Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama's drone killing spree - part 1

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 15, 2012, 11:26 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Two new studies on President Obama’s practice of mass-killing through drones strikes, have recently been issued by top law schools in the U.S. The two studies are hair-raising— both in their debunking of the notion of “surgical precision” which Administration officials claim for drone strikes, and for their demonstration of the illegality of Obama’s practices under the laws of war and international humanitarian law.

In other words, by the standards of international law, particularly those established for the protection of civilians, after the atrocities of World War II, Barack Obama, President of the United States, is a war criminal. The first of these studies, issued on Sept. 24, was a joint project of Stanford Law School and New York University Law School. Entitled “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from U.S. Drone Practices in Pakistan,” it is based on 130 interviews, including of 69 persons who were either victims of drone strikes, witnesses, or family members of victims from North Waziristan, in the Federally Protected Tribal Areas (FATA) on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The second, titled, “The Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions,” conducted by the Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict, was released Oct. 1, and deals with drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia, in addition to Pakistan. Taken together, the two studies constitute a damning indictment of Obama’s killing policy using covert drone strikes. A major theme of both studies, more explicit in the Columbia study, is to debunk the claimed notion of “precision” in drone strikes; Obama, for example, has described the strikes as “precise, precision strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates.” In truth, there is no such “precision” in either the targeting before strikes, or in assessing casualities and damage after the fact.

…the Stanford study reports that when George W. Bush left office, the U.S. had carried out 45-52 drone strikes from 2002-08. Obama has conducted almost 300 strikes in just three and one-half years—roughly six times more than Bush, in half the time.

Accurate figures on casualties are impossible to come by, but the Stanford report says that what it considers the best estimate, that made by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), is that 2,562 to 3,325 people were killed by drone strikes during the period from mid-2004 to mid-2012—most since Obama took office in 2009. The BIJ estimate is that 474 to 881 of these were civilians, including 176 children, these being the only cases that the BIJ could actually identify as civilians. The accounts of mass killings obtained in on-the-ground interviews in Pakistan show a much higher percentage of civilian deaths.

202 Comments

202 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Bombing civilians and then bombing their rescuers is a war crime.

Obama and Biden belong in a prison cell next to Bush and Cheney. Biden voted for all the "Bush" wars and their funding. Obama funded the war in Iraq as a Senator even though he says he opposed it and then as president he increased Afghanistan.

If you were to shoot a bunch of civilians in this country you can get executed. When presidents kill civilians in foreign countries they get saluted.

Sometimes their party hacks will make excuses like "But he's killed less people than the other guy." Just listen to yourselves! You're saying murder is acceptable.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

My fantasy outcome: Romney is defeated, the revolution comes and all the criminals from Bush to Silverstein of "pull building seven" fame, to Obama and all the little shits who have covered for them all these years- public trial!

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Did somebody mention impeachment?

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

really? He got nobel peace prize, so technicaly speaking he trying to not get involved in local conflicts by bombing villages. Romney will be worth by following Bush's scenario. Pupet democracy. ever heard of it? there not much choice has left. only God or perhaps Santa will help us: http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/election/santa-for-president-your-write-in-vote-will-count/article_ee1f78fe-d399-5e7b-bc84-6fb84e8ed036.html?TNNoMobile

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The choice is, impeach Obama and get Biden. Threaten any incumbent with impeachment if he involves us in undeclared wars or grossly neglects his responsibilities, such as financial reorganization and economic recovery.

Maybe then, they would get the message and start doing their jobs.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Only Congress can impeach, right?

And they are all shareholders, with insider trading rights, to make their millions off war never-ending. There'll be no impeachment with that situation in place.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

There is a small group of senators who are coming to their senses and realizing the seriousness of our situation. Which is that global civilization in its entirety is now threatened. As this can only become clearer, hopefully more will begin to see the light.

Here are some examples:

News Spreads of Rep. Jones' Impeachment-Threat Resolution 107

The last 24 hours have seen the "instant" spread of support for Rep. Walter Jones' impeachment-threat resolution continue. House Concurrent Resolution 107 says that the President commits an impeachable crime if he starts military action without authorization from Congress as the Constitution requires. Congress has been in recess since it was introduced on March 7, but support has resonated around the country through the immediate LaRouchePAC candidates' mobilization, and in other networks affected by it.

http://larouchepac.com/node/21968

Kentucky Senator Perry Clark Sticks to His Guns: Impeach Obama!

It took a few days, but it is dawning on Kentucky political circles that Democratic State Senator Perry Clark was serious when he issued his statement on August 8th, joining statesman Lyndon LaRouche in calling for the immediate resignation or impeachment of President Obama and the enactment of Glass-Steagall, to save the United States republic from Obama's repeat of Adolf Hitler's 1933 Enabling Laws.

The Louisiville news site, LEO Weekly, posted a story last night reporting that "State Sen. Perry Clark Confirms that He Penned Letter Asking Obama to Resign, Praises Lyndon LaRouche." Sen. Clark told the apparently shocked "Fatlip" blogger that his letter speaks for itself. "What he [Obama] is doing with the Super Congress is unconstitutional. Obama is defending the international bankers. What we need to do is bring back Glass-Steagall. But I don't think [Obama] has the balls to stand up to them," Clark said. And he cited LaRouche's established authority as the man with "a track record of being right for many, many years," who has been "shut down by the mainstream because he's too much of a threat to the international financiers, he's challenging the system too much, and they're afraid of him."

http://larouchepac.com/node/19068

Obama's 9/11 Coverup is Collapsing, Escalate for Impeachment Now

Senator Susan Collins led the charge at hearings on Wednesday, where Matt Olson, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, was grilled about the Benghazi attack. Collins repeatedly said that she and many Senate colleagues were outraged and stunned when they found out that there were no armed Marine security details at the embassy or the consulate in Libya. CNN reported on Thursday that Ambassador Chris Stevens had confided to close colleagues that he knew that he was on an Al Qaeda hit list and that the security situation in the country, particularly in the Benghazi area, was disintegrating. The lid has blown off the Obama coverup, and we have reliable indications that a flood of further evidence of Obama’s criminal complicity and the story behind the story of the Benghazi attacks will grab headlines in the coming days.

http://larouchepac.com/node/23970

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Vkag says this is fine.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Obama is no dove, he campaigned on war making,. and true to his word, has expanded the drone murders at an alarming rate.

Yes the Rs are worse warmongers than the Ds however BOTH PARTIES are corporate/military in nature.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is the fear mongering rhetoric, and the war mongering posture that perpetuate these drone bombings, civil rights violations and the endless war on terror.

I didn't say Pres Obama is a Dove. That is a dishonest attempt to attach some extremist description of Obama I've never suggested.

In fact I have said repeatedly we MUST protest Obama for the drone bombings and rights violations.

My point is the roots of the problem is the fear mongering. Dems ain't doin that, Repubs ARE.

Dems have ratcheted the rhetoric down. This has created panic amongst repubs. This morning Peter King (R NY) said as much when he criticized Pres Obama for not using the buzz word "terrorism" enough. He went on to say Al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever. They must push that lie to keep the very lucrative war on terror going.

That is what must change. Al Qaeda was never as dangerous as repubs claimed! They use that fear to continue the war on terror.

Pres Obama accelerated the drone strikes (I'm against them) in place of massive invasions. Pres Obama did this to justify the eventual declaration of the end of the war on terror.

This is what scares the shit out of the repubs. They love endless war on terror. They have used fear of terrorism so effectively they can't have dems end it.

replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

You did, in fact, call "partisan campaign attack",. and that is pure bull sht! We are telling you the fact; the Ds are just as war mongering as the Rs, they just spin a nicer face on it,. simple as that. Facts of military spending and military expansion and war creation,. the corporate-military-bankers run the 'government' and that is a fact, the parties are just used to provide the illusion of choice and change, this is an illusion.

You seem to be the one caught in partisan lies,. get you head out of your ass.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dems are NOT spewing the fear mngering Muslim witch hunts, Repub Bachman is.

Repubs are presuring for invasion of Iran. Dems have resisted.

Peter King is claiming that Al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever. Dems are trying to convince us we've decimated Al Qaeda so that we can declare the repub war on Terror over.

These are facts. Not my opinions. The repubs always criticize dems for being weak on defense (weak on terror these days) so that they can incease defense budget.

Dems have cut the defense budget have plans for more cuts.

Facts. not opinions.

Replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives, & protest all war & rights violations.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"The repubs are (& always have been) the war mongering party." In fact perhaps its the contrary. I won't weary you with too much information. Just ask yourself under which party did the US get into WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam war, the war to destroy Yugoslavia, the Libya war (just getting started- check the newspapers), Syria ditto - troops now to Jordan- . Who took the world to the edge of destruction in 1962?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I know about Yugoslavia, I know about the starvation of the iraqis under Clinton too and now the attacks on Libya and Syria to be followed (I hope not) by Iran, which already is under a viscious US led economic strangulation attack. I know about the bombardment of Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan. It may be argued that these would be worse under the Republicans- I suspect that is so- but you can't argue that these things are good things.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I suppose we just disagree.

No matter.

Russia out of Syria. & take your puppet Assad with you!

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

To the people of Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, all countries that find themselves in the crosshairs of the US of A.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/obamas-drone-killing-spree-part-1/#comment-857969

Understand that this guy VQkag2 does not represent the typical American - the typical American is much worse! even more arrogant and bellicose! Understand that Occupy Wall Street will not be any kind of force against any US attack on you. Understand that there is no legitimate opposition force inside the USA that has any capability at all. Make your assessment and plans accordingly.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The Democratic party is reasserting itself as the war party. The only party to nuke someone is now fine with bombing nations given no cause.

And you love every minute of it. Why dont you go join em if you support the war so much?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I do not support the war. that is you lying.

I reject your assertions the dems are reasserting itself as the war party. The repubs are still the only party spewing fear mongering, the only party pressuring for invasion of Iran.

Repub Peter King is trying to convince us Al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever because he like the rest of the repubs are desperate to continue the war on terror.

The repub criticize Pres Obama for saying Al Qaeada has been decimated because that makes it more difficult to perpetuate the war on terror.

Bachman is trying to whip up anti Muslim witch hunts. And all repubs criticize dems for being weak on terrorism.

There is no comparison between the parties on who is war mongering.

And we must 1st vote out all pols who are spewing that fear mongering. Everything else can end when we kick out the fear spewing war mongering repubs.

[-] 5 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

This is why Obama didn't want to investigate Bush's war crimes. He had his own to commit. Two parties ...... same goals ;(

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The Obama administration also helped suppress evidence of torture which could have been used to convict Bush for war crimes. Source from the ACLU. This should come as no surprise really... as at the time Senator Obama did nothing to try and impeach Bush for war crimes... even though Dennis Kucinich had 35 articles of impeachment he was trying to gain support for.

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Xlnt. A+

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

It's true. Reid, Polosi, Obama and even MSNBC use the word "FORWARD" way too much, in an effort to brush the past under the rug.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana~

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Then - Iraq had WMD's

Now - Iran wants WMD's

It's repeating.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

What I view as the biggest potential problem are the ones that posses the most WMD's - US. The aggressors.

IMO - We are not reacting to world events; we are creating them through this plan:

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I don't get how people don't understand the war plan.

Syria, Iran now the talks of the town.

Great video. I remember seeing that video for the first time right before the US joined NATO to bomb the fuck out of Libya.

US is realizing it's harder to get civilian approval so they are seeking alternatives like NATO.

All the Obama supporters for the longest time said "Libya wasn't us... that was NATO." So obviously that strategy is working.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I don't get it either TM. It's staring us right in the face, and we act like the three monkeys. I mean Wesley Clark is not a janitor that worked in the Pentagon that might have overheard a conversation, or something like that; he's a 4 star general that was a presidential candidate that has direct inside information. He actually called it a policy coup in this speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU

You mentioned Libya being bombed. Could that be a lie too? I just found this today - Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4MK2DN7QU

OK - I'm going to do it. I'm coming out of the closet. I'll just come out and say it. I am a proud 9/11 TRUTHER !! So with that in mind, understand that I believe that they used 9/11 to gain civilian approval to enter these wars and perpetuate the plan that Wesley Clark describes. I also agree that the US is realizing that it's getting harder to get civilian approval for more wars. I think that this heightens the chances of another false flag attack, in order to blame Iran and to build support for a new war. As you said Syria & Iran are now the talk of the town.

Is this a little over the top? Possibly. But the pieces fit.

BTW - I've noticed this Wesley Clark video has been translated into many different languages on you tube, so it is getting the attention of the rest of the world. Cheers

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They did use 9/11 to gain population approval to go into these wars. That is not 9/11 truth... that is just plain truth. They were able to do so because America was in fear and people wanted vengeance. It was easy for the government to manipulate the people into supporting or not caring about the wars. They built up a "just get 'em" mantra.

The government does not necessarily need to bomb or invade these countries to accomplish their goal. Go back to 1979 when the government funded and helped arm the Muhajideen and the Afghan Arabs to overthrow Afghanistan and fight the soviets. They still use these covert ops tactics. I think that's what we're seeing in Syria. One fact about Syria is a large portion of the "rebels" are from other countries.

We saw a similar situation to the Muhajideen in Libya.... although backing the rebels was not working on it's own which is why NATO had to get involved.

I'm not defending Assad or Gaddafi..... I'm just pointing out we have no business in these countries and I am not pro-war.

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good thing Pres Obama has resisted the right wing war mongerers pressure to invade Iran. Right?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'll remind you when Obama signs the NDAA for 2013 which prepares for war in Iran. The signing will happen in December most likely. Maybe earlier if the senate passes it quick.

On issues like this they can't just invade at the drop of a hat. The propaganda comes first. That is the stage we are in now. Stage 1: Propaganda and get people to believe lies. Stage 2: Start drafting legislation. Stage 3: Pass Legislation. Stage 4: War. Stage 5: Blame the other party for any failures.

Do you know the best way to end warmongering? Admit the truth. Iran is not a threat.

But instead Obama is supporting sanctions and says they cannot be allowed to threaten US interests with a nuclear weapon.

The sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy and affecting civilians. The rich and powerful are the least affected by sanctions.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lololololololol

You are a moron.

You're calling an anti-war green party supporter a pro-war republican.

I'm done talking to you. You're being ignorant as fuck... again.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Anyone who challenges Obama is a Republican. You didnt know that? haha.

I think DemocracyNow is doing another debate with Rocky and Jill tomorrow morning on the show.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'll have to check it out.

It's nice to see a debate not sponsored by Goldman Sachs and Koch

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you are the one who always resorts to lies and insults. Because your simplistic position is skewed unfairly against one party. And your arguments do not stand up to the truth & civil discussion.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

When you tell me I support republicans or try to equate me to Paul Ryan you are insulting me.

And you do so solely because I do not like presidents that murder civilians with bombs.

You have no respect for logic. I have no respect for those who have no respect for logic.

[-] 2 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

amen!

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I call you republican because you do not criticize the current repubs who are spewing war/fear mongering in an effort to continue the war on terror.

I call you republican because you refuse to recognize the reality that the repubs are the ones who created this rhetoric and have perpetrated great destruction by scaring the shit out of the American people.

As long as you ignore those roots, give your repubs a pass, you will be only attacking one party. And you will not be addressing the most important element of all our military problems.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The most important part is the bombs that are dropping as a result of a nation gone mad. You want to go back in history when its convient, and only focus on the present when its convienent.

During the last debate we bombed pakistan again, killing over a dozen. I bet you were cheering when you heard that.

To say otherwise is just more pathetic attempts at dodging the issue and hiding your praise for this war.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am against the drone bombings! To say otherwise is just you lying again, & Again, & again.

You siad it"the nation gone mad" We must vote out the war mongering fear spewing republicans to end the madness.

See you are almost there. The country HAS gone mad. And repubs have made is insane.

You're so close.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

He needed to invade Libya first.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Oops...

Forgot... invasion is wrong in your book but bombing the fuck out of their country was okay.

The fact is the US along with NATO bombed the fuck out of civilians in the alleged name of saving civilians.

Iraq was to liberate the people and so was Libya... GOVERNMENT LIES.

It's crazy how people believe propaganda the way they do.

[-] 8 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Vkag is a freakin machine.

Day after day, polluting the interenet with blatant and foolish defenses of war crimes and indef detention.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

At least he's stopped using his other accounts to upvote his comments and attack us. LOL

User RepubsRtheProblem and I think he had 1 or 2 others.

[-] 4 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

lol, you kidding me?

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

no hes not

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19980) 1 year ago

'VQkag' isn't "a machine" - he's an animal, lol !!! Exasperating or otherwise, you gotta admire the tenacity !! You do GR8 'Trev' - keep keepin' on !

nil desperandum ...

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

How about DKAtoday with 18,000+ points. That's 50 points or more every day for a year.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19980) 1 year ago

You're doing ok, why the 'points envy' ? Short comments are the trick - one I'm trying to learn myself !

vincit qui se vincit ...

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

No envy. Just surprised at how much extra work they do by continually voting for themselves and win nothing but a false prize that only exists in their own mind.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

Those other DKA names were set up by IronBoltBruce in one of his attempts to degrade and attack DKA. Know your facts before you make accusations.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

Your smugness never ceases to amaze me. DKA has been here for a year as have I. I do not believe he has ever one time voted himself up either with bots or with other monikers. You really have some nerve.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

DKA actually has good conversations with me and others here.

I like that.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

There are 3 other DKAxxx user names in his immediate area.

DKA4today 0 miles DKAtaday 3 miles DKAconsultants 3 miles

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

He may be consistent - but Bensdad I believe has met him.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Yes, they were the same...although one could argue libya was slightly worse...because it wasn't approved by the congress....that is illegal under the war powers resolution. Who cares though...as long as the dictator in office is your guy...right?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Does that make Libya better than Iraq?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

It's a tragedy when anyone dies due to war...no doubt. But the righteousness of war isn't based on death. If china invaded the US and millions of americans died protecting their country....that's a war worth fighting...defensive war....even though millions have died....we were protecting our freedoms. Libya is not defensive...and it was waged illegally without congressional approval. This is the US....we don't live under a dictator....although that may be questionable these days.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You think Pres Obama is arguably a dictator.

I can't help you there. Clearly you are extreme in your views.

Libya was a military action to help people overthrow a brutal dictator. (Khadaffy was in power for decades, this is an important element of being a dictator)

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Not saying they are "the same"

I'm saying they are both wrong and killed civilians.

Once again Democrats voted with Republicans to go to war in Iraq. Iraq was not a republican war. If it was then the democrats should have used their majority numbers to impeach Bush.

Why didn't Obama or Biden try to impeach Bush?

If Obama opposed the war in Iraq so much why did he choose a VP that voted for it and told the American people Iraq was a threat and had WMD's? Why did it take 3 years to pull troops out? In 1990 they got over half a million troops out of Iraq in 1 year. So don't tell me 3 years was the only way.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives & protest against all war & rights violations.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

^considers attacking nations unprovoked "responsible"

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Man, you freakin love war dont ya dude!!!!

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I've posted this clip elsewhere here, but I'll post it again.

Any nation that wants a gold-backed currency gets a new regime, and the banksters move in.

http://youtu.be/YuFwX4-G-iM

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Ya, Ive seen that, prob the real reason.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It was for VQ's viewing, but he remains unconvinced.

The power of the IMF should not be discounted. I'm thinking that if Iceland had serious resources in their country, their secession from the rest of us would have been demonised and the people bombed into aquiescence.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am against war. to suggest otherwise is just more of your lies.

Why didn't you answer my question.

Did you support Khadaffy?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I guarantee if Momar started flying jets over your neighborhood and dropping bombs, it would feel like an invasion.

Meanwhile, the invasion of privacy at home continues by stripping us of our rights.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Khadaffy is dead!!!! So I ain't gotta worry about that! In fact I ain't gotta worry about anyone dropping bombs on me.

But if they it would not suspend my grasp of truth & reality.

An invasion is not bombardment.

There is a difference.

We did not invade Libya, to say otherwise is just lie & a weak attempt at trying to equate Obama/Libya w. Bush/Iraq.

Epic fail.

Next

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

MOre defending of the wars. See, I have zero tolerance for ALL war.

As long as its a Dem, you are fine with it. That makes you the worst kind of Democrat, a blind follower.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support using my military to help all oppressed people. I expect my military to be used against ALL brutal dictators.

You just want to attack dems because you are an anti dem partisan.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So you are a globalist too, eh?

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If by that you mean someone who cares about all people on the globe? Yes.

One day we will have no natinal borders, one less reason to war, easily sharing all the resources or the world.

"Imagine there's no country" JL

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Holy shit, you are a fucking globalist.

NWO order, all one nation. You are more and more like Bush Sr everyday.

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Please stop with the childish insults.

I know republicans (you) don't care about anyone but themselves. I care about all people, We must come together as a race, I suppose it will be more than a century before that dream is realized. But it will happen and we will all be better for it.

Peace.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (3985) 1 year ago

Good Point

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Two parties, one empire that they both represent - Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You forgot "London" was that omission deliberate?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

No, that's what I was thinking, particularly the queen. Its just that this is OWS and people here relate to Wall Street.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

To the many many innocent Muslim civilians that were killed - no it doesn't matter. One murder or hundreds of thousands ........ it's still murder. If one of those that were exterminated were a close family member, say a child or parent, would you still condone these killings?

I guess whatever you believe the necessary course to be, depends on who you TRUST to identify the enemy.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Sorry, I cannot give BO a pass for killing less people this year, than he did the prior year. I don't consider that an attribute. And forget the D and R or left and right labels. Both sides had a hand in this. I don't give GWB a pass either. BOTH should be tried for the war crimes they've committed.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah sure. I support trials.

In the meantime, the in between time I submit to you that if you truly want to end the drone bombings, civil rights violations, & war on terror, we must recognize who is the war mongers, who exploited the 9/11 attacks to switch from red scare war mongering to 'war on terror' fear mongering?

We must 1st end the fear/war mongering rhetoric if we are to end this debacle.

replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives. & protest against all war activity.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Do you consider Obama a peace loving progressive?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nope.

More of a moderate, who wants peace but is willing to wage war in order to get to the point of being able to declare the end of the repub created war on terror.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Hmmm....continuing the war of lies to end it.

Thats some interesting logic there dude. Do you know what Stockholm Syndrom is?

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't a hostage so I think your suggestion is a sorry desperate effort to insult me.

What war of Lies are you accusing Pres Obama of continuing?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You have condoned the murder by starvation of uncounted Iranians like was done to Iraqis before them. You join the OWS/State Department/Fox News coalition in beating the war drums over Syria, Libya and Iran.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No I ain't. I ain't joined any such group. You have lost all sense of reality.

Assad MUST GO.

Russia props up the brutal dictator Middle east naval base positioning!!!

Russia must GO!!!

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You must go, and the sooner the better- the smug ignorant arrogant American exceptionalist - the main threat to the peace and happiness of this planet.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Attacks are up. And in more countries than ever. And they are flying them in the gulf now too, daily. Go ask Pakistan how they feel about your shameless defense of this warmonger.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/world/asia/drone-protest-march/index.html

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What defense? Drone bombing are down in 2012 compared to 2011!

Thats not a defense. Thats a fact.

But aren't the drone bombings an alternative to the right wing war mongering preference of massive invasion?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Sorry dude, there will be the same amount in Pakistan as last year, plus now we get to throw Yemen and Somolia in the mix, which brings us to an increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/02/us-drone-strikes-data

"An alternative to invasion"... You are pathetic.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your link is not conclusive in regards to numbers of drone bombings.

It deals exclusively with "Maximum" averages. they indicate 850 civilian deaths and 2800 other deaths (presumably valid terrorists)

I have seen data listing 600 civilian deaths. Which is a massive reduction from the million+ deaths that your repubs did & would have perpetrated.

And your link does not indicate more drone attacks. I've seen data indicating there are fewer drone attacks. Pres Obama is ending the actions.

Isn't his plan to show real Al Qaeda destruction (without repub preferred invasion) in order to justify declaring the repub created war on terror over?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Keep endorsing war dude, you are doing a great job. Bush would love you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am against war. I protest the drone bombings. I support an end to the republican fear mongering, war mongering rhetoric that they have been using since they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

I believe this Pres WILL end the drone bombings, and is planning to declare the repub created 'war on terror' over!

That is what scares this crap out of you repubs.

THEN, Pres Obama will begin the work to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

LMFAO. The right wing war mongers are besides themselves. I love it.

keep squealin' "War is over if you want it.!" JL

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You're delusional.

Glad to see you look at drones as an alternative.

The rest of us look at drones as more war.

Keep believing whatever you want. The facts dont lie. And you hate facts. Obama could drone 6 more countries and you would find a way to defend it and bow down. Because thats what you do. You do what the establishment tells you to do.

Thank god most of you stay away from our actions.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm against drone bombings & war. That is why I agitate against the repub fear mongering they've been using to create war since they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Questions to ponder

Who gives the orders, orders to torture? Who gets to no bid contract the future? Who lies, then bombs, then calls it an error? Who makes a fortune from fighting terror? Who is the enemy trying to crush us? Who is the enemy of truth and justice? Who is the enemy of peace and freedom? Where are the courts, now when we need them? Why is impeachment not on the table? We better stop them while we are able

J Browne

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

War is ugly people get killed. it sucks never should of happened but it does.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, and who knows what will be next. Drones are already being used for surveillance in the US. What if civil war or revolution breaks out? Will US citizens be the next victims?

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (3985) 1 year ago

Yes, drone attacks for us malcontents. Doubtful that they will wait for revolution.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Iran is next.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (3985) 1 year ago

Agree. If sanctions caused Iran to give up their 20% U235, US/Israel would be disappointed, as they would have to generate a new excuse for war.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

An attack on Iran is an attack on the US. That is, it will probably lead to nuclear war with Russia and China.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The US government is full off hot heads without logic.

I don't think it would cause a nuclear war. But I do know it would fuck up the world economy, create massive inflation, and piss off China and Russia. I think we'd see a repeat of the cold war with Russia and dangerous territory with China as they would try and take a foothold in the world economy and possibly dismiss certain relations with the US... possibly even supply Iran to fight off a potential US invasion. Which would get tricky. It would not be good and in no way suits the best interests of the American people.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Apparently, Russian and Chinese generals have been quoted saying that an attack on Iran would lead to world war:

Hu’s call for war joins Chinese Rear Admiral and prominent military commentator Zhang Zhaozhong who, likewise, warned this past week that “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War,” and Russian General Nikolai Makarov who grimly stated last week, “I do not rule out local and regional armed conflicts developing into a large-scale war, including using nuclear weapons.”

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/12/11/china-joins-russia-orders-military-to-prepare-for-world-war-iii/

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

hmm...

grim

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, indeed.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Fear mongering nonsense. It is the republican war mongers in the US & Isreal that are fueling this crises and pressuring for invasion.

The Dems have successfully resisted. Replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

And remember Russia & China are supplying Assad with weapons he using on innocent civilians & supporting the religious extremists in Iran.

Russia & China are on the WRONG side. They ain't the good guys. In regards to Iran Russia & China are all about the resources. Your constant BS painting them as the good guys is laughable.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Did Biden successfully resist when he voted to go to war in Iraq when he was a Senator?

Did Obama successfully resist when he voted to fund the war in Iraq as a Senator?

Did Obama successfully resist when he increased the war in Afghanistan?

Is Obama resisting when he's bombing Pakistan and when he bombed Libya?

Was he resisting when he signed for the Patriot act over and over?

Russia and China's side is "Do not go to war in Iran." How are they on the wrong side of that issue?

Russia and China ain't the good guys? What are they enemies in your eyes?

Do you have any idea how many times the US gov has given weapons to "bad guys" ? You do know the US government funded and gave weapons to the terror groups we're fighting today?

Most of what you've heard about Syria is a lie. Most of those rebels are from foreign countries. It's a repeat of the 80's with the Muhajideen and the Afghan Arabs.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Obama's sanctions are going to cripple them to the point where they dont have a choice but to fight back...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-16/guest-post-iran-threatens-oil-spill-persian-gulf

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Pres Obama has resisted the right wing war mongers pressure to invade Iran.

Drone bombing is part of the resistance against invasion of Pakistan, Yemen, etc.

Russia is on the wrong side because they have supplied the dynastic brutal dictator in Syria for more than 3 decades.

The US has armed many (most brutal dictators) and that is wrong. Bad America! Bad!!!

I want my military to be used to help all oppressed people, and against ALL brutal dictators.

Don't you?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"Drone bombing is part of the resistance against invasion of Pakistan, Yemen, etc."

This guy just freakin loves the bombs. Cant get enough of em. Just look at this weak ass attempt to justify his wars.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im sure bombing nations is helping less people hate us.

Got anymore Bush logic?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

yes we are creating more enemies. I know. It is horrible. Big reason why I am against it.

I think your article said something like 3 thousand dead. So that is many new enemies. Of course if we had done what you repubs preferred we would have had a million new enemies so I guess that is better.

Lets protest the drone bombings! And replace the fear mongering republican w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Occupation increases terrorism...fact.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Lets protest all occupations. (except OWS)

Lets protest All drone bombings, the war on terror and lets replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

Agreed?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

First lets replace the warmongering democrat in office right now...with someone who actually stands for their principles.

3rd party

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

This pres has resisted the war mongering right wingers who have been pressuring him to invade Iran.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

That's really irresponsible, just casually shrugging off the threat of nuclear world war like that. Yes, US and Israel war mongers are fueling the crisis, but it is the financial oligarchy that mainly wants war, and it controls the democrats as well. Most progressives may be peace loving, but not the democratic leadership, based on Obama's record of indiscriminate drone strikes.

Russia and China don't want war, and there would be no threat of war if it was just left up to them. The US generals don't want war either, and have been opposing Obama's pressure towards increased conflict. The Mossad, Israeli generals and most of the Israel public are against it also.

Who is the US and NATO supporting in Syria? Mostly Al Qaeda mercenaries. Are those the good guys whose side you want to be on?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"mostly Al Qaeda mercs"? in Syria. That is ridiculous. They may be a small percent, but certainly not mostly.

In Banghazi the people rose up and evicted the extremist islamists from the city after the assassination of US diplomats.

We support the "free Syrian Army" Mostly moderate Syrian civilians who are tired of the Russian supported brutal dictator Assad.

I don't shrug off Nuclear war. I reject you irresponsible attempt at using it for scurrilous fear mongering.

Pres Obama and the Dems have thus far successfully resisted the right wing war mongers pressure to invade Iran. they wanted it before the election and Pres Obama resisted.

He will continue.

We must protest against war, against drone bombings, against the war on terror and the republican fear mongering rhetoric that facilitates it all.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

This is some of what I hear on Al Qaeda in Syria:

The Obama Administration's campaign for regime-change in Libya was joined with fanfare yesterday, when a video was released in which Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri came out calling for Muslims to back the rebels in Syria, and overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. Zawahiri lied that the U.S. was propping up Assad, but he in fact was just exposing his own status as a puppet of the British global assault on national sovereignty.

http://larouchepac.com/node/23902

Even as the U.S. State Department acknowledges that Al-Qaida is part of the Syrian opposition, the U.S. Treasury Department has cleared the way for funds to flow from the United States to that very same Syrian opposition.

In its "County Reports on Terrorism" report for 2011, issued July 31, the State Department admits: "In fact, towards the end of 2011, AQI [Al-Qaida in Iraq] was believed to be extending its reach into Syria and seeking to exploit the popular uprising against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Asad."

http://larouchepac.com/node/23535

Syrian news daily Tahwra al Wehda, in an article, “‘Al-Qaeda’ American Spring,” points out that al-Qaeda, always financed by the Wahhabi regime of the House of Saud, is now getting transported over to Syria to fight their battle against the Bashar al-Assad regime. These terrorists are being transported from Yemen and the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders. It is evident that the transportation has the blessings of the Obama and Cameron administrations.

The article points to the role of Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan in this new move. It says: “The House of Saud has, exclusively, provided the financial, political, religious and media support for al-Qaeda. This support is emboldened specifically with the new political role of Bandar bin Sultan after becoming the head of Saudi intelligence. Bandar’s relationship with al-Qaeda dates back to the early years of the emergence of the terrorist network, when he was its High Commissioner [ambassador] liaison in the U.S. However, the attacks of September 11 clipped the relationship and diminished its coverage in the media, except on rare occasions. Nevertheless, the American administration was aware that the relationship was not completely dead, and it was rekindled in the last two years.”

http://larouchepac.com/node/23976

Two letters delivered on Sept. 16 to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and to the UN Security Council charge that Turkey is not only a transit point for Al Qaeda and neo-Salafi foreign terrorists to attack Syria, but that Turkey is arming, funding, and training the terrorists. The letter from Syria's Foreign and Expatriates Ministry states:

"The Turkish government was not only satisfied at hosting the organizations hostile to Syria which came from Arab and different countries or supplying them with weapons and money, but it also opened camps to train the terrorists, receive and host them," the letter says, according to excerpts published in the Syrian news service, SANA. According to SANA, "The Ministry affirmed in its letters that the Turkish government has allowed the entry of thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists and takfiris and wahhabis to commit their crimes of killing the innocent Syrians, blowing up their properties and spreading chaos and sabotage in Syria."

http://larouchepac.com/node/23939

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whatever.

None of this extremist fear mongering nonsense proves that the Free Syrian Army is led by Al Qaeda. They ain't.

Saudi & other oil rich kingdoms support Al Qaeda.? No shit! Not new.

Who is so naive that they believe we can keep Al Qaeda from attempting to get involved with every Arab spring countries govt transition.

Not me. Sorry can't shy away from supporting the free people because there might be extremists involved.

If the people choose religious extremists, then we gotta live with that. Sorry. that's how it goes. We must believe that eventually people will choose moderate governance over religious extremists.

We should support moderate govt, and work against religious extremists.

But we cannot prevent extremists from attempting to take control. We can make some effort but unless we're willing to invade again we cannot prevent it.

The people of those countries must do it themselves.

Cool?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

That would be cool if the US would stay out of it and let them handle it themselves.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What about the Russians who have supported the brutal dictator Assad dynasty for more than 3 decades.

Do you support the Russians staying out of it?

I support the free people of Syria! Against the brutal dictator Assad and his Russian puppet masters.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Syria is a sovereign nation, they deserve the right to handle their own affairs. Do we want other countries sponsoring revolutions in the US?

I don't think the US administration cares about the Syrian people, and is only involved there to support its strategic interests. Actually, it is the global corporate empire that is wanting to take over the world, one nation at a time, and using the US to do so.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah yeah. The global oligarchs. Are there any Oligarchs in mother Russia.? LMFAO

We gotta support free people rising up against brutal dictators wherever we can.

I think the US admin is doing just fine in Syria.

But you didn't answer my question.

What about the Russians who have supported the brutal dictator Assad dynasty for more than 3 decades.

Do you support the Russians staying out of it?

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, the financial oligarchy does have oligarchs in Russia. You my remember though that Putin put a number of them in jail a while back.

The US has bases all over the world, and is pursuing an expansionist policy, trying to subjugate every country on the planet. The Russians are trying to put a stop to that with their base in Syria.

I would prefer to see both the US and Russia stop supporting dictatorships in Islamic countries. I don't think the Russians will pull out unless the US does, however.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then I guess the board is set. May the best Oligarch win.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, I think so. But Russia has a base there, should the US withdraw from all its foreign bases?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sure. We support lotsa brutal dictators. Nobody is better than us at that.

We're number 1. We're number 1!

U S A, U S A.

But even with all our failures we must not shy away from supporting innocent people where we can.

Assad in Syria must go! Russia is supporting that brutal dictator and they are wrong!

Sorry you are supporting the wrong side.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, indeed, protest the drone bombings.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must protest against war, against drone bombings, against the war on terror and the republican fear mongering rhetoric that facilitates it all.

And against anyone who supports the brutal dictator in Syria, and anyone who tries to scare us with the threat of nuclear war.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I'm sure Al Qaeda will appreciate your support.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

To say I support Al Qaeda is a lie. Your inability to argue the facts shows the impotence of your position.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Consider also, why all this attention to the brutal dictatorship of Syria, with no mention of the brutal dictatorship in Saudia Arabia, and other Islamic dictatorships that the west supports?

George Galloway explains it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuZeHYABaY&feature=related

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Because Syria is not OUR brutal dictator. You gotta ask?

Please. In any event when the people of one of our brutal dictators rise up we will have to choose the people. (Egypt?)

In the mean time I think we should support those that rise up. Saudi Arabia appears to have a tight grip on the opposition so I huess it's not an issue.

Whatever there time is gonna come.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad to hear that. I hope the first statement is true.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Those are the facts. Washington is now in a panic over the mess it has created with Al Qaeda in Libya and in Syria. Syria has rockets and chemical weapons. Assad was a "responsible player" who held those for self defense. They may very well soon be in the hands of jihadis because of the idiocy you and OWS are promoting.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The US just wants to replace the Assad dictatorship with an incompetent Al Qaeda dictatorship. I don't think it is what the majority of the Syrian people want.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh well. Whatta ya gonna do?. We gotta protest against war..

No more war!

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 1 year ago

Assumptions, assumptions. Fear mongering conspiracy theorists, they are all the same...

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, there is nothing to fear, and we will never face an economic crisis.

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 1 year ago

That's certainly not what I said, but using conspiracy theories to come up with probable situations based on assumptions is a waste of time, and dangerous. What we need is thorough and serious analysis to find out exactly the best course of actions and what the real dangers are. This is certainly not a time for your deluded fantasies you pick up on the LaRouche website.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Larouche primarily advocates passing Glass Steagall, as well as an FDR New Deal style recovery. The same objectives that are common among most OWS supporters, and common sense ideas. It appears that you are just committed to all the BS that various others say about him.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

This is rather silly. He starts out by calling Larouche a Fascist. So big deal, anybody can call anybody a Fascist. Mussolini said that Fascism is corporativism and Larouche has always opposed that.

The supposed dictatorship of the elite, is just a form of representative democracy, in which the elites are just "elite" in the sense of their training for leadership. This means training in classical art, particularly music, as well as science, particularly physics, in addition to history, economics and politics.

But it also stresses the moral training of decent human beings. All of these forms of political education are reminiscent of western Renaissance leaders or the Confucian method of political training, which led to the golden age of China.

If you were to go to one of Larouche's sites and look up "Illuminati" you probably wouldn't get any search results, you'd probably get a few for "Freemason" and a lot for "banker" or "financial oligarch".

As for the "Jewish" prefix to "bankers", it must be admitted that Larouche's organization has a number of Jews in top leadership positions. And if you really wanted to, you could probably call up the organization and talk to these Jewish people about supposed "anti-semitism" in the Larouche organization.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Sure he wants to impeach the president, there is a small group of senators who share that sentiment, including Dennis Kucinich.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im all for impeaching him. But if we couldnt get Bush impeached, I doubt we can get this guy.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Kucinich is a democrat. This is really a non partisan issue.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Obama is a great speaker but a horrible leader

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I do not thank anyone responsible for the murder of children in foreign countries.

Obama and Biden deserve a prison cell with GWB and Cheney for the murder of civilians.

If you're truly against war you would not be praising warmongers that increased a war in Afghanistan that lead to their highest civilian death toll in 2010. You would not praise a man who allegedly opposed the Iraq war and chose Biden who said Iraq had WMD's and were a threat to the USA and voted for the war in Iraq. If you truly opposed war you would not praise a man committing war crimes with robots planes dropping missiles.

If Obama wanted to end the fear-mongering and warmongering... he'd admit the truth... IRAN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE USA

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

LOL

You are such a moron.

I'm not a republican and Obama approves the drone strikes.

If Obama doesn't agree with the drone strikes when is he going to hold a speech to the public denouncing them?

Obama and Biden belong in a prison cell with Bush and Cheney. Charges MASS MURDER

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No, you are definitely a moron. And definitely not a supporter due to your inability to call war crimes war crimes..

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

let's see you criticize the current repubs who continue to spew the fear mongering the perpetuates the war on terror.

That must be our 1st priority if we truly want to end the drone bombings, war on terror, & rights violations.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And your continued insults betray your impotence.

War crimes? are you the judge & jury now as well.?

Or is it that you just can't criticize your repubs? Or maybe you don't want to admit the Pres has a plan and will succeed if we can keep your repubs from stealing the election.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I am for arresting Bush as well, sorry moron.

The pres does have a plan, bomb as many countries as humanly possible.

Thats why you defend him so hard. Such an angry defense of a person who bombs people.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bush is the past. let's see you criticize the current repubs who continue to spew the fear mongering the perpetuates the war on terror.

That must be our 1st priority if we truly want to end the drone bombings, war on terror, & rights violations.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Theres only one commander in chief. Thats why we give him that authority.

Congress is filled with warmongers. And so is the whitehouse. And so is this forum, people like you.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Calling you a moron is not an insult. It's a fact.

You are blind to facts and logic.

I show you the facts where Obama approves the drone strikes... you come back blind and tell me the republicans are doing it all by themselves. They both work for war and I've told you the facts in their voting records.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Verbatim quote from one of your comments on this post

"Your republicans are the reason we are still drone bombing"

"The fear mongering which ONLY repubs are engaging in must end 1st."

Yeah you are saying only republicans are doing this. That is factually inaccurate. Both parties are doing this. Both are allowing it. Like I've asked many times... Why didn't the democrats join dennis kucinich and try to impeach bush?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The answer to that question is one he is not mentally ready to deal with.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Please your repubs fear mongering is the reason we are still fighting the war on terror!!!!

Only repubs are guilty of this wacky rhetoric, Dems are ratcheting down the rhetoric. Only one party is and always have been the war mongers the party has always been criticized as weak on defense.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Always been? What about Vietnam and Dropping nukes in WWII? Those were Dem presidents.

So after they nuked someone, and then got us wrapped up in Vietnam for multiple years, they handed the torch to the Republicans.

The Republicans have now handed the torch back, as evidenced by attacking 6 nations in 4 years. They're marching in the fuckin streets against the bombs in Pakistan, but Obama doesnt care. As long as its a few less bombs than last year, hacks like you fall right in line.

And in doing so, are endorsing the attacks.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm against the drone bombings.

I will ignore the history lesson. For the last 40 years repubs have been the war mongering party, and the dems have been criticized for being weak on defense.

Currently repubs are desperate to reignite the fear of Al Qaeda so they continue their criminal effort at spewing fear mongering.

That must be stopped 1stthen we can end everything else.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Well Dems control the POTUS and the Senate and have attacked 6 nations in the last 4 years.

Looks like there is a new war party in town. Why not, you certainly dont care. You are only focused on Republicans while your own party increases the attacks.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The Pakistan govt was taking responsibility for many of the drone strikes, to take the heat of their sugar-daddy in the US.

Every strike is recorded on video, regardless of whether the drone makes it back to base, so to say there "may have been" 45-52 strikes is pure BS.

Every strike would be on record, and accurate estimates of kills would be known.

It's like they're already pretending that these machines have a mind of their own, and nobody really knows what they are up to. Reminds me of the 2.3 trillion dollars that nobody in the Pentagon noticed go missing. All BS.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Thanks for your perspective.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Pakistan has denounced the drones for a while now and have pleaded for the US to stop bombing their people.

President Obama’s continued bombing of Pakistan, despite Islamabad’s repeated calls for the CIA to halt its attacks, means the two nations may technically be at war - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/29/pakistani-objection-to-us-drones-puts-nations-at-war-says-leading-democrat/

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Yes, I'm following it myself. I did say WAS taking responsibility. It was back when the former admin told Pakistan "you're either with us or against us" while offering cash incentives etc.

There's all kinds of repurcussions for the populace when any gathering of people can be considered a possible terrorist meeting, and targetted from above. Just the thought of having them flying around, with a trigger-happy agent far away at the controls would be a freakout.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Warmongering at it's finest...

[+] -4 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

who knows but to make such claims is foolish and a wasteful thought.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Before the economic collapse, I tried warning people that it was going to happen. They told me it was a waste of my time to think about it. It turns out that I was right and they were wrong.

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 1 year ago

Even if you got that prediction right, it says nothing about all your other predictions. You're using a logical fallacy here, essentially saying, I was right one time, so I have more chances of being right next time around. That's simply not true.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

They weren't my predictions, but I'll stick with the guy who accurately picks the winners and losers.

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 1 year ago

That's fine, I'll stick with serious investigative journalists who base their writings on thorough research instead of conspiracy theory type assumptions and mumbo jumbo.

The first who predicted the economic were serious economists, not your God LaRouche. He got that information from them, then he repackaged it into a sellable conspiracy theory.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Like to see you prove that one. Larouche has his own particular method of forecasting, quite different from the statistical methods of the mainstream.

[-] -2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

more than one person predicted the fall you're no oracle

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Of course not, I got my information from other people. Same regarding the drones.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

yes but do you honestly believe we are on the brink of civil war

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Maybe not on the "brink", but I could see it happening, and I'm not the only one. There was a lot of talk recently about the government buying up millions of rounds of ammunition, with the thought of civil war in mind.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

it is highly unlikely it will happen and if it does normal everyday people will not be fighting in it.

What would we even be fighting about i dont even see a cause that would be worthy of a civil war

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The collapse of the dollar could result in a complete breakdown of production and distribution of food. This could lead to riots and revolution.

[-] 1 points by flip (6415) 1 year ago

and how exactly would the dollar collapse? like maybe china not buying treasuries - of course that would make their dollar holdings worthless. and anyway the fed can do it - "Last year the Fed purchased a stunning 61 percent of the total net Treasury issuance, up from negligible amounts prior to the 2008 financial crisis,"

Read more: WSJ: Fed Buying 61 Percent of US Debt

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Is that a link? What is WSJ?

[-] 1 points by flip (6415) 1 year ago

yes i think so but why would you ask

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The dollar represents the economy of the US, which is in deep depression. The dollar would decline when a significant number of investors would withdraw their investments from the dollar based on their perception that the current value of the dollar is inflated.

[-] 1 points by flip (6415) 1 year ago

as in japan where the market went from 38k to 8k - and the yen is what? the us economy is suffering that is for sure - i am sure you know what alan watts said about the dollar and inches - you have a very poor understanding of the situation

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

In order to find out.

[-] 1 points by flip (6415) 1 year ago

can you answer the question? and how exactly would the dollar collapse?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

it could but highly unlikely

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Its not their only option. They could sponsor Glass Steagall and a New Deal recovery. A certain faction of them has even come out proposing to do so. It seems to be a bit of a coin flip now, 50/50 whether humanity will survive or not.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

i think there is more factors than just that

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Believe me, I would like to believe you. But from what I see, the economy will keep collapsing until a stop is put to it through Glass Steagall, and won't grow again without real economic development stimulus, such as a new New Deal.

If this economic collapse is accompanied by world war, like the the great depression being followed by WWII, I think it can collapse all the way back to the middle ages, through war, famine and plague.

If you think it won't continue to collapse, what is going to stop it?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

People will make it stop

we need investors to put money back into entrepreneurs hands

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

You know the global debt is in the trillions of dollars? This is the result of the super rich sucking all the money out of the economy. Now, that they can't suck any more out, their only alternative is war.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

why is war their only option

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

relevance?