Jump to content

Is the USA making plans to 'Take Out' Iran, the Seventh country on the George W. Bush 'List' in order to maintain the dominance of the Petro-Dollar ?


Recommended Posts

Posted

Iranians are by and large, well educated. They are NOT Arabs..US regards all oil in the world as "theirs". Bush blatantly lied about the reasons for invading IRAQ. I recall him saying clearly in answer to a direct question. "It's NOT about OIL". Rupert Murdoch stated at the time, After "we" invade IRAO oil will be almost free.. IF you lived there how would you think? Would you not regard USA as a threat? Sadam Hussein thought he had the green light to attack IRAN . Nev

 

 

Posted

Meanwhile, we're treated to the extremely strange sight of Boris Johnson trying to convince his buddy The Donald not to rip up the agreement. Strange in that Boris is usually better at putting his foot in his mouth than attempting to do the right thing.

 

 

Posted
Meanwhile, we're treated to the extremely strange sight of Boris Johnson trying to convince his buddy The Donald not to rip up the agreement. Strange in that Boris is usually better at putting his foot in his mouth than attempting to do the right thing.

Marty,. . .that is EXACTLY what Wifey and I were discussing last night. It was she who brought up the subject . .( have you two ever met ? )

 

As a general rule of thumb, Boris will always do, or respond counter intuitively in most situations. The only other time I recall that he did something sensible, was to ignore media pressure to raise sanctions against the Iranian government for their arrest of an Iranian born British woman. He refused to do anything at all. The Lady was working for the BBC ( Allegedly ) and 'Training' Anti- government Iranian journalists. . .They took a dim view of that and banged her up. Iran does not recognize 'Dual Nationality' and it is no protection in that country.

 

I liked the comment in the above video by that nice American Lady, where she said that with the Saudis, Qataris, Israelis AND the USA ranged against them, she was'nt really surprised that they Might well want a couple of 'Nukes' to dissuade any thoughts of regime change by force.

 

As for 'The Donald'. . .does anyone really believe that, despite all his daft Tweeting of bellicose bullying, that he is REALLY 'Fully In Charge' of the U.S. Government's Foreign policies ? ? If so,. then he would probably be the first president ever to be so.

 

And another thing, If they award him a Nobel Prize for his 'Efforts' to Pacify the North Korean feller, . . I'll bloody well send Mine Back. ( It was the Nobel prize for Advanced Pleonasm of the highest order )

 

 

Posted

The suggestion to give the Orange Clown the peace prize was a very skillful political move by Moon Jae-In.

 

He knows this will feed the roaring ego stuffed in a suit, may implant in whatever walnut-sized brain hovers under the combover that he's a peacemaker extraordinaire, therefore nudging him more towards an actual peace process than the chest-thumping schoolyard tactics he's been using so far.

 

Same with Macron, he managed to pretend a full-on bromance with the idiot while making speeches that were diametrically opposed to Trump's stance on a number of issues.

 

It's encouraging to the world that there are real statesmen and -women out there that can counter the occasional bull in the political china shop.

 

 

Posted

If anyone gets the peace prize over that issue, it should be Moon. He's the one who went to an election on a platform of making peace with the North and has done the hard yards of diplomacy to help make it a reality.

 

The Donald has applied sanctions, slung a bit of mud and threatened to obliterate a nation. But at least he's done something if he gets it. Obama got one just for saying he was gunna doo things. The Nobel Peace Prize is a rather discredited gong these days.

 

 

Posted

Maybe giving the peace prize to tomatohead might keep his finger off the trigger for a while. If it makes the delusional idiot feel good about himself why not?

 

 

Posted

People fight and die even for the right to vote.down through all the pages of History If they then don't bother to vote what's it all about?..It's your ONLY chance to kick the bastard$ out without people dieing but they elect someone like Trump who's steadily been surrounding himself with warmongers and acts like a full fledged bully boy who's had a full frontal lobotomy. and wants all the toys. for himself. Nev

 

 

Posted
People fight and die even for the right to vote.down through all the pages of History If they then don't bother to vote what's it all about?..It's your ONLY chance to kick the bastard$ out without people dieing but they elect someone like Trump who's steadily been surrounding himself with warmongers and acts like a full fledged bully boy who's had a full frontal lobotomy. and wants all the toys. for himself. Nev

I wonder whether compulsory voting would have led to a different outcome. Hard to believe it wouldn't. I actually like that it's compulsory here.

 

 

Posted
People fight and die even for the right to vote.down through all the pages of History If they then don't bother to vote what's it all about?..It's your ONLY chance to kick the bastard$ out without people dieing but they elect someone like Trump who's steadily been surrounding himself with warmongers and acts like a full fledged bully boy who's had a full frontal lobotomy. and wants all the toys. for himself. Nev

Ignoring the president for a moment ( small 'p' ) What if, WHEN you have voted,. . . .and obtained a clear majority for that Thing or Person for which / whom you voted,. . and then the incumbent Government IGNORE your majority, after promising to implement it, and try, with the gleeful assistance of a compliant media, to 'back pedal' .drag te situation out for a couple of years, add concepts which were not on the ballot paper, and even to mumble via media generated chinese whispers that another vote might be required, to get the Right result ? Does this not demean and make somewhat pointless the whole concept of 'Democracy' Nev ?

 

If you voted for Fred Nerke, and he won, should he not take up elected office immediately after the result ?. . If you vote in a Plebiscite for a particular major change in policy and your vote is one of the winning majority, would you not expect your wishes to be carried out as promised, immediately ? Would you be happy to have the full weight of the Mainstream media telling you that you 'Didn't realise what you were voting for' ?

 

And people wonder why I, and 17.4 million people like me, are thoroughly disillusioned with 'Democracy'. How can a second Chamber of Government, being stuffed by patronage only, but totally Un elected, block a democratic vote by an undisputed majority of the electorate ? How can Elected constituency MPs vote against the majority wishes of their constituents ?. . .are they not working for US ?. . . WE are supposed to be their masters. . that was the whole idea of representation. . . .and yet these scumbags are voting against the wishes of the people who put them where they are. . .Unfecking believable.

 

I am sorry if you found my funny picture post mildly offensive, that was not the intention. Let's put it down to my being somewhat Peed off with the subject of politicians in the 'Mother of all Parliaments'

 

Yeah,. . .right.

 

 

Posted

Corruption affects all organisations once it is allowed to flourish. Democracy (People government) has to be the best option for government where despots can't thrive You boot them out without killing anyone although you would love to.. Of course it 's clumsy and depends on people being well informed and a lot of effort is expended by vested interests to make you NOT well informed but misinformed or ignorant of facts. so you think they love you and are nice .

 

Your picture and associated words are not offensive. and the suggestion is realistic. I happen to be big on the right to exercise your vote. IF you don't vote don't whinge if some reprehensible bounder from Barbaria gets in and ruins the world.

 

Unelected upper house members cannot be justified by any process of logic and reason. The "Aristocracy" of England seems to keep existing when the French showed you the solution a little while ago.. They live just across that moat to the South East. . Betty Windsor is quite well off in her own right and she "could be" a lot worse person and a lot of tourist money is derived from the Pomp and Ceremony bit the Brits do very well. but the Royalty thing can't be taken seriously as a form of Government, unless it's part of the religion. Oh Wait It was! Something between Canterbury and Rome Oh Dear.. Oh well the Magna Carta was a good thing.

 

Corporations only get the vote in good Ole USA..They go through the motions but you get what I'm at. NRA FDA OIL people. Arms manufacturers. You know the ones that invade to keep the OIL price down or invade when people don't vote proper. as GOD meant them to..

 

World's Policeman........ Aren't we lucky. to have them doing that job for us.? Nev

 

 

Posted
Corruption affects all organisations once it is allowed to flourish. Democracy (People government) has to be the best option for government where despots can't thrive You boot them out without killing anyone although you would love to.. Of course it 's clumsy and depends on people being well informed and a lot of effort is expended by vested interests to make you NOT well informed but misinformed or ignorant of facts. so you think they love you and are nice .Your picture and associated words are not offensive. and the suggestion is realistic. I happen to be big on the right to exercise your vote. IF you don't vote don't whinge if some reprehensible bounder from Barbaria gets in and ruins the world.

 

Unelected upper house members cannot be justified by any process of logic and reason. The "Aristocracy" of England seems to keep existing when the French showed you the solution a little while ago.. They live just across that moat to the South East. . Betty Windsor is quite well off in her own right and she "could be" a lot worse person and a lot of tourist money is derived from the Pomp and Ceremony bit the Brits do very well. but the Royalty thing can't be taken seriously as a form of Government, unless it's part of the religion. Oh Wait It was! Something between Canterbury and Rome Oh Dear.. Oh well the Magna Carta was a good thing.

 

Corporations only get the vote in good Ole USA..They go through the motions but you get what I'm at. NRA FDA OIL people. Arms manufacturers. You know the ones that invade to keep the OIL price down or invade when people don't vote proper. as GOD meant them to..

 

World's Policeman........ Aren't we lucky. to have them doing that job for us.? Nev

 

Agreed Nev. Just one thing though,. . Tony Blair removed most of the Aristocratic 'Hereditary' Lords and peers during his reign, which was in some ways a shame, as these were the landed Gentry, who had a reason to protect the country. A lot of them were extremely patriotic and well versed in the laws of the land and would Never attempt en masse to Blatantly act in direct opposition to a democratic mandate, Especially the largest one in British History, although they were well qualified to Question Government policy and 'suggest' alternatives. instead, they now rally under political party lines which was never case a short wile back. There are only 50 of those left, out of a total of around 850. The others being ex-celebrities and other political placemen / Women.

 

I have never wasted a vote since I was legally able to cast them; even though sometimes the choice is limited to the best of a bad bunch !

 

 

Posted

Not all the Lords that were removed were landed gentry. I knew one personally, his father was a field marshall. He was a really nice bloke, but I doubt that he was much good at politics, in fact I doubt that he attended the Lords much. Maybe I should look him up. Lord Harding of Petherton. The field marshall who was the first Lord harding was my father in laws cousin, my father in law was a conscientous objector in WW2.

 

 

Posted
Ignoring the president for a moment ( small 'p' ) What if, WHEN you have voted,. . . .and obtained a clear majority for that Thing or Person for which / whom you voted,. . ...If you voted for Fred Nerke, and he won, should he not take up elected office immediately after the result ?. . If you vote in a Plebiscite for a particular major change in policy and your vote is one of the winning majority, would you not expect your wishes to be carried out as promised, immediately ? Would you be happy to have the full weight of the Mainstream media telling you that you 'Didn't realise what you were voting for' ?

In the case of a certain clown...

 

1) It wasn't a majority - 3 million more voted for the other one (just their electoral college system).

 

2) What about external influences on the election - Russian interference, Facebook / Cambridge Analytica, etc.

 

3) Payoffs to porn stars to prevent the good ol' evangelists from finding out about his pecker-dillios

 

4) World's dumbest-timed announcement by head of the FBI about investigation into Clinton ("but we thought she was going to win...")

 

By no means a crushing landslide.

 

However by the tone of your post I take it that you're discussing Brexit...

 

 

Posted

I don't think foreign interference has any significant effect on election outcomes. Look at all the money and interference that the U.S. puts into trying to sway Russian elections. It doesn't seem to worry Vlad. It might have some effect in small third world countries, but not in the majors.

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...