fail. Even if America wins such a war, our Constitution and everything that we are accustomed will be gone. Brave new world, all of that.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


True but unless if we start firing Nuclear Weapons at each other within the first few days. It's going to go on for quite awhile. Infrastructure will last during the war time and perhaps see a bit of a booming increase from military funding.

Societal collapse won't happen overnight. Leaving plenty of time for people to blame each other.
edit on 7-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Nukes don't matter for us. We are so broke that to shoulder any war anywhere near this size would bankrupt this country into the stone age and we would have to completely destroy the nations that we owe the largest debt too, thats not going to happen as we are not going to take over China anytime soon.

What would happen is that we would occupy lesser nations involved in the conflict such as Iran and Syria, rob them of there oil reserves and in doing so would cause America to become something it was never meant to be. As a direct result of those actions, we would no longer be governed by the Constitution and we would shift into a different political dimension of defeat and occupy, much as the Nazi party did not that long ago.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


That's one scenario. Another scenario is global population control instituted by a draft. You want a job, work for the USA. Work for the army! Manufacturing jobs and factory jobs will go towards military support. The military propaganda will go insane and people will be all patriotic again without realizing what they are supporting. This could foster in new trust for the government and the system all together. Larger military means more technology and guaranteed employment for all Americans and possibly illegal aliens too. 2 years of service = citizenship?

Effectively turning USA into a military dictatorship. However, I would shudder if Obama was at the helm. I don't want any of the republicans either to run that either. We would need a new IKE for that. Perhaps John McCain would be a good choice for a military dictatorship. He must miss the military.

edit on 8-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
So where's your argument for "why republicans will be blamed?"

unless I'm mistaken, all you say is NATO is going to be responsible for WWIII. Did I miss something?

Well, I see the sentence I missed. What you say makes sense now.
lol, you're right...the republicans openly say they want a war with Iran, which we all know would lead to WWIII.
It would be a good strategy to get republicans out of the picture for good. But just so you know, republicans want a NWO just as much as Obama does. And they probably both want a war with Iran, Obama's just much more quiet about it.
That said, I expect Obama to win. I'd like RP to win, but that seems very unlikely.

edit on 8-12-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


The simple fact is this...... If world war 3 starts, there won't be any Republicans or Democrats left around to blame, social structure as we know it will completely break down and our pathetic two party system will break down and fail. Even if America wins such a war, our Constitution and everything that we are accustomed will be gone. Brave new world, all of that.

Actually, WWIII would probably improve our economy. It'd be disastrous, with millions dead, but it would probably improve our economy.
Things probably wouldn't change much...we already live in "A Brave New World." Read "A Brave New world revisited" to see why. It's an essay, not a full book. But we do indeed already live in a brave new world.
I have a detailed(By detailed, I mean 4 full posts full of quotes and summaries of the various sections) summary of the essay on this site...but I recommend reading the entire essay.
edit on 8-12-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
So where's your argument for "why republicans will be blamed?"

unless I'm mistaken, all you say is NATO is going to be responsible for WWIII. Did I miss something?

Well, I see the sentence I missed. What you say makes sense now.
lol, you're right...the republicans openly say they want a war with Iran, which we all know would lead to WWIII.
It would be a good strategy to get republicans out of the picture for good. But just so you know, republicans want a NWO just as much as Obama does. And they probably both want a war with Iran, Obama's just much more quiet about it.
That said, I expect Obama to win. I'd like RP to win, but that seems very unlikely.

edit on 8-12-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Getting the republicans gone won't be good for anyone. If that's what you mean. We need the two parties and maybe a tea party party and OWS party too! We need more checks and balances.

Yes, I know you've seen the YouTube Videos about every single President since there was television, utter the words New World Order. Alex Jones I think.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Ghost375
So where's your argument for "why republicans will be blamed?"

unless I'm mistaken, all you say is NATO is going to be responsible for WWIII. Did I miss something?

Well, I see the sentence I missed. What you say makes sense now.
lol, you're right...the republicans openly say they want a war with Iran, which we all know would lead to WWIII.
It would be a good strategy to get republicans out of the picture for good. But just so you know, republicans want a NWO just as much as Obama does. And they probably both want a war with Iran, Obama's just much more quiet about it.
That said, I expect Obama to win. I'd like RP to win, but that seems very unlikely.

edit on 8-12-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Getting the republicans gone won't be good for anyone. If that's what you mean. We need the two parties and maybe a tea party party and OWS party too! We need more checks and balances.

Yes, I know you've seen the YouTube Videos about every single President since there was television, utter the words New World Order. Alex Jones I think.


Ah, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean to imply that it would be a good thing. No, Dostoevsky taught me how important a role conservatives play. The role they play essentially boils down to preventing liberals from enacting dictatorships; this doesn't mean that liberals are evil...all liberals start out with the intention to promote freedom.

It's more complicated than that...but right now, conservatives(not the politicians) are what's holding back a NWO dictatorship. I just meant to say it would be good for the NWO. I don't think it'd be good at all.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Ah, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean to imply that it would be a good thing. No, Dostoevsky taught me how important a role conservatives play. The role they play essentially boils down to preventing liberals from enacting dictatorships; this doesn't mean that liberals are evil...all liberals start out with the intention to promote freedom.

It's more complicated than that...but right now, conservatives(not the politicians) are what's holding back a NWO dictatorship. I just meant to say it would be good for the NWO. I don't think it'd be good at all.


Oh Ok thanx for clearing that up. And yeah I agree completely maybe that's what liberals mean when they say the media statement, "Republicans and Tea Party in particular are holding the country back."

However, they praised the thousands of out of work OWS protesters because of their good intentions. Heh, this could have also been put into US Political Madness.
edit on 8-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Why Republicans will be blamed for WWIII:

1. Created and fostered the Military-Industrial Complex
2. Decades of Corporatism in the Mid-East, exploiting them for oil
3. Launched unilateral wars in the Mid-East - Iraq (v.2) was all about oil and making $$$
4. Foreign Policy that is right out of the 1800's - exploit poor nations, military interventionism, forced treaties favorable to US corporations (look up Gen. Smedley Butler "War is a Racket"



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Why Republicans will be blamed for WWIII:

1. Created and fostered the Military-Industrial Complex
2. Decades of Corporatism in the Mid-East, exploiting them for oil
3. Launched unilateral wars in the Mid-East - Iraq (v.2) was all about oil and making $$$
4. Foreign Policy that is right out of the 1800's - exploit poor nations, military interventionism, forced treaties favorable to US corporations (look up Gen. Smedley Butler "War is a Racket"


And dispute numerous protests, crying, and shouts of peace and love liberals have been no better. They do the same exact things because the people in higher power already have plans laid out for the rest of the year!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Why Republicans will be blamed for WWIII:

1. Created and fostered the Military-Industrial Complex
2. Decades of Corporatism in the Mid-East, exploiting them for oil
3. Launched unilateral wars in the Mid-East - Iraq (v.2) was all about oil and making $$$
4. Foreign Policy that is right out of the 1800's - exploit poor nations, military interventionism, forced treaties favorable to US corporations (look up Gen. Smedley Butler "War is a Racket"


1. Actually, it began under two Democrats, Roosevelt and Truman. Eisenhower, a Republican actually warned the nation about it. After Kennedy's assassination, the Complex literally astronomically expanded under Johnson, a Democrat.

2. The exploitation of the Middle East began after World War I by the French and British. They placed governments in power that further exploited their own people. The British Empire, placed the House of Saud in power in Arabia. The Saudis control the largest oil corporation on earth. OPEC is the largest cartel of the largest oil corporations on earth.

3. Iraq was not about oil, otherwise we wouldn't have let Iraq sell their oil fields to China. The increased oil prices from the war have benefitted OPEC and Russia the most of anyone.

4. All nations do that. Look at China in Africa buying up resources, buying up the Iraqi oilfields, or Afghan mineral rights. It doesn't benefit the people in those nations at all.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 
Republicans are the "little brother" in the political realm.
They get blamed for raising taxes
Lowering taxes
Ignoring taxes
Starting wars
Ending wars
Racism
Sexism
Stealing cookies from the cookie jar
Small Pox
The Spanish American War
Kim Kardashians wedding break-up
Charlie Sheens drinking problems
and
Bad Ninja movies.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

1. Actually, it began under two Democrats, Roosevelt and Truman. Eisenhower, a Republican actually warned the nation about it. After Kennedy's assassination, the Complex literally astronomically expanded under Johnson, a Democrat.

Let's not confuse WWII armament industries as being a 'military-industrial-complex', in the aftermath of the war, military spending dropped very low. Defense spending went from $908 Billion in 1945 to $10.9 billion in 1948, a drastic reduction, but due to the Korean war, Cold war, and Viet Nam, it peaked again in 1967 at $18 billion. Then came Carter and defense spending was at it's lowest again, in fact this was called "Carter's Era of Neglect" be defense hawks. What I consider to be the REAL takeover of the Military-Industrial Complex began under Reagan. Massive defense spending that would match that of the Korean, Cold, and Viet Nam wars, a build-up of a 600-ship navy, exorbitant "special projects" spending like SDI, and black-budget fighters.


In 1977, following the Vietnam war, U.S. President Jimmy Carter began his presidency with what historian Michael Sherry has called "a determination to break from America's militarized past."[4] However, increased defense spending in the era of President Ronald Reagan was seen by some to have brought the MIC back into prominence. (from Wikipedia)

Yes, the seeds for some of the companies recognized as part of the MIC were laid as far back as WWII (mostly the plane manufacturers) but under Reagan the MIC was revived in a big way, and with a whole new slew of players on top of the previous ones, Carlisle, United Defense Industries, Bechtel, KBR, etc. These differed from the WWII era of industrialists - and I think Naom Chomsky captures it best - he calls the MIC a "misnomer", you can't accuse industries like automotive and plane manufacturers of WWII a "military industrial complex" when they were responding to the needs of the nation for armament manufacturing (well, except for Boeing, that guy was a sleaze even back then). Even during the cold war, when there was a sustained need for constantly improving and evolving military technology, it's unfair to label industries as engaged in some sort of unsavory practice. Dwight Eisenhower did recognize how collusion between a senator or congress could lead to an unneeded contract fleecing taxpayers, after all this is the man who made his Secretary of the Interior return a raincoat as graft or resign, but still industry alone isn't the culpable party. That wouldn't come until Reagan's era where new industries need a state on constant conflict in some part of the world to profit from. You can look at Carlisle, UDI (now BAE), Halliburton, etc. as some of the major players in the push to go to war for the second time in Iraq - not just for oil, but for the cost of rebuilding Iraq, "nation building" on the American taxpayers dime, the armament industries that earn millions per every missile fired, the armies of private contractors. Even though I consider the Reagan years to be the revival and expansion of the MIC, those years pale in comparison to it under Bush I and II.

The sad thing about this sort of MIC, is once it's entrenched, it's permanent. Maybe someone like Ron Paul can break it's back, but I doubt anything short of financial collapse or revolution will free us from it's grip.



2. The exploitation of the Middle East began after World War I by the French and British. They placed governments in power that further exploited their own people. The British Empire, placed the House of Saud in power in Arabia. The Saudis control the largest oil corporation on earth. OPEC is the largest cartel of the largest oil corporations on earth.

I'm looking at much more recent times, specifically the unilateral war in Iraq which has greatly destabilized the region.



3. Iraq was not about oil, otherwise we wouldn't have let Iraq sell their oil fields to China. The increased oil prices from the war have benefitted OPEC and Russia the most of anyone.

Just remember the US oil companies hold the largest share of PSAs with Iraq and when those oil fields were auctions they will also profit. Bit it wasn't just the oil the US was going to profit from - or instead of saying "the US" we should say "US industries" who would profit not at the Iraqis expense, but the American taxpayer footing the bill. That meant reconstruction costs, rebuilding, etc. Kellog, Brown, and Root, made billions, and they were just a division of Halliburton - which itself made billions (just supplying water to troops was a major profit center for them). Bechtel also made billions as a construction company there, you have Blackwater with it's mercenaries also made billions, etc., etc.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


The massive spending, almost 40% of our GDP, dropped at the end of WW2 but the seeds were planted, which sprouted during the Cold War, beginning in Korea while Truman was President.

After that war, which was brought to an end by Republican President Dwight D Eisenhower, he warned of the emerging military industrial complex. The complex as we know it was born during Vietnam, while Johnson, a Democrat, was President. All of the current big industries began then.

Reagan revitalized the defense industry after Carter, but many black budget and modern systems were all born during the Carter/Ford administrations or earlier. Some examples:

1. F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter (prototype flight 1977)
2. B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber (ATB project began in 1979)
3. M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (prototypes 1976)
4. AH-64 Apache Gunship (prototype 1975)
5. SDI (Project Defender 1958, Sentinel Program 1963, Safeguard Program 1967)
6. Supercarriers: USS Enterprise 1958, USS Nimitz 1968, USS Dwight D Eisenhower 1970, USS Carl Vinson 1975.


I'm looking at much more recent times, specifically the unilateral war in Iraq which has greatly destabilized the region.


The region has never been stable from the time the Ottoman Empire fell after World War I. It has been devastated by revolts, civil wars, 4 Arab-Israel wars, Anglo-Franco imperialism (Suez crisis), the Cold War, Shiite-Sunni wars (Yemen, Iran-Iraq war, Lebanon), invasions, terrorism, revolutions, coups, etc.

As for contractors, KBR made billions off of the Clinton administration, from Clinton's nation building and intervention, especially in the Balkans and Somalia. DynCorp also greatly profited in the Clinton years in the Balkans. Blackwater started up in 1997. Their first contracts were with the Clinton administration.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Go to the Wiki page for each of those projects Mike, of the ones you listed they almost all began in the early 70's under Nixon/Ford.

F-117:
1975, under Nixon/Ford.

The F-117 was born after combat experience in the Vietnam War when increasingly sophisticated Soviet surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) downed heavy bombers.[12] It was a black project, an ultra-secret program for much of its life, until the late 1980s.[13] The project began in 1975 with a model called the "Hopeless Diamond"


B2:
1976, Carter, following Carter's cancellation of the extravagant B1 boondoggle This example shows the MIC at it's finest - the B1 was Nixon's baby, was grossy expensive, and antiquated by the new stealth technology being developed. So Carter cancelled it in favor of the B2. The Air Force refused to allow the B1 to be mothballed so now we had both, then in 1980 Reagan expanded BOTH the B1 and B2 projects and even revived the B52 (B52s flew in the gulf war)

M1:
XM1 designated in 1975, under Nixon/Ford.

Congress canceled the MBT-70 in November and XM803 December 1971, and redistributed the funds to the new XM815, later renamed the XM1 Abrams after General Creighton Abrams. Prototypes were delivered in 1976 by Chrysler Defense and General Motors
Carter was just entering office when the prototypes were being delivered.

AH-64 Apache Gunship:
Hughes version, 1975 under Nixon/Ford.
McDonnell version, 1984, Reagan.

SDI:
Proposed by Reagan, 1983.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983


There's a reason Carter was criticized for being weak on defense - he didn't spend lavishly on DoD projects like his predecessors or his Republican rival, Reagan. As far as extravagant projects go, Reagan exemplifies what's wrong with the MIC. We not only had B2's, but he revived the B1 (cancelled by Carter) and maintained and upgraded a fleet of B52H's - three long range bombers costing billions each. (and we still maintain a small fleet of B52H's!)

The military budget page on Wiki give a graphic example of military spending by year:




You can see that when the military budget goes up under Republicans, so does US aggression overseas.

Another factor to take into consideration, is the majority of the CEOs of the companies belonging to the "MIC" are Republican. Not all, but definitely the majority. Check NNDB.com, enter a company name, and click through the list of CEO and company officers. Pretty short on Democrats.

Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, etc., virtually every one of their CEOs is Republican. NNDB.com also lists the PACs and other campaign committees they've contributed to - and those were most often Republican. FYI, Blackwater and it's founder Eric Prince is so fanatically right-wing they were born and bred from the Reagan/Bush era to be their private army. When you regard the political nature of the Military-Industrial Complex, it's not just who's sitting in the White House, but the party membership of Congress and especially of the companies CEOs and board. Rockwell/Boeing still managed to land a fat contract for a passe technology bomber (the B1), in spite of the wishes of the sitting president, and even after having that contract cancelled, still got their project through (or at least kept it alive until the next president got elected and revived it). That's the power of the MIC.

The question is, where does the MIC sow strife and conflict to set the stage for another decade or two of profit? If we wanted to admit R vs L paradigms have failed in controlling the MIC and it's military aggression, we might be able to recognize that what's really at work here is "corporatism" - very powerful, very profitable companies have used war for profit, and have so completely infiltrated government with their monied influence they can assure a near state of constant conflict and never-ending defense dollars for themselves.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


My point was many projects that people think began under Reagan began before his administration. I mentioned both the Carter and Ford administrations in my post.

Now here is something to really think about, since you mentioned "corporatism" or what I prefer to call Plutocracy, the Military Industrial Complex is just a link in the food chain.

The "MIC" cannot do anything without capital that it borrows from what I call the Financial Investment Complex. All of the hedge fund firms (Blackrock, Bain Capital, Cerberus Capital Management, Soros Fund Management), mutual fund complexes (Vanguard, Fidelity, American Funds), and investment banks (JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) are the ones who ultimately profit from any conflict or nation building. They control the flow of capital not just for the MIC, but for literally everything, media, energy, etc.

Even then they are not at the top of the food chain, as they are not the ultimate source of financial capital, i.e. the money suppliers. The money suppliers are the ones who ultimately profit from every financial activity undertaken by humans on this planet and which the entire global power structure revolves around.

If you want blame anyone for World War 3, or 2 and 1 for that matter, the buck stops with them.

Keep in mind, they are above the left or right paradigm, beyond any political party. They are a technocratic plutarchy which holds most if not the entire planet in debt bondage. The MIC are just peons to them.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



Now here is something to really think about, since you mentioned "corporatism" or what I prefer to call Plutocracy, the Military Industrial Complex is just a link in the food chain.


Even then they are not at the top of the food chain, as they are not the ultimate source of financial capital, i.e. the money suppliers. The money suppliers are the ones who ultimately profit from every financial activity undertaken by humans on this planet and which the entire global power structure revolves around.

If you want blame anyone for World War 3, or 2 and 1 for that matter, the buck stops with them.



Very good answer I couldn't have said it myself. Liberals might be the worse party out of the two of them why you ask? They exploit people's hopes, dreams, and fears. If your republican or conservative your religion (christian) usually takes care of most of that stuff. And we conservatives know what we stand for and we stand by those beliefs more strongly than the left does. Obama has been called the "Compromiser in Chief" for a reason. This is also why the left media insists that every failed policy Obama has put in place is because of Bush's magic powers while he's relaxxing away on his ranch, or the devilish evil tea party.

Anyway back to my first point, liberals feed off of hope and change and peace and love. Whereas really there is no great change coming. It's all decided at the Builderberger meetings and inside the CFR. Other more definitive business deals are made at Camp David (which Ironically does not have its own website), and the Financial Investment Complex's different annual shareholders meetings. Those get even less attention and less people know about them.

Obama has once again just called everyone to prepare for a new activist government. I guess NWO doesn't appeal anymore. And liberals love the term activist. He also falsely accused that capitalism has never worked.

Nobody ever asked what change? or yes we can do what?
edit on 8-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I'd agree, good answer - Hedge fund operators and major investment banks are the under-represented side of the MIC. Where things get very mingled is when board members of a JP Morgan or a Goldman Sachs also reside on boards of a Lockheed or a Boeing, along with former US officials. So many deals are done behind closed doors to just keep up a parade of over-budgeted super weapons. The F22 is a perfect example, barely used and already replaced by the F35, billions wasted and for what?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join