# World War III, anyone?



## DialecticBlue (20 March 2008)

Australian economist Professor Steve Keen warned about dangerous debt levels long before the US credit crisis hit. In a well reasoned analysis of the current economic dilemma, or can we call it a crisis now, Professor Keen pointed out that at some point the level of debt cannot be increased. He also pointed out that Bernanke gained his reputation as an expert on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Hmmmm, what was so great about it? The trouble is, this is the Depression of the 21st Century. Bernanke, like all academics, is quite brilliant at analysing, but like everyone else on this planet, he isn’t so hot at predicting. 

Greenspan’s only solution to everything was to print more money and channel it into the economy as debt through his mates on Wall St who collected huge incomes along the way. Greenspan also let the banks off the leash. As I wrote in another article, ‘DUNCE, they were on a leash for a reason, Greenspan’. 

Bernanke is quoted as saying that he would through money out of helicopters to create inflation, which apparently is the cure to everything. 

Professor Keen said that a radical new approach to managing the economy would probably be required. In the 1930’s that took the form of ‘The New Deal’.  It was the new deal that led the US and the world out of Depression. The ‘New Deal’ as I understand it, was the Government borrowing money and spending it on infrastructure so workers could have a job which meant they could spend. 

However, I would beg to differ on that point with Professor Keen. From my reading of history, it was WW11 that bought the world out of the Depression. Suddenly the banks found all the money and liquidity that was needed to build weapons of mass destruction. Where as they had not been able to find the money for around a decade to build a factory. 

There is a word that rhymes with bankers, and it is oh so apt.

Wars are quite useful. 

Too many people? Solved

Employment problems? Solved, build another army.

Wage demands? Solved, declare a state of emergency domestically or send the army into another pointless and tactically suicidal battle. No, Private Jenkins, you can’t have a pay increase, anyway, you won’t need it, you’ll be dead tomorrow.

Need industry to gear up for production? Solved. And you don’t have to worry about costs. Which delivers profits to the factory owners, some of which filters down to the workers who are very happy about that and promptly go to the hairdresser. Thus, the money trickles down to small business.

Then when it’s all over, the ex-servicemen and women, have jobs cleaning up the mess and re-building.

Too much money sloshing around? Solved. Most of what is being manufactured explodes and ceases to exist. Money gone!

Mind you, the Austrian School of Economics shoots a rather large hole through all that with the ‘broken glass fallacy’. It also is heretical and says that deflation is a good thing. I think they are right on both counts, but you can read why for yourself by searching google. 

Well, OK, briefly. If you have a window and it gets broken then the current economic theory sees that as good, since someone gets paid to fix it. WW111 anyone? The Austrian’s say that if you do not break the window in the first place your wealth does not decrease and you can then employ the person to add to your wealth. If you have $100,000 in savings (ho, ho, ho, savings?? What are they mummy? I’ll tell you about it another time Susan, daddy is throwing up)  and a house costs $100,000 in year one but deflates to $95,000 in year two, have you become more of less wealthy. You can now buy more house for the same money. You can save because the price of everything isn’t going up faster than your savings. Inflation is a free ride for the productively challenged.

As I said above, goggle it. The Mises Institute is worth a visit.

Where was I? That’s right, WW111. 

Under current economic orthodoxy, that is the solution. Note how the US is trying to help out there.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 March 2008)

Nothing would surprise me in the current world "emotional climate".

I think GWB is getting close to the "Bring it on!!" point. 

He's doing a great impression of a mortally wounded Bull with a sore head being backed into a corner by a rampaging tribe of snarling Bears looking to take the wounded beast down....

I would bet the strategic plans for the Invasion of Iran are in the final stages of tweaking right now. What greater incentive could there be for Americans to get all patriotic again? It is a tactic that has been used SO many times over the millenia to kickstart failing civilisations/economies that it is odds on someone should use it again. Just a matter of time.


AJ


----------



## prawn_86 (20 March 2008)

Yeh,

but hopefully SOME of the Western world would see through the tactic.

Unless the US invaded Europe...

The Iraq war wasnt big enough to provide a sustained uplift in the economy, and I like to think the world is waking up to things like this. There were too many detractors of Iraq, and it would be the same again for Iran.

What the US "need" (for this sort of strategy) is a huge war. Russia perhaps....


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Yeh,
> 
> but hopefully SOME of the Western world would see through the tactic.
> 
> ...




You forgot China?


----------



## prawn_86 (20 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> You forgot China?




I honestly think the US wouldnt have a show against China.

China could shoot people instead of shells out of its cannons. Sheer weight of numbers imo.

Its all seeming a bit Orwellian to me...


----------



## Santob (20 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Yeh,
> 
> *The Iraq war wasnt big enough to provide a sustained uplift in the economy*, and I like to think the world is waking up to things like this. There were too many detractors of Iraq, and it would be the same again for Iran.




My own suspicion is that the war had very little to do with protecting the American economy, but rather to pool American wealth into fewer and fewer hands to protect themselves from the impending doom of the US collapse.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 March 2008)

Santob said:


> My own suspicion is that the war had very little to do with protecting the American economy, but rather to pool American wealth into fewer and fewer hands to protect themselves from the impending doom of the US collapse.




You may have a point there Santob. As I understand it, would I be right in saying that many neo-conservatives in the US also have affiliations with religous sects that have some pretty extreme fundamentalist Christian beliefs, some of which refer to a coming _"Apocalypse"_?


----------



## son of baglimit (20 March 2008)

taiwan - china wants them back.

while i personally dont believe it will end in war, the fear of such later this year (say about olympics time) will create its own economic issues.

have a nice day.


----------



## Pronto (20 March 2008)

If the subject is horror scenarios, try this one. A weakened USA reverts to isolationism and withdraws from its international policing role. China, still hungry for raw materials and unwilling to pay for them, seizes the opportunity and on specious reasoning annexes the Pilbara area of WA. The USA and Europe figuratively shrug their shoulders…


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 March 2008)

Pronto said:


> If the subject is horror scenarios, try this one. A weakened USA reverts to isolationism and withdraws from its international policing role. China, still hungry for raw materials and unwilling to pay for them, seizes the opportunity and on specious reasoning annexes the Pilbara area of WA. The USA and Europe figuratively shrug their shoulders…




Does anyone know the current value of reasonably sized icebergs in the Antarctic region? (just in case).


----------



## prawn_86 (20 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Does anyone know the current value of reasonably sized icebergs in the Antarctic region? (just in case).




Well ice at the servo sells for about 3 bucks a kilo. So multiply that by a couple million kilos...


----------



## Santob (20 March 2008)

Pronto said:


> If the subject is horror scenarios, try this one. *A weakened USA reverts to isolationism and withdraws from its international policing role*. China, still hungry for raw materials and unwilling to pay for them, seizes the opportunity and on specious reasoning annexes the Pilbara area of WA. The USA and Europe figuratively shrug their shoulders…




Given their track record, I find this idea quite appealing.


----------



## Happy (20 March 2008)

> From ABC, 19 Mar. 08
> 
> ARCTIC COULD BE ICE-FREE IN A YEAR: SCIENTIST
> 
> ...




Not on topic, but looks that setting up iceberging venture will have longer lifespan in Southern Hemisphere if scientist from the US Naval Academy, Ted Maksym is right.


----------



## mayk (20 March 2008)

Ever heard of decentralized strategy, it is the strategy america is following today. It has created an invisible enemy , who it can fight on for 100 years (according to presenditial hopeful  John). So instead of fighting a short and intense battle, the idea is to prolong the battle distribute the energy, resources over a period of time.

The reason this strategy didn't work earlier , is because enemy was always visible and geographically located. But this war is like chasing Ghosts, you can never claim a victory, the definition of conventional victory does not fit about winning the war against Al-Qaida. In fact, America conqured Afghanistan in 2002, and Iraq in 2003, geographically but after a while insurgency again appear in those regions.

Iraq is a country which has the potential to extend this war for another 5-10 years. It has oil resources to support this war, it has ethinic devision which can always fuel fire and can carry out a long civil war. It is geographically diverse and has unstable ( Iran ) and greedy (Turkey, SAudia,) neighbours. 

Off the topic where is the good old journalism, where someone should write about where the hell is Iraq oil money going? What is its situation and who owns those money wells. It is a mystry to me. And no media in the world is interested in knowing about its details. I wonder why?


----------



## DB008 (20 March 2008)

R u guys on drugs.

btw, Kosovo just gained independence from Seriba.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (20 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> It is a tactic that has been used SO many times over the millenia to kickstart failing civilisations/economies that it is odds on someone should use it again. Just a matter of time.
> 
> 
> AJ





Are you suggesting that the USA profits from wars such as IRAQ,....

That is absoulute rubbish,... The trillions of $$$ being spent to fight in IRAQ and AFGANISTAN is sucking the life from the USA eonomy not bringing in profits.

WAR Is not good for any economy especally long drawn out wars such as IRAQ and Afganistan,...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (20 March 2008)

mayk said:


> It has created an invisible enemy , who it can fight on for 100 years (according to presenditial hopeful  John). So instead of fighting a short and intense battle, the idea is to prolong the battle distribute the energy, resources over a period of time.
> 
> ?




fighting ghosts hey,...

try telling that to my mate who lost an eye, arm and a leg last year in afganistan.

tell the to the guys who's convoys get ambushed, nd hit with waves of up to 90 taliban fighters.


----------



## mayk (20 March 2008)

But my question is, Can you define victory, when terroriest can hibernate for several years ( 3 years in case of afghan), and then return to attack again. Normal armies donot do that. They either fight or surrender. Hibernation is usually not an option. Gurella figting is a long and dificult battle. 


To me Afghanistan is a lost cause. There whole generation was brought up in a war zone ( after Soviet occupation 1979-err... Now). They are used to it. The most important step should be to educate the people of afghanistan. Take guns aways from them , give them books. Take aways the Drug culture, give them reason not to fight. Poppy cultivation and drug business in Afghan is another major issue. Given we succeed in doing that then only we will see its affects in 10-20 years time. It is a bit of like investment. Given we educate them , make them self-relient and drug free( isn't this the mother of all bad causes) , we might see stability in that region in a long distant future.


----------



## mayk (20 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Are you suggesting that the USA profits from wars such as IRAQ,....
> 
> That is absoulute rubbish,... The trillions of $$$ being spent to fight in IRAQ and AFGANISTAN is sucking the life from the USA eonomy not bringing in profits.
> 
> WAR Is not good for any economy especally long drawn out wars such as IRAQ and Afganistan,...




Who said USA, only few rich people who happen to have invested in American Military Complex ( read and search about Ron Paul ) . It is always a 5% top few who benefit from wars. Remember Rothschild? Someone is always making profit at the expense of others.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (20 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> fighting ghosts hey,...
> 
> try telling that to my mate who lost an eye, arm and a leg last year in afganistan.
> 
> tell the to the guys who's convoys get ambushed, nd hit with waves of up to 90 taliban fighters.




Perhaps Tysonboss1 you try telling your mates if they don't like it there or what happens to them there they should leave and go back to their own country?


----------



## Kimosabi (20 March 2008)

Pronto said:


> If the subject is horror scenarios, try this one. A weakened USA reverts to isolationism and withdraws from its international policing role. China, still hungry for raw materials and unwilling to pay for them, seizes the opportunity and on specious reasoning annexes the Pilbara area of WA. The USA and Europe figuratively shrug their shoulders…



If you'd bother to do any research into the history of China, I'd like for you to find me the number of times they have started wars to further their imperial ambitions...

We have more to worry about with our supposed friends who actively encourage us to poison our air, food and water than those who are more interested in trading with us and doing business.


----------



## Bushman (20 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> If you'd bother to do any research into the history of China, I'd like for you to find me the number of times they have started wars to further their imperial ambitions...
> 
> We have more to worry about with our supposed friends who actively encourage us to poison our air, food and water than those who are more interested in trading with us and doing business.




Various Chinese dynasties have invaded Indochina over the last 3 millenium or so.  Or go and and ask the Tibetans about benevolent China.... 

But I do not think China has territorial ambitions. Their hatred of Taiwan is ideological - the dreaded Chang Kai Shek and his Kuomintang sought safe haven there when thrown out by the socialists. 

War is like toxic debt. People forget until it touches their lives. Hence it goes in cycles. I think a growing Chinindian middle class and MAD should save the day in term of WWIII. The middle class do not see the need to spill their blood for ideological purposes. After all, they contribute their hard earned tax dollars so that profesional armies can go and deal with the 'rogue states' for them.


----------



## DialecticBlue (20 March 2008)

I do not think that war is imminent, as such. China is too smart for that – read Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’ – even though America is running around the globe like a hormonal teenager.

It is just that it took WWII to end the depression of the ’30s. The Central banks did not have a clue then, and they do not have a clue now. 

It will be the average person on the street who picks up the tab for this one, somehow. ie: if the Gumnit is picking up all the toxic debt, then the taxpayer had to eventually pay for it, and that’s without a war.

Add to that terrorism, which you can’t defeat because it is intangible, it is a concept. You have to address the causes of terrorism. You define what they are and the solution, cause it’s too hard for me.

What price a rally of some sort next week in the US, just to keep us on our toes.

Expect the unexpected which will happen unless you expect it


----------



## STRAT (20 March 2008)

son of baglimit said:


> taiwan - china wants them back.
> 
> while i personally dont believe it will end in war, the fear of such later this year (say about olympics time) will create its own economic issues.
> 
> have a nice day.



Never mind Taiwan. Anyone lookin to pick a fight with China only need side with Tibet and the poms might be doin just that. If Bush's little brown nose Blair was still PM it would due serious consideration. The yanks have been solving their financial problems with other peoples wars for near on 70years and if no good war was available they were not above sneaking around and starting one. The only time its backfired on them is when they have put their own troops into the mix.


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2008)

Bushman said:


> Various Chinese dynasties have invaded Indochina over the last 3 millenium or so.  Or go and and ask the Tibetans about benevolent China....
> 
> But I do not think China has territorial ambitions. Their hatred of Taiwan is ideological - the dreaded Chang Kai Shek and his Kuomintang sought safe haven there when thrown out by the socialists.
> 
> War is like toxic debt. People forget until it touches their lives. Hence it goes in cycles. I think a growing Chinindian middle class and MAD should save the day in term of WWIII. The middle class do not see the need to spill their blood for ideological purposes. After all, they contribute their hard earned tax dollars so that profesional armies can go and deal with the 'rogue states' for them.




You're a pretty level headed fella bushman.

It must be all the clean country air. 

I'm not a great scholar of Asian history, but I have heard it said proudly that China had never invaded another country... just out of curiosity, weren't the Mongolian's the middle-age invaders? Didn't they try to invade the then China... hence the Great Wall of China was built?


----------



## Kimosabi (20 March 2008)

The Chinese appear to have been sucked in by the Americans pretty well.

The Americans have exported their inflation and pollution to China and are now in the process of devaluing the Chinese holdings of American Dollars.

What may be funny though, is when the fat lady stops singing the Chinese could come out owning America.

I have this feeling that the rest of the world is finally getting wise to the manipulations of the control freaks in the USA and Europe and may hopefully tell these psychopaths where to go...


----------



## Mofra (20 March 2008)

DialecticBlue said:


> Professor Keen said that a radical new approach to managing the economy would probably be required. In the 1930’s that took the form of ‘The New Deal’.  It was the new deal that led the US and the world out of Depression. The ‘New Deal’ as I understand it, was the Government borrowing money and spending it on infrastructure so workers could have a job which meant they could spend.
> 
> However, I would beg to differ on that point with Professor Keen. From my reading of history, it was WW11 that bought the world out of the Depression.



Interesting theory. I have attended lectures that talk about the _military build up_ prior to WWII as being a major contributor to overcoming the lagging economic effects of the early days of the depression, and some suggesting that it was in fact a planned addition to "The New Deal" overall.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (21 March 2008)

Who Dares Wins said:


> Perhaps Tysonboss1 you try telling your mates if they don't like it there or what happens to them there they should leave and go back to their own country?




A soldier doen't get to choose his war,... they are there doing a there job to protect us,... The way I see it, we can fight them in afganistan, or we can fight them in sydney, new york and londan.

Before passing judgement spare a thought for our soldiers.

99.9% of Australians would have no idea what goes on in Afganistan on a daily basis,... or what Our soldiers are going through over there, When my mate "Lids" got hurt all that was on the news as a 5 second clip saying an australian had been injured, It didn't mention that he had lost his sight, his arm and a leg and was flown to germany for emergency surgury.


----------



## DialecticBlue (21 March 2008)

I have to put my tuppence worth in here.

Tysonboss1, I fully agree with you. All this pontificating is so much bull**** really. I have immense respect and admiration for our troops, indeed the troops of any country. As you say, they go where they are sent. Australians own a large debt of gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces.

My understanding is that they are doing a mighty job of community re-building and cultural bridge-building in Afghanistan, Iraq, Timor and anywhere else they are sent.

Have a happy and safe Easter

Graeme Mills


----------



## Pronto (21 March 2008)

> If you'd bother to do any research into the history of China, I'd like for you to find me the number of times they have started wars to further their imperial ambitions



Bushman beat me to it, except that I would also add India (1962/3). But I take your point. China has not been overtly imperialistic historically, and I suspect that has been because it has had enough on its plate in simply keeping itself together as best it can. But that doesn't mean to say that this will always be the case. 
I suppose that I was also making the point that Australia is effectively screwed without 'great and powerful friends' (especially the USA) whether you or anyone else likes it or not.


----------



## Julia (21 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> 99.9% of Australians would have no idea what goes on in Afganistan on a daily basis,... or what Our soldiers are going through over there, When my mate "Lids" got hurt all that was on the news as a 5 second clip saying an australian had been injured, It didn't mention that he had lost his sight, his arm and a leg and was flown to germany for emergency surgury.



Tyson, I so agree with you.  To me the real tragedy of war is every bit as much the devastating injuries as the deaths.  At least the death is final.
Soldiers such as your friend are forced to suffer for the rest of their lives, usually with zilch thanks from their country.
And then there are all the innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq etc.
How is your friend coping?


----------



## DialecticBlue (22 March 2008)

China & Imperialism

Extract from an Article I wrote on the current turmoil in Tibet

1911 – 1949 were very turbulent years in China. Looking inward and immersed in its own internal conflict, China lost control of the outlying provinces, of which Tibet was one. Then in 1949 Mao emerged the victor and seized power. 

Mao had fought the Japanese (unlike Chiang ki-shek, who lost the support and respect of the people because of this) and had learned the hard way that China could not afford to be divided if it were to be powerful. Being raped by another nation is not pleasant and tends to stick in the mind, somewhat. One of Mao’s first priorities was to bring the outlying Provinces, over which China had a historical claim, back into the fold. Tibet was one of those provinces. 

It is interesting and informative to note that Mao did not try to extend his reach any further. He had a powerful and experienced army at his command. The West had been weakened by WW11. He could have easily taken many small countries around those outlying provinces. However, he chose only those over which China had a historical claim. Thus not provoking Russia, Britain and America. Although weakened, they were still very powerful. To understand that strategy, it is best to read Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’, which counsels a Ruler not to extend his(her) lines and concentrate on consolidating power. For the Ruler who extends his(her) lines weakens the State and inevitably the extended lines will be cut off, unless they are very, very strong. Let your mind mull over the current actions of America, which is running around the world like a hormonal adolescent, in contrast to the actions of China. Honk Kong was a waiting game. Taiwan?? What is 50, 100, 200 years in 5,000?

Note also, that China took a stand in Vietnam and Korea, but did not push through. The West saw it as the advance of Communism. China saw it as the invasion by the West. 



...... its Easter, 'Always look on the bright side of life'


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

Tysonboss1]
fighting ghosts hey said:


> Perhaps Tysonboss1 you try telling your mates if they don't like it there or what happens to them there they should leave and go back to their own country?




coincidentally, WDW, - or should I be saying / rephrasing that "intentionally "? - 
"Who Dares Wins" is the motto of said SAS.


a handful of blokes doing all the work if you ask me. - and achieving 10 times per head what the US achieve - with their ground troops anyways. -  and the yanks are the first to admit it.  

Meanwhile the Iraq War ( WW 2.5?) is a flaming mess - and the 300 or 400 Aussie troops that Rudd is (presumably still) planning to leave there to defend the Embassy will also have their work cut out for them .  sheesh!
shinbone shinbone and double shinbone. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/23/2197031.htm?section=justin


> Missile attacks pound Baghdad's Green Zone
> Posted 1 hour 22 minutes ago
> 
> The heavily fortified Green Zone in the Iraqi capital Baghdad has been hit by a sustained barrage of rocket or mortar fire.
> ...



and presumably the Aus Embassy - previously the Green Zone was called the Internationsl Zone apparently.


----------



## metric (23 March 2008)

global warming will start the next world war....



> The consequences of climate change are a science fiction nightmare. The writer of Dr Who, Russell T. Davies, once told me the only plot he would avoid was the environment because he could not give audiences a happy ending.
> 
> 
> Yet Lovelock contemplates catastrophe almost with excitement. I ask why is he not terrified.
> ...









http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=541748&in_page_id=1770


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

:topic
I notice that "Who Dares Wins" was adopted as a motto by the 3rd Battalion 25th Marines - "used after return from Iraq in 2005."  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Dares_Wins


----------



## moneymajix (24 March 2008)

*Re: PEACE NOW*

If you attract what you focus on then I choose a peaceful universe.


----------



## Superfly (24 March 2008)

DialecticBlue; One of Mao’s first priorities was to bring the outlying Provinces said:
			
		

> Thats because noboby wanted to know about Mao and his communist idea's in the big modern cities such as Shanghai etc... Mao had to spread his lies among the rural poor to gain support.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Superfly (24 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> I honestly think the US wouldnt have a show against China.
> 
> China could shoot people instead of shells out of its cannons. Sheer weight of numbers imo.
> 
> Its all seeming a bit Orwellian to me...




The US could probably decimate mainland China with its submarine fleet alone.. destorying most needed infustructure, resulting in millions of straving Chinese.. and even with conventional weapons it may just take a while longer..

why do you think that Taiwan is still a free country...


----------



## metric (24 March 2008)

ww3 is out. we can destroy the world 1000 times over with the nukes available. thats not going to happen. no fun in that.

china and the us are already engaged in a war. business is war.


----------



## agro (24 March 2008)

the stuff going on between china and tibet is something to be concerned about imo 

don't want to get into a fight with china!!


----------



## Miner (24 March 2008)

With interdependency between the nations so much that the real world war 3 will be in words, economic front and savaging small nations like Somalia etc.
It is not of China, US, Russia's interest to get into a WW 3. Iraq has paid enough lessons to Uncle Bush and team. We all got suffered with low dollar, high fuel price etc. America economically suffered most with wrong calculation. So was learning from Afganistan. 

IMO there will be fringe wars between India Pakistan, Kosovo fighting, East Timor incidence, Sri Lankan LTTE, drug war in Bolivia, Congo and similar, ethnic cleansing in Africa but no WWW 3. I meant WWW = World War and not War of Words as will continue to happen between Russia, US, CHina and others and lame duck UN.


----------



## Superfly (26 March 2008)

Changing rain fall patterns meaning dry rivers, mass migration, etc etc... disputes over sub sea resources etc etc... 

Taiwan , the Chinese have already been trying ( but can not do ) to create a missile capable of knocking out a US aircraft carrier mid ocean, thereby having a free hand to attack Taiwan... one would think that may start a war if it happened...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (26 March 2008)

Julia said:


> How is your friend coping?




Ok, I hope. 

I havn't spoken to him recently. We weren't close friends, just work mates. He got hurt about a year after I left the army, 

I am still close to alot of my other mates working in the same unit, including a couple of guys who were there when he was hurt, Thats why I was shocked to find out he had been hurt so badly, because it said next to nothing when I saw it on the news so I thought it was not serious, It was only when one of my other mates called me that I found outwhat had happened.

What basically happened was Lids was a bomb tech and during a route clearing patrol one on the lead searchers noticed some tell tail signs of a possible roadside bomb (this was not uncommon lids had apparently dealt with a number of these during his time in country), because lids was the bomb tech he was then called foward to clear the bomb so the group coud move forward safely how ever as he approached the device it detonated nearly killing him,... he injuries were so extreme that The docotors said if it was not for his high level of fittness he would have died.


----------



## Superfly (28 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> If you'd bother to do any research into the history of China, I'd like for you to find me the number of times they have started wars to further their imperial ambitions...



If you ask that question in 20 years you may get a different answer.... nothing better than a war to enhance the national spirit for the "motherland" feeling and the communists may need to play that card in time to keep hold of power.



> We have more to worry about with our supposed friends who actively encourage us to poison our air, food and water than those who are more interested in trading with us and doing business.




Blatant anti-Americanism...

If the Chinese could shoot us and just take the Iron Ore... do u think they would.... thanks to America that could never happen...get it ...


----------



## mayk (28 March 2008)

^^^^^
I , for one, welcome our new American Overlords...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 March 2008)

Superfly said:


> If the Chinese could shoot us and just take the Iron Ore... do u think they would.... thanks to America that could never happen...get it ...




why would they start a war to capture resources when they can simply buy them at the market rate and keep the peace.

think about it,... China relies on trading with the rest of the world.

If they started a world war,... no one would trade with them,... so none of there manufactured goods would be sold,.... so they would have no need for the resources to make the manfactued goods,.... So they would have no reason to capture the resources.

Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,


----------



## Struzball (28 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,




i.e. Iraq war for oil?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 March 2008)

Struzball said:


> i.e. Iraq war for oil?




Even if that war was purely for oil USA has spent alot more fighting that war than they will get from the oil, Because they are paying for any oil they take any way.

The USA has no problem paying for the OIL they use,... they just don't want to Buy it from an evil dictator, So they invaded Iraq to remove the dictator and develop a free market in which they can purchase the oil from.

Australia is already a free market so it would make no sense to invade us to win resources that you can just buy at the market rate.


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> So they invaded Iraq to remove the dictator and develop a free market in which they can purchase the oil from.




You were making hell of a lot of sense before this bit. Using that logic, we better get to and invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, The Emirates, Brunei, perhaps a few African countries... 

And why stop at oil? Why not invade dictatorships we trade other things with... cheap tat for instance. China anyone? 

There was a lot more to Eye Rack than removing a dictator... which was never the justification for war anyway.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> You were making hell of a lot of sense before this bit. Using that logic, we better get to and invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, The Emirates, Brunei, perhaps a few African countries...
> 
> And why stop at oil? Why not invade dictatorships we trade other things with... cheap tat for instance. China anyone?
> 
> There was a lot more to Eye Rack than removing a dictator... which was never the justification for war anyway.




Do you think that if it were Australia with the oil reserves instead of IRAQ they woud have invaded us,... 

Or do you think they would have just set up lon term trade aggreements,..


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Do you think that if it were Australia with the oil reserves instead of IRAQ they woud have invaded us,...
> 
> Or do you think they would have just set up long term trade aggreements,..



That's deflecting the point.

No they would not invade Australia (though some may argue they already have non-militarily). But the premise for invading Iraq was the threat to the West from WMD and/or Saddam was involved with 911. Both proved to be utterly fallacious, and most of us knew that all along anyway.

Now we have goal posts on wheels as the reason for invasion is shifted at will by any war apologists. 

What the real agenda is, remains the privy of the Neo-Con cabal currently infesting Washington. But to suggest that the reason Iraq was invaded was to bring democracy is outrageous and preposterous... and can be shot down on on a number of premises.

Please, that's just propaganda.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (28 March 2008)

Iraq wasn't towing the line they were about to start selling oil in Euros and other currencies just before this happened they were invaded.

Look at Iran a week before they were to open their oil boarse in currencies other than USD 5 undersea cables are cut severing all the internet links to Iran thus postponing the boarse. Iran will be invaded its just a question of time.

If any reasonable amount of oil started selling in other foriegn currencies the greenback would plunge even faster than it is now.

The only reason Chinas growth isn't 20% PA is because they can't get enough oil to drive the economy.

Also China has over 1 billion people great man power right ? well the US now has control over billions of barrels of the cheapest oil in the world. it costs $1 to pump a barrel of oil from wells in iraq (doesn't include processing which is about $20-30 because of the high quality of the oil) Think about it one barrel of oil contains the chemical energy equivalent to about 15000 + man hours of work !

So with super cheap oil they are basically competeing with super cheap and abundant labour. Does anyone really think the US is paying over $100 a barrel for iraqi oil ? even if they were all the profits are going straight back to the US through dodgy contractors which charge the Iraqi Gov heaps for basically worthless construction. 

The US will not fight china directly if they don't have to, they will contain them at first then divide and conquer. Think about how many former soviet countries are joining NATO and now look at Tibet. You establish democratic funds and political groups and get the civilians to do the hard work of changing the power of a country. I bet my @ss that the uprising in Tibet has american money and fingers all over it. I wouldn't be surprised if giving the olympics to China wasn't part of the plan to further alienate them and try to break up the government. With inflation running high there is even more unrest in China because the majority of the poor are getting screwed, you still the unrest a little and quite quickly you can snowball the situation. Think about the benefits that the US policy of high inflation is having on its foriegn interests.

China may have one billion people but without guns, car and boats to transport them and turn them into soldier they are cannon fodder. Besides if we topple them with revoultion we look like the good guys.

I for one would rather live under US control rather than Russian or Chinese.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> But to suggest that the reason Iraq was invaded was to bring democracy is outrageous and preposterous... and can be shot down on on a number of premises.
> 
> Please, that's just propaganda.




Agreed,...

I don't think that Iraq was invaded to bring democacy,...

I am just saying it was to try an install pupput government that is more receptive of the US, and hopefully better for the local population,... which the us has failed to do.


----------



## Superfly (28 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> why would they start a war to capture resources when they can simply buy them at the market rate and keep the peace.
> 
> think about it,... China relies on trading with the rest of the world.
> 
> ...




Was referring to a previous post that alluded to America only wanting to poison our air, food & water, while the good Chinese are interested in trading & doing business with us... point was that China isn't trading with Australia out of the kindness of their hearts... they would pay 2 cents a tonne if they could...and China is a polluter of emense porportions... and because of the one party state, its not even clear of how much polluting is going on... not reported and controlled like in the US and Australia...and our comrade Rudd signed Kyoto and what happened... just that now America is left alone to try to make China and India curb their out put.....


----------



## Bushman (28 March 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,




Good point. Just ask Japan that question. 1m souls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would say 'buy' rather than 'fight' if they had that option.


----------



## Superfly (28 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> That's deflecting the point.
> 
> No they would not invade Australia (though some may argue they already have non-militarily).



Many may not aswell..


> But the premise for invading Iraq was the threat to the West from WMD and/or Saddam was involved with 911. Both proved to be utterly fallacious, and most of us knew that all along anyway.



People forget or choose to ingnore that nothing but 600 kms of desert stood between the US tanks armies and Baghdad in 1991.. but the US withdrew to Kuwait and let the UN handle Saddam... and look what happened... Saddam thumbed his nose for 12 years at the world, played cat and mouse with UN inspectors, had WMD's in the past and had used them on the Kurds and Iran and there was no way to 100% be sure that the WMD were no longer. If so then why where there UN inspectors in Iraq if it's so "utterly fallacious"... Iraq oil revenue is going to the Iraq Central Government.. and yes some of that will be used to pay for western contract companies in Iraq... but what oil fields in the world will you not find western companies working... Iraq's oil infustructure has suffered from decades of no investment and needs a great deal of costly updating.. something that any country would need the western contractors for. Iraq is bordered by Syria & Iran which both are backing the unrest...


> Now we have goal posts on wheels as the reason for invasion is shifted at will by any war apologists.
> 
> What the real agenda is, remains the privy of the Neo-Con cabal currently infesting Washington. But to suggest that the reason Iraq was invaded was to bring democracy is outrageous and preposterous... and can be shot down on on a number of premises.




Remember that since 9/11 there has been no attack on American or Australian soil...the Clinton Admin sat back (launched some missiles) while the terroists trained in camps and got sophisticated in attacking the west from bases in Afganistan. The world changed after 9/11 and President G W Bush will one day the remembered as a good man in a hard situation. The left will always complain whatever America does, because it was the US that halted communism.


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

Superfly said:


> People forget or choose to ingnore that nothing but 600 kms of desert stood between the US tanks armies and Baghdad in 1991.. but the US withdrew to Kuwait and let the UN handle Saddam... and look what happened... Saddam thumbed his nose for 12 years at the world, played cat and mouse with UN inspectors, had WMD's in the past and had used them on the Kurds and Iran and there was no way to 100% be sure that the WMD were no longer. If so then why where there UN inspectors in Iraq if it's so "utterly fallacious"... Iraq oil revenue is going to the Iraq Central Government.. and yes some of that will be used to pay for western contract companies in Iraq... but what oil fields in the world will you not find western companies working... Iraq's oil infustructure has suffered from decades of no investment and needs a great deal of costly updating.. something that any country would need the western contractors for. Iraq is bordered by Syria & Iran which both are backing the unrest...



I don't think they ignore 1991 at all. There was something dodgy about that whole schmozzle as well.

But let's take for granted for a moment that the talk of some sort of dodginess is in the minds of the foil hatters. Then yes, the US led coalition should have gone all the way in '91. That was a so called legal war.

The fact is that they didn't. Their bad; this invasion however, has been admitted to be on a totally false premise. Iraq was never any threat to the west and particularly the US. That's laughable. 

Then to start pointing fingers at Iran and Syria for sponsoring unrest? LOL! That a standard CIA tactic as well. The US has had it's fingers in so many pies it's unreal.




Superfly said:


> Remember that since 9/11 there has been no attack on American or Australian soil...the Clinton Admin sat back (launched some missiles) while the terroists trained in camps and got sophisticated in attacking the west from bases in Afganistan.



Well, that is a long debate... even the premise is a long debate. Lets just say that many look at this entirely differently.

Also you are confusing the invasion of Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq. There are a great bulk of people who think the former was justified, but not the latter.



Superfly said:


> The world changed after 9/11 and President G W Bush will one day the remembered as a good man in a hard situation.



LOL! I think there is a snowflakes chance in hell of that... outside the hard right, neo-con mindset anyway.



Superfly said:


> The left will always complain whatever America does, because it was the US that halted communism.



Absolute and utter tosh. What, you watch nothing but Fox? Let me tell you something. I am a natural conservative, I am in the process of join the local Tory party here in the UK and probably 1 in 4 have any feelings of support for the US actions in the middle east.

That is the argument of last resort and quite demonstrably false. A Bill O'Reillyesque slogan with no foundation in fact. Absolute rubbish.

Let's leave the slogans imprinted by propaganda out of the debate, hey?

Cheers


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (29 March 2008)

Saddam was once a big US ally, they armed him against Iran and gave hime chemical weapons.

It is definitly cheaper to buy resources than fight for them but fact is the guy who own's the resources and is selling them to you basically has the fate of your country in his hands. Imagine what would happen if the Saudis stopped selling oil to the US even for a week! 

Its about control of the resources, Oil been the most important. The only reason Germany lost WW2 is because they had very little oil where as the russians had Baku and the US had Texas. The US must have middle east oil to ensure it wins any future war against China or Russia. Also by taking control of the majoirty of the worlds oil resource you can wage economic war which i think will be far more paletable by the West. I still reakon that th US will be in Iran by spring this year.

Sure the US lied about why it went into Iraq, just as there are obvious inconsistantcies in what actually happened on 9/11 
(but thats a whole other arguement) They have so many covert operations around the world and I am sure they have  strategic long term plans which is aimed at firming up their status as world power. But realistically people are been nieve in thinking that they are evil or that the war in Iraq is wrong. The Western world could stop the war in Iraq and afghanistan just the same way that we could all sell our mc mansions and move into units and give half our life savings away to help people in Africa modernise. All that would do is dig our own graves. The world is overpopulated, all resources are finite, every empire eventually falls, no species ever lies for ever and our world wonj't always be the same. 

I know that innocent people are dying all over the world for the worst reasons and i feel bad about it and I don't want it to happen but that isn't going to stop it it has always happened and will always continue to happen unless we fundamentally change the nature of  been Human. All life is destined too survival of the fittest its just in our case now individual pyshical strength means nothing.


----------



## mayk (29 March 2008)

In case of War, I think Australia is the Best country to be in, away from rest of the world


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

=wayneL;276385]


> I don't think they ignore 1991 at all. There was something dodgy about that whole schmozzle as well.




What happened was the US gave the UN 12 years to sort Saddam out... 



> But let's take for granted for a moment that the talk of some sort of dodginess is in the minds of the foil hatters. Then yes, the US led coalition should have gone all the way in '91. That was a so called legal war.




No ... the UN should have acted and removed Saddam when he broke the UN mandates... 



> The fact is that they didn't. Their bad; this invasion however, has been admitted to be on a totally false premise. Iraq was never any threat to the west and particularly the US. That's laughable.



So Iraq never fired any scud missles at Israel and was never trying to develop long range missles...

Israel never had to carry out an air strike on a nuclear weapons program inside Iraq...



> Then to start pointing fingers at Iran and Syria for sponsoring unrest? LOL! That a standard CIA tactic as well. The US has had it's fingers in so many pies it's unreal.




...you are now going so far as to say the CIA are the one's giving ammo to the insurgents in Iraq... take a step back and check yourself... you really think that... really... 



> Well, that is a long debate... even the premise is a long debate. Lets just say that many look at this entirely differently.



No it's not... Clinton ( Dem ) did little to nothing ...even sent a signal from the events in Somalia that if u kill some of us then we will pack up and go home...


> Also you are confusing the invasion of Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq. There are a great bulk of people who think the former was justified, but not the latter.
> LOL! I think there is a snowflakes chance in hell of that... outside the hard right, neo-con mindset anyway.
> Absolute and utter tosh. What, you watch nothing but Fox? Let me tell you something. I am a natural conservative, I am in the process of join the local Tory party here in the UK and probably 1 in 4 have any feelings of support for the US actions in the middle east.
> 
> ...



[/quote]

So you think that the mad mullahs in Iran should be allowed to become nuclear... words will not stop them... 

Will stand corrected if you could show me that it was not America that halted communism...that has nothing to do with Fox.. you may hate Fox, along with all your other M Moore fan clubers, but the Left always hates being asked the hard questions...something that Fox does very well from both sides of politics, unlike CNN, who I was watching President Bush's last speech on the progress in Iraq live on CNN then CNN go straight to Basra and show as much trouble as they can for as long as they can on that ONE city and nothing about anything else in the whole country of Iraq, with the anchors going out of their way to diss what the President had just said...why be so negative in reporting, ok always show what's going on, but show ALL of whats going on, not half the picture... it's not only what CNN show, it's also what they don't show and say... thats a major reason why so many think that one war is justified and one is not...

Also maybe why people with views like you have, are so aggressive when it comes to Fox...


----------



## wayneL (1 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> What happened was the US gave the UN 12 years to sort Saddam out...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WOOOOOHOOO! 

That post had more straw men in it than the whole state of Nebraska. LOL
Are you Bill O'Reilly himself? Honestly he's the only other man on the planet that could string together such a string of logical fallacies without even drawing breath.

I can see the futility of discussion here. I bid you Godspeed with your views and leave it there.

ROTFLMAO


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> WOOOOOHOOO!
> 
> That post had more straw men in it than the whole state of Nebraska. LOL
> Are you Bill O'Reilly himself? Honestly he's the only other man on the planet that could string together such a string of logical fallacies without even drawing breath.
> ...




As was said... "the left hates being asked the hard questions"... prime example


----------



## wayneL (1 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> As was said... "the left hates being asked the hard questions"...




I'm not left, I'm center right  

But just for the record, those weren't questions, they were statements (fallacious ones mostly). It really pays to know the difference.


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm not left, I'm center right
> 
> But just for the record, those weren't questions, they were statements (fallacious ones mostly). It really pays to know the difference.




"fallacious"... is your response... lol 

Should Iran be allowed to get the bomb... ?  Question in case u missed that..


----------



## wayneL (1 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> "fallacious"... is your response... lol
> 
> Should Iran be allowed to get the bomb... ?  Question in case u missed that..



Yes fallacious, because you attribute attitudes and viewpoints to me that I don't carry. e.g. That I am a lefty, that I even mentioned the CIA and the insurgents in the same breath and somehow connected dots that weren't there, that I'm a Moore fan clubber.

It seems you discredited yourself with your own rhetoric. Something Bill O'Reilly can only overcome with bluster and cutting to commercials, but cannot be done on a forum.

You sir, have been hoist by your own petard.

Re Iran and the bomb:
Are they getting one?
Should Israel be allowed to have the bomb?
Should Pakistan be allowed to have the bomb?
Should India be allowed to have the bomb?
Should China be allowed to have the bomb?
Should Russia be allowed to have the bomb?
Should America be allowed to have the bomb?

As I recall, there is only one country who has used it on foreign population centers. The same country who continues to splatter U238 dust all over the place.

I would prefer that nobody had the bomb, but as yet, we don't know whether Iran is telling the truth.

If we deny Iran the bomb, then we sure as hell should be denying some, if not all of the above as well.


----------



## robert toms (1 April 2008)

One thing that I do know...is that if the school yard bully and his gang of hangers-on was continually threatening me I would take measures to protect myself.
If Iran is developing a nuclear defence capacity it is understandable and justifiable!


----------



## Santob (1 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> One thing that I do know...is that if the school yard bully and his gang of hangers-on was continually threatening me I would take measures to protect myself.
> If Iran is developing a nuclear defence capacity it is understandable and justifiable!




Gee, thats the kind of talk that gets you labelled as a terrorist sympathiser by the likes of superfly


----------



## mayk (1 April 2008)

Hey superfly, What about another puppet person supported by the west ( aka Musharraf), he killed people on the streets in Karachi, suspended the constitution, Jailed Supreme court Judges ( Never in the history of dictatorship this happened). 

Is this the high moral ground west is working to install in the world?


I am sure looking back a decade or two, you will compare Saddam to Musharraf.  History repeats it self, and this time it will be no different. The friends of today will be the enemies of tomorrow. 


Seriously, tell me for how long the nuclear technology can be protected from other nations. 10-20-40 years. At some point in time the nations you like or dislike will aquire this technology, then what? Start a killing spree all over again?


Americans have a magic wand by virture of which they can touch a small problem and then convert it into an insolvable disaster.

A more humane and rational thinking all over the world is required. Keeping in mind the respect for other nations, their ideals and virtues.


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> One thing that I do know...is that if the school yard bully and his gang of hangers-on was continually threatening me I would take measures to protect myself.
> If Iran is developing a nuclear defence capacity it is understandable and justifiable!




Defence ?... this is the same Iran that states openly to have Israel wiped of the face of the earth...


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

mayk said:


> A more humane and rational thinking all over the world is required. Keeping in mind the respect for other nations, their ideals and virtues.




..All the while Iran works away to achieve it's goal... while some look & hope for a more humane & rational way of thinking to deal with the problem... but how do you deal with an unrational government...


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Then to start pointing fingers at Iran and Syria for sponsoring unrest? LOL! That a standard CIA tactic as well. The US has had it's fingers in so many pies it's unreal.




hmmmm... do not how I thought that you meant Iran & Syria have nothing to do with the trouble in Iraq, and that the CIA has finger prints are all over it...hmmmmm


----------



## mayk (1 April 2008)

> but how do you deal with an unrational government...




May I dare say, how to deal with Uncle Sam? Does Bush govt. seem rational to you? Cuts both ways aye!


----------



## metric (1 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> ..All the while Iran works away to achieve it's goal... while some look & hope for a more humane & rational way of thinking to deal with the problem... but how do you deal with an unrational government...




superfly, i suggest to you to expand your reading of daily news beyond corporate mainstream media....

just for an exercise, read prisonplanet.com occasionally.


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Yes fallacious, because you attribute attitudes and viewpoints to me that I don't carry. e.g. That I am a lefty, that I even mentioned the CIA and the insurgents in the same breath and somehow connected dots that weren't there, that I'm a Moore fan clubber.



Well you have not discredited many or any of my statements... you gloss over most and attack the M Moore link, when it's ok for you to throw the Fox  / Bill O'R thing at me... 


> It seems you discredited yourself with your own rhetoric. Something Bill O'Reilly can only overcome with bluster and cutting to commercials, but cannot be done on a forum.



Whatever....  ( there you go again )...


> You sir, have been hoist by your own petard.
> 
> Re Iran and the bomb:
> Are they getting one?
> ...



Pakistan no.. but even Pakistan is more stable and level headed (at the moment) than Iran... and thats to late now, which is some of the point... once it's achieved, then it's to late. So what is it YES or NO ? 


> As I recall, there is only one country who has used it on foreign population centers. The same country who continues to splatter U238 dust all over the place.



Have you any idea what a land invasion of mainland Japan would have cost in American / Australian / English lives... most estimates 200000 to 1+million... the bomb saved countless brave men & women... 


> I would prefer that nobody had the bomb, but as yet, we don't know whether Iran is telling the truth.



How are we going to know ?? if they are no being fully open with all their sites, which they ARE NOT ( even building deeper under mountains ) then what else in the interest of world can one suspect... what does that make you think they are doing... growing roses down there .....


> If we deny Iran the bomb, then we sure as hell should be denying some, if not all of the above as well.



It's not a perfect world...


----------



## Superfly (1 April 2008)

metric said:


> superfly, i suggest to you to expand your reading of daily news beyond corporate mainstream media....
> 
> just for an exercise, read prisonplanet.com occasionally.




Will do... but heading to work for 4 weeks just now so will have a look through when return home... till then just posting now and then...


----------



## disarray (1 April 2008)

nukes are still a restricted tech and iran can't be allowed to have them while their head of government says he wants to obliterate israel on national tv. if a state really wants nukes they can develop them but it takes time and effort. while there are many legitimate reasons for nuclear development, certain nations are erratic so it is denied to them by the international community.

so who has nukes and who deserves to have them?

india and pakistan have theirs pointed at each other. this collection has the whole MAD (mutually assured destruction) thing going for it and they don't have intercontinental delivery systems yet, so its a regional thing.

russia probably covers western europe, the US, china and maybe the odd troublesome republic. international threat but obvious targets, and high chance of MAD. ex-soviet republics dismantled and shipped their inherited arsenals back to russia (supplying the blackmarket)

the us covers russia, china, and probably middle eastern targets. they also have nuke sharing with nato partners, maybe likely (imho) to launch against a smaller adversary if desperate but otherwise responsible.

france and the uk are cold war arsenals so no immediate threat. i wonder who they are pointing at?

china has them because a nation of 1 billion can do whatever it wants. i'll probably get slammed for this but they are pretty xenophobic - secure the borders, build the great wall then go about its business with the nukes as a deterrent. no point nuking taiwan, maybe some grudge missiles looking at japan and a few reserved for north korea if they flip out really badly with their stockpile.

these are the main nuclear players, they are all large and relatively stable with a history of not wanting to annihilate the world. pakistan may become a danger if the islamists gain power because the arsenal would have a different priority.

that leaves north korea, israel and iran. north korea is still plugging away but aren't a large threat. no delivery system and only a few warheads which are more useful as bargaining chips than flying towards a target.

israel has them but doesn't admit it. probably not afraid to use them and actively involved in denying its middle eastern neighbours nuclear technology, even going so far as to attack targets inside syria and iran. suffering from a seige mentality for some reason, maybe the 200 million arabs still baying for israeli blood has something to do with it. arsenal is most likely targetted throughout the middle east.

then you have a newly assertive, religiously fuelled iran. iran was mellowing out until bush starts sabre rattling and sends the voters back into the arms of the conservatives. maybe has them, maybe not but has the capacity to develop them. high probability it would throw them at israel at what they consider an opportune time and the israels know it, so a pre-emptive strike would be on the cards.

so there you have it, most of the worlds nuclear powers have nukes that pretty much counterbalance each other, its in no ones interest to destroy each other. the "rogue states" on the other hand are obviously nutters and should be stymied in any attempt to develop nuclear technology. too bad about the whole electricity generation thing but you can't let nations get nukes when you know they are erratic and lack counterbalance.


----------



## robert toms (1 April 2008)

Superfly ,I suggest that you google who has attacked who since the second world war and you find some facts that do not fit your scenario.
To my knowledge Iran has never attacked anyone...and as for threatening behaviour look to the US and Israel...
I am not ideoligical about any of this....I try to keep to the facts.
I can remember when the US were bombing Haiphong and bragging how they would bomb the Vietnamese into the stone age...these are facts.
Very populated areas they were bombing...nothing has changed...only the propaganda has become more sophisticated!
A very cunning bloke GWB ,urging Iraqis to fight and kill Iraqis...now thats the way to win their hearts and minds!Not!


----------



## mayk (1 April 2008)

The problem is we are equating personalities with nations. GWB with America,  Ahmet with Iran, and Musharraf with Pakistan. I am sure people of these nations are not that crazy and given the chance will seek moderate forces to pervail.

Iranian are not physco paths, they know how lonely they are in the arab world. Which nation in sane mind will deploy a N-weapon in its own backyard? 

Study history, Iran is generally hated in Gulf region. It is disliked by majority of its neighbours, especially Saudia Arabia. It is as lonely in this region as Israel. 

Israel should settle the Palestine problem once and for all, stop building new colonies and stop amassing the land of other nations. Israel has to clear its act first to gain respect and support of its neighbours.   

But I see a grand design which will not allow peace to establish, because then ,USA has to undeploy its forces from that region ( Oil yummmm.)


----------



## metric (1 April 2008)

ahmadinejad has never stated iran wants to "obliterate" israel. (which is a corporate mainstream media beat up). he said to "remove israel from the map" which is the corresct translation, and means basically it should be called palestine.

if iran wants nukes, they would already have them from old soviet union states. it is common knowledge there are 'hundreds' of nukes missing. do a google.

of all the countries in the world, the two most likely to use nukes are the US and Israel. IMO.


----------



## disarray (1 April 2008)

metric said:


> ahmadinejad has never stated iran wants to "obliterate" israel. (which is a corporate mainstream media beat up). he said to "remove israel from the map" which is the corresct translation, and means basically it should be called palestine.




Iran: Nuke Israel!

power in iran is still with the theocracy. that is who we will be dealing with.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (1 April 2008)

disarray said:


> india and pakistan have theirs pointed at each other. this collection has the whole MAD (mutually assured destruction) thing going for it and they don't have intercontinental delivery systems yet, so its a regional thing.




Every country has intercontinental delivery systems,....

With a Boeing 747 loaded with a nuke you could hit anywhere on earth,..

Hell you could hit Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne by boat,...


----------



## Stan 101 (1 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> fighting ghosts hey,...
> 
> try telling that to my mate who lost an eye, arm and a leg last year in afganistan.
> 
> tell the to the guys who's convoys get ambushed, nd hit with waves of up to 90 taliban fighters.




With all due respect to your mate, Tyson, but was said mate conscripted?

If not, I assume he was of sound mind when joining the army. The army is a place where you are trained to kill other people amongst other things. A rational person would conclude that if one were trained to kill, amongst other things, that they should expect to have the probability of being injured or terminated weighed against them?

Bit silly to join the army and complaining when injured by the enemy...


cheers,


----------



## Stan 101 (1 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Before passing judgement spare a thought for our soldiers.




I spare the same thought for soldiers as I do for any other service. No one is forcing them to do what they do...


cheers,


----------



## wayneL (1 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Have you any idea what a land invasion of mainland Japan would have cost in American / Australian / English lives... most estimates 200000 to 1+million... the bomb saved countless brave men & women...



Just on this issue, there is analysis that suggests the bomb was not necessary.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm


----------



## Bushman (1 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Superfly said:
> 
> 
> > Have you any idea what a land invasion of mainland Japan would have cost in American / Australian / English lives... most estimates 200000 to 1+million... the bomb saved countless brave men & women...
> ...





To the victors go control of the history books. Google the Bomber Harris and his fire bombing of Dresden for another example of a 'disproportionate' Allied boming campaign.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (1 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> With all due respect to your mate, Tyson, but was said mate conscripted?
> 
> If not, I assume he was of sound mind when joining the army. The army is a place where you are trained to kill other people amongst other things. A rational person would conclude that if one were trained to kill, amongst other things, that they should expect to have the probability of being injured or terminated weighed against them?
> 
> ...




Offcoarse he was not conscripted,

Yes soldiers are aware of the dangers they are going to face when they go over seas, they are more aware than any one, But does this mean that you shouldn't be sad when somthing does go wrong and someone you know is killed or maimed.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (1 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> I spare the same thought for soldiers as I do for any other service. No one is forcing them to do what they do...
> 
> 
> cheers,




Out of all the services the soldiers are the ones on the ground in the feild in the most danger.

 and your right no one is forcing them to do it 

But the fact that they are vulenteering to put them selves in such danger to protect us is an even more special thing isn't it.

Australia sleeps soundly at night because we have a hardened group men willing to travel to our enemies and commit acts of extreme violence on our behalf.


----------



## Stan 101 (1 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> But the fact that they are vulenteering to put them selves in such danger to protect us is an even more special thing isn't it.




Maybe in your eyes, not mine. Surely they way up the pros and the cons. They believe their remuneration is adequate for the service rendered or do armed services doing the job they are paid for expect a ticker tape parade when they come home?



> Australia sleeps soundly at night because we have a hardened group men willing to travel to our enemies and commit acts of extreme violence on our behalf.




Much like the garbos come round to people's places and do a job we don't want to do.

People now have a more realistic view via the media of what a real hell war is. They should understand more so than people from the vietnam era and prior who may have had deluded visions of grandeur, and maybe rightly so. People of more niave and less informed eras can be excluded from this to some extent.

I do feel greatly for the civilians in any war, not so much for people who choose to put themselves in that position. Of course there is compassion on a one on one level for any armed forces personnel who is killed or injured, such as your friend.




> Australia sleeps soundly at night because we have a hardened group men willing to travel to our enemies and commit acts of extreme violence on our behalf.




Soldiers are simply puppets and should not question in any way their orders. I'd prefer they learned compassion for their opponents instead of how to kill. I'd prefer they stayed home with their loved ones and never chose to become a sanctioned, professional killer.  Maybe the concept may spread and the untold millions of civilians stuck in the middle might get some compassion.

What happens to these _"hardened group men willing to travel to our enemies and commit acts of extreme violence on our behalf"_ when they come back into society? That scares the hell out of me that we teach these people such skills and then expect them to just wander back into society as normal people.
Look at the stats on post traumatic stress disorder on the gulf veterans. Aren't people realizing what they are getting themselves into when they sign up even if they don't receive so much as a physical scratch?

Gee, didn't that become a bit of a tirade? Time for a bex and good lie down..


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> Soldiers are simply puppets and should not question in any way their orders. I'd prefer they learned compassion for their opponents instead of how to kill. I'd prefer they stayed home with their loved ones and never chose to become a sanctioned, professional killer.  Maybe the concept may spread and the untold millions of civilians stuck in the middle might get some compassion.




People should not confuse a well disiplined soldier as being some sort of puppet.

During my time in the Army I worked very closly in training exercises and operations over seas with the SAS, and these guys are some of the most intelligent and professial men I have ever worked with, they could easily excel in the corporate world however due to an honest love for this country and their families and a feeling that they can make a difference they offer Australia un restricted service.

Yes the remuniration may sound good,... Some of the guys clear over $100,000 a year, but to Get that they can be away for up to 9 months a year on operations and training excercises.

As for comparing the service of a garbo to a soldier,... well it just shows you know nothing,


----------



## Stan 101 (2 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> People should not confuse a well disiplined soldier as being some sort of puppet.



Soildiers must be puppets. They are given orders and must complete ultimate tasks and must not waiver. From a global view, they are puppets. On a macro view of their tasks, yes they will make decisions.



> During my time in the Army I worked very closly in training exercises and operations over seas with the SAS, and these guys are some of the most intelligent and professial men I have ever worked with, they could easily excel in the corporate world however due to an honest love for this country and their families and a feeling that they can make a difference they offer Australia un restricted service.



And good for you. Just don't expect everyone to love you for it. Polititions have the same argument. They believe they could earn much more in the free market. To hell with them, let them go do it. Someone else will always come along and take their place and in the army's case, unfortunately.



> Yes the remuniration may sound good,... Some of the guys clear over $100,000 a year, but to Get that they can be away for up to 9 months a year on operations and training excercises.



Again, no one is forcing them to take on the role. If they don't like the pay and the working conditions, they should get better career advise. IF a soldier doesn't want to be away from their family, it seems pretty bizarre they would knowingly join a career path that encourages displacement.



> As for comparing the service of a garbo to a soldier,... well it just shows you know nothing,



re read my post. Soldiers are doing a job the average person does not want to do. To that end, they are very alike. Imagine a country where everyone flatly refuses to remove any rubbish whatsoever. We would be overrun with vermin and disease in a month. 

Isn't it great we have a different point of view?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> Soildiers must be puppets. They are given orders and must complete ultimate tasks and must not waiver. From a global view, they are puppets. On a macro view of their tasks, yes they will make decisions.
> ?




By this definition just about every body in the world is a puppet,... every employee, every business owner, every contractor.

On the comment of if that if the curent serving members left that they would easily be replaced that is simply not true,... The army as a whole is already not meeting the required recuitment levels,... Not to mention that the SAS has had to disband one of its squadrons and is now operating on just 2 squadrons due to lack of numbers,

Why is the SAS lacking in numbers,... because what we ask them to do is so unbelieveably hard, that the recuitment levels to the SAS are very low and we have been smashing this guys for the last 5 years, the SAS guys in afganistan are often on their 3rd of 4th 6 month deployment within 3 years. and your telling me the sacrifices this guys have made are not note worthy.


----------



## metric (2 April 2008)

it does actually amaze me how slick internal military propaganda must be to get free thinking (?) men and women to commit violent acts against civillians of invaded countries. theres no denying it. all nations have been guilty of it.


----------



## metric (2 April 2008)

this could start something uncomfortable..

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border 
17:31 | 27/ 03/ 2007 



MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday. 

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched. 

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost." 

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. 

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

to continue, click on link...


----------



## mshepherd (2 April 2008)

Isnt that article from 2007?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 April 2008)

metric said:


> it does actually amaze me how slick internal military propaganda must be to get free thinking (?) men and women to commit violent acts against civillians of invaded countries. theres no denying it. all nations have been guilty of it.




I can only comment on Australia But our rules of engagement are very strict,...

Australias rules of engagements follow the international laws, Unarmed Civilians will never be targeted by Australians,.. we target combatants only,... these days though most of the combatants are civilians.

Offcourse there has been accidents how ever all care is taken not to hurt innocents,... there is absouloutly no propaganda to try and hurt civilians this is just your fantasy,...

In afganistan especially our forces are working very closly with the local population,... not against them


----------



## Superfly (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Every country has intercontinental delivery systems,....
> 
> With a Boeing 747 loaded with a nuke you could hit anywhere on earth,..
> 
> Hell you could hit Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne by boat,...




An inbound 747 with no reason ( ie not an international schduled airliner / cargo flight ) to be approching Australian air space would be shot down long before it got close to land. One would be very lucky use a 747 as a delievery system...


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> An inbound 747 with no reason ( ie not an international schduled airliner / cargo flight ) to be approching Australian air space would be shot down long before it got close to land. One would be very lucky use a 747 as a delievery system...





unless NORAD was told to stand down..


----------



## Superfly (3 April 2008)

Bushman said:


> To the victors go control of the history books. Google the Bomber Harris and his fire bombing of Dresden for another example of a 'disproportionate' Allied boming campaign.




Dresden is totally different to Japan... 

Try looking at the cost in allied lives on Okinawa for a example, not to mention the previuos murderous battles fought island hoping towards Japan.. 

I can not believe that anyone would compare the two. 

Dresden was a terrible event should not have happened, but in defence of Harris it was hard to justify having such a large air group and standing it down. 

Tokyo got it worse than Dresden and the Japanese had no intention of surrendering. 
You would rather sacrifice allied lives than end the war in a few days...


----------



## websman (3 April 2008)

Bring it on....


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Bushman said:


> To the victors go control of the history books.




absolute fact...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> An inbound 747 with no reason ( ie not an international schduled airliner / cargo flight ) to be approching Australian air space would be shot down long before it got close to land. One would be very lucky use a 747 as a delievery system...




with the help of goverment agencies, how easy would it be to load a device onto a scheduled cargo flight,... or even charter a plane fill out all the legal docs and fly right into sydney.

HMAS sydney was sunk by a war ship dressed up like a cargo ship,...

sydney has a sea port right in the middle of the city,... you could load a device in a shipping container, track it and remote detonate it as soon as th ship pull into the dock.


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> with the help of goverment agencies, how easy would it be to load a device onto a scheduled cargo flight,... or even charter a plane fill out all the legal docs and fly right into sydney.
> 
> HMAS sydney was sunk by a war ship dressed up like a cargo ship,...
> 
> sydney has a sea port right in the middle of the city,... you could load a device in a shipping container, track it and remote detonate it as soon as th ship pull into the dock.




if the fake war on terror was all it was cracked up to be, there are plenty of easy targets available if muslims wanted to disrupt oz society. 

it will only happen when the elite want more draconian legislation to take away more of australian citizens rights....


----------



## Superfly (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> with the help of goverment agencies, how easy would it be to load a device onto a scheduled cargo flight,... or even charter a plane fill out all the legal docs and fly right into sydney.




Very easy for a small weapon... capable of taking out a CBD of a western city..

Which is one good reason why rogue staes like a Saddam Iraq are no longer...


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

the us put saddam into power to invade iran.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> if the fake war on terror was all it was cracked up to be, there are plenty of easy targets available if muslims wanted to disrupt oz society.
> 
> ...




Exactly which is why it is better to send our bravest and take the fight to them rather than wait for them to bring it to the streets of sydney in some sort of 911 or londan bombing attack.


I am not sure what else you were rambling on about in regards to the elite taking somthing away from the Australian citizens,you lost me.


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Exactly which is why it is better to send our bravest and take the fight to them rather than wait for them to bring it to the streets of sydney in some sort of 911 or londan bombing attack.
> 
> 
> I am not sure what else you were rambling on about in regards to the elite taking somthing away from the Australian citizens,you lost me.




911, nor london wasnt comitted by muslims. 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3770877779111334563

dont be like the cattle. have an open mind.


----------



## Superfly (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> 911, nor london wasnt comitted by muslims.
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3770877779111334563
> 
> dont be like the cattle. have an open mind.




Didn't know M Moore was a ASF poster...


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Didn't know M Moore was a ASF poster...




you are confused. mr moore is a fake! and produces false flag docos.

just keep an open mind about all this. i dont need mainstream media to do my thinking for me....do you?


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

Fact is there is only 3 incidences in history where high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire.

1. World trade centre North tower
2.World trade centre south tower and
3. World trade centre building 7

There are numerous occasions when high rises built before the owrld trade centre have been on fire for hours and hours longer over more floors and even the entire building and still haven't collapsed. 

There are so many holes it isn't funny.

Another 1st in history. The pentagon, Never before has a jet crashed and never left a single trace of large debris. Why doesn't the US Gov release footage from the half dozen other security cameras from near by buildings instead of the 5 frames of footage from the pentagon cameras which don't even show a plane!

Dodgy Dodgy Dodgy. 

Its not that there are discrepancies its just that the Gov won't rebutt them with any evidence. They in fact have done the opposite and actively surpressed info. Hell even the recorded conversion from the firefighters wasn't released till 3 -4 years after and even then large bits were omitted.
On the actual day though go through and look at some of the news reporting from large media CNN etc they even report many times " a secondary explosion" What could cause that. Maybe also the fact there has never been an official explanation as to why trace amounts of thermite were found at the site. So many very reputable engineers from aeroplane companies, standards companies and construction firms have made statements and conclusions which contradict the story we are told.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

I'll post a link to a video tonight that is def worth a watch. Help make your own decision but just provides some real facts that are not really common knowledge.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Fact is there is only 3 incidences in history where high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire.
> 
> 1. World trade centre North tower
> 2.World trade centre south tower and
> ...




the trade centes were light weight buildings with a serious design flaw that let fire weaken the structure.

normally the internal steel structure of a building is encased in concrete so flames will not get to the structure to weaken,... however the trade centres had a light weight fire proof plaster board to protect the structure from flames,... but this light weight protection was blowen of in the blast,


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> you are confused. mr moore is a fake! and produces false flag docos.
> 
> just keep an open mind about all this. i dont need mainstream media to do my thinking for me....do you?




you are deluded,...


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> you are deluded,...




the owner of the twin towers and building 7 is on film confirming they 'pulled' building 7 as it was a danger to other surrounding buildings. considering the length of time it takes to set charges in a building, (and it was on fire) how did they manage it? of course they set them days before.

if thinking for oneself is deluded, then you are not. 

do you not ask questions at all? do you believe everything you are told? 

children conspire. what? and adults dont?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> if thinking for oneself is deluded, then you are not.
> 
> do you not ask questions at all? do you believe everything you are told?
> 
> children conspire. what? and adults dont?




your Mis guided ficticious rantings are completely false,...

you are a crackpot,. I won't respond to you any more, you need help.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> the trade centes were light weight buildings with a serious design flaw that let fire weaken the structure.
> 
> normally the internal steel structure of a building is encased in concrete so flames will not get to the structure to weaken,... however the trade centres had a light weight fire proof plaster board to protect the structure from flames,... but this light weight protection was blowen of in the blast,




Thats balony mate a few years before the entire structure had been redone covering all the surfaces with fire redardant material 2-4 inches thick that stuff is designed to last for a couple hours and it is certainly not a type of plaster board it is a material that is sprayed on. We use it in every zone substation in sydney and it is capable of containing electrical fires for many hours. Regardless of the fire proofing the melting point of stell is 3800 degrees centigrade the fires that burned in the buildings were almost half that (there is infrared video to back it up) and it only burned for about 45 -60mins. 

Lets say for arguement though that the fire did weaken the steel causing it to collapse how the hell does the building collapse in free fall ? Only 5-10 levels were directly effected by fire and heat that leaves tens of floors below the effected area with structurally sound steel that somehow broke up into relatively small pieces 

anyways I could ramble on forever but ill post the link when i get home and you can judge for yourself. I only started to doubt the story recently but everything i looked into regarding it just kept making the story look more and more unlikely.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> the owner of the twin towers and building 7 is on film confirming they 'pulled' building 7 as it was a danger to other surrounding buildings. considering the length of time it takes to set charges in a building, (and it was on fire) how did they manage it? of course they set them days before.
> 
> if thinking for oneself is deluded, then you are not.
> 
> ...




Agreed and is it any surprise that some of the most influential and rich people in the world own large media companies and have vested interested in getting certain people to power ? In 1997 Bill Clinton passed a law revoking a law (at the push of big business) that was passed in 1934 which specifically barred commercial banks (ie. the banks that have us plebs money) from investing in these dodgy investment vehicles. The law was past in 1934 because that was a major factor highlighted in causing the great depression and surprise surprise alomost ten years after its revoked "World has worst financial crises since the great depression"


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> your Mis guided ficticious rantings are completely false,...
> 
> you are a crackpot,. I won't respond to you any more, you need help.




 so instead of responding with 'facts' you revert to name calling...?

oh, it was larry silverstein whom owned all 3 buildings.....the only 3 that fell. and it was he who said in a recorded interview that no 7 was pulled....the video is available all over the net. its not a secret. 

DYOR


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Thats balony mate a few years before the entire structure had been redone covering all the surfaces with fire redardant material 2-4 inches thick that stuff is designed to last for a couple hours and it is certainly not a type of plaster board it is a material that is sprayed on. We use it in every zone substation in sydney and it is capable of containing electrical fires for many hours. Regardless of the fire proofing the melting point of stell is 3800 degrees centigrade the fires that burned in the buildings were almost half that (there is infrared video to back it up) and it only burned for about 45 -60mins.
> 
> Lets say for arguement though that the fire did weaken the steel causing it to collapse how the hell does the building collapse in free fall ? Only 5-10 levels were directly effected by fire and heat that leaves tens of floors below the effected area with structurally sound steel that somehow broke up into relatively small pieces
> 
> anyways I could ramble on forever but ill post the link when i get home and you can judge for yourself. I only started to doubt the story recently but everything i looked into regarding it just kept making the story look more and more unlikely.




The point is the fire protection was blown off when the plane exploded,

secondly the steel does not have to reach melting piont before it will fail especially if it has alot of weight on it,

thirdly steel coducts heat so even though the fire was only on a few floors the heat was conducted down the length of the steel shaft,


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

hahahahaha
Exactly steel does dissipate and conduct heat well so the net effect of dispersing heat would in effect cause the localised temperature to decrease. 

Besides any of this weakened steel does not and can not lead to a controlled demoltion style collapse of the entire building. 

Also with the pentagon they said the reason no large pieces INCLUDING THE  JET ENGINES weren't found was that they were vapourised  You have to be pretty nieve to believe that jet fuel AKA kerosene burns at a high enough temperature to vapourise titanium alloy components. 

Also with a burning temp of around 1300-1500 degrees kerosene is very unlikely to cause enough heat to substantially weaken the steel of the WTC. You can argue the facts but you can't argue the physics and science.


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> hahahahaha
> exactly steel does dissipate and conduct heat well so the net effect of dispersing heat would in effect cause the localised temperature to decrease.
> 
> Besides any of this weakened steel does not and can not lead to a controlled demoltion style collapse of the entire building.
> ...




we agree.

in the gaping wound of the pentagon, there were books, wooden chairs, tables, computors etc, all of which were not even singed. considering that the 'plane' was supposed to be full of fuel and the exact same planes supposedly burned hot enough to bring down the twin towers, it is unbelieveable that even open books at the opening of the hole in the pentagon were not even singed!!!!

also, all that fuel supposedly left no contaminants in the soil or the building. which is impossible of course.

the hole in the pentagon is not consistent with a plane hitting it. DYOR.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Besides any of this weakened steel does not and can not lead to a controlled demoltion style collapse of the entire building.




Yes it can,

I am Trained in demolitions and what you see it the footage of the twin towers going down is exactly as I would expect a building like that to collapse,

Are you trying to say that some body took the time to place explosives on the building then flew a plane into it,... let it burn for a while then detonate the explosives,.. thats complete fantasy.

firstly the explostion from the plane would have either set the explosives off,... set the explosives on fire or most likely ripped apart all the det cord and disabled all the charges,....

secondly if the explosiveshad not been damaged in the impact of the plane they would surely have burned away in the fire afterwards,..

thirdly,.. when the building starts to collapse there is no flash from the explosives or even the distitive " crack thump" of a high explosive charge going off.



What you can see on the collapse though is the building start to fail and as the top collaspes it shock loads  the floor benith causeing it to fail  which then shock loads the next floor and makes that floor benith it fail so on and so on till the whole building is gone.


----------



## spooly74 (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> we agree.
> 
> in the gaping wound of the pentagon, there were books, wooden chairs, tables, computors etc, all of which were not even singed. considering that the 'plane' was supposed to be full of fuel and the exact same planes supposedly burned hot enough to bring down the twin towers, it is unbelieveable that even open books at the opening of the hole in the pentagon were not even singed!!!!
> 
> ...




Where did the plane go then? and what happened to all the people?

If a plane didn't hit then _they_ had to get rid of a plane anyway so why risk a swap


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Where did the plane go then? and what happened to all the people?
> 
> If a plane didn't hit then _they_ had to get rid of a plane anyway so why risk a swap




THAT, is a very good question. one that i cant answer, and i havent seen answered. there is video, photos, personal accounts, etc, of the 'attacks', 

however, there is nothing to go on, on what could have happened to those people. all we can look at is the available evidence. that evidence shows a plane did not hit the pentagon.


----------



## disarray (3 April 2008)

this kind of talk generally makes you out to be a nutter so i avoid it, but i do find it hard to believe that out of all the cameras and security and whatever at the pentagon there is only a single blurry frame of footage from the entire attack.

just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

disarray said:


> this kind of talk generally makes you out to be a nutter so i avoid it, but i do find it hard to believe that out of all the cameras and security and whatever at the pentagon there is only a single blurry frame of footage from the entire attack.
> 
> just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you




if all the other nutters would finally speak up, we wouldnt be the nutters anymore!  the nutters would be the believers of the official conspiracy. 

whom is the nutter now? galileo or the inquisition?


----------



## gfresh (3 April 2008)

Maybe there is further footage, but it's of people burning to death.. or areas that are highly classified (for the Pentagon.. never!). Neither of which would probably be ever released to the public. 

For most "why didn't they" I've come across, there is usually a logical answer.



> Fact is there is only 3 incidences in history where high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire.




hmm.. how many times have fully fuelled jet planes crashed into highrise buildings?


----------



## spooly74 (3 April 2008)

F4 Phantom Vs. Wall 

Not a lot left .... or maybe it was made of wood


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 April 2008)

metric said:


> THAT, is a very good question. one that i cant answer, and i havent seen answered. there is video, photos, personal accounts, etc, of the 'attacks',
> 
> however, there is nothing to go on, on what could have happened to those people. all we can look at is the available evidence. that evidence shows a plane did not hit the pentagon.




so what did hit the pentagon,


----------



## Superfly (3 April 2008)

Must say the Pentagon is a strange one, but I did see footage of a jet fighter launched into a thick concrete wall... the result... nothing left... all gone... and that jet that "may" have hit one of the most secure / reinforced buildings in the world would have been travelling at such a high velocity, not much would be expected to be left intact...


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

Mate watch the video it will surprise you

its called "911 Mysteries Demolition" you can downoad it through azereus for free prob get it on you tube but its a full length show.

There is heaps of video evidence showing exactly what you are talking about.
Crackling sounds from the lower levels moments before the "collapse" And if you were in demolition you should know that weakening 5-10 stories of steels structure does not make the entire 100 other floors unstable. Besides there was only about 20 stories above the impact zone its not like the explosion happened in the bottom levels with 100 stories of weight above it. The steel was heated to about half its melting point right so it still had quite alot of structural strength.

Remember the buildings survived a massive bomb comparable in size in the basement right next to the main support coumns.

Can you provide me any other real life cases where such a thing has happened ? There are dozens of cases where building burned longer and hotter and have never collapsed. I'm not saying the planes weren't real planes but i believe a plane did not hit the pentagon. 

Also there are dozens of firefighters radio recordings where they state that there are seperate bomb like explosions in levels well well below the level of impact. 

If you are in demolition is there ever been a case of an uncontrolled collapse where the building fell so neatly ! it didn't even lean! straight down as if all structural points failed at the same time. There are too many eye witness reports that simply throw a spanner in the story. 

How about building 7 it collapsed as well but didn't get hit by a plane and it to looked very much like a controlled demolition. 

Another interesting couple of facts 
1. At the time most of the fighter jets based for defence and fast reaction were moved 2000 km away to take part of a war games. leaving one jet to protect the entire eastern seaboard.
2. In the early 2000's there was studies put together by the pentagon and FBI which centred around a mock attack of a planes been flown into the world trade centre. There is even FBI documents with front covers showing the WTC in cross hairs. 
3. The WTC stored more gold than FORT KNOX to date not all of it has been accounted for.
4. The WTC held records for the FBI etc with thousands relating to current investigations about corporate people and companies that were under investigation. They have all been destroyed !


----------



## metric (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> so what did hit the pentagon,





as all the footage from the 20 odd videos that would have captured the 'plane crash' have dissapeared, and any 'unnoficial' investigation is illegal, what hit the pentagon is merely conjecture. from what video evidence there is, proves a 757 (?) didnt hit it. it is suggested by alex jones at prisonplanet.com that a missile did the damage. i suppose thats the only conclusion one can make.


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

gfresh said:


> hmm.. how many times have fully fuelled jet planes crashed into highrise buildings?



How many jet fuelled planes crashed into building 7?


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

Just a note with my Mod's hat on.

Please refrain from calling each other nutters, deluded, tin foil hatters or whatever. Let's just stick to the facts as we know them.

Thanks Guys.


----------



## Nyden (3 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> so what did hit the pentagon,




Perhaps they shot the plane down, & debris hit it :

I do tend to think it's all a little nonsensical; all this conspiracy talk that is!
The planes hit an area of the building where the immense heat generated (from the huge explosion,) simply melted supports; the weight of the top falling through the already softened / damaged bottom probably pushed the rest into the ground! 

The government would never, *never* do something so stupid as to coordinate these attacks on itself. The repercussions / risks of getting caught would simply be far too dire (revolution!). Corporations / "big shots" simply couldn't do it without a trail as well, & once again - the repercussions ...

Heck, Osama probably recruited a few folks with engineering / architectural backgrounds to analyse the best spot to hit ... after all, most blue prints were probably readily available through the right channels?


 ... They never landed on the moon either, was just a film set!  If someone devotes enough time, & energy into something; anyone can find a way to discredit just about anything. I'm sure a big enough conspirator could "prove" that Howard was in fact Bush in disguise ...


----------



## Stan 101 (3 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Thats balony mate a few years before the entire structure had been redone covering all the surfaces with fire redardant material 2-4 inches thick that stuff is designed to last for a couple hours and it is certainly not a type of plaster board it is a material that is sprayed on.




Can you please state your source for this information.



> I only started to doubt the story recently but everything i looked into regarding it just kept making the story look more and more unlikely.




Basic engineering gives you all the knowledge you need to understand how the twin towers collapsed. 
Steel in tension + heat = excessive buckling on compression members. The rest is history...

Do we really need to speak about the lateral loads added during the impact?


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> Can you please state your source for this information.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do many engineers and physicists disagree with the official story then?


----------



## Stan 101 (3 April 2008)

Can't answer that Wayne, you'll have to ask them hehe.

It would be good to have a "blind" Q&A with both doubting and for engineers and put to them scenarios not pertaining directly to 911 so the emotion was taken from it all.

First may be to provide suggested outcomes of various heat being applied to a PFC or similar in tension. Continue asking the question using higher temperatures each time until you have a 100% agreeance on member failure.
Second, repeat the above questions using steel in compression.

Calculation the range involved. I'm putting my neck out there and will assume there would be a huge variation in assumed failure temps. What will come through is that 100% of the engineers will agree that x amount of heat to  steel members under load will catastrophically fail. 


cheers,


----------



## tigerboi (3 April 2008)

This all i will say on this subject,people denying that planes  did not fly into the towers have...MASSIVE problems...tb


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> Can't answer that Wayne, you'll have to ask them hehe.
> 
> It would be good to have a "blind" Q&A with both doubting and for engineers and put to them scenarios not pertaining directly to 911 so the emotion was taken from it all.
> 
> ...



I'm sure that most could agree with the possibility of some sort of collapse in the area affected. But member failure would surely be asymmetrical due to inconsistent levels of heat at different points of the building. Yet the collapse in all three cases has remarkable symmetry. 

How so?


----------



## prawn_86 (3 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> Basic engineering gives you all the knowledge you need to understand how the twin towers collapsed.
> Steel in tension + heat = excessive buckling on compression members. The rest is history...
> 
> Do we really need to speak about the lateral loads added during the impact?




Im no engineer, but i have seen interviews with those who built/designed/planned the towers, and they stated they were *designed to survive being hit by a passenger jet*

Plus the way they collapsed is so suss...


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> This all i will say on this subject,people denying that planes  did not fly into the towers have...MASSIVE problems...tb




There are some pretty nutty theories, not backed my good evidence. Let's just not go there OK.

If we can stay within the realms of sensible argument without going off at a tangent, this could be a really good discussion.

No straw men here please.


----------



## Stan 101 (3 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm sure that most could agree with the possibility of some sort of collapse in the area affected. But member failure would surely be asymmetrical due to inconsistent levels of heat at different points of the building. Yet the collapse in all three cases has remarkable symmetry.
> 
> How so?



Good question..From the memory of the footage I've seen it did seem the collapse started with the upper floors generally falling horizontally. That doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that.

Grab a piece of cardboard approximately 300mm square, nine lengths of dowl about the the length of a pencil. place a support post at the corners and then place a post in between the corner posts and one post in the centre. Place the cardboard on top. The centre post will be carrying *approximately* the area equivalent to half the distance to the other supports in all directions. All other supports will be carrying *approximately* half the area to any other support.

Now knock out one of the corner posts. If you do it quick enough, the cardboard will stay in place and the other supports will take the extra load without any visable sign of stress. There may be some localised deflection in the corner that now has no support and is forced to cantilever.

now take out an adjacent corner support and the support between the two corners that now have no support. Approximately 33% of the card is now cantilevered. The card will still be supported and the load is still shared.

Now imagine the other 6 supports begin buckling due to either  overcapacity of load from above, weakening due to heat or other. Take a 300mm ruler and run it under the card quickly so it makes contact with the remaining  six supports approximately half up their length to replicate a compression failure. Observe the way the cardboard falls.


Actually I just thought that maybe drining straws cut to about 50mm in length would be better as supports. You could even use a little blue tack on their underside to keep them stable.
On top of the cardboard you could use 20 cent pieces above the straws.
Aplly heat to the last six straws with a butane torch.
Observe the outcome.


cheers,


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (3 April 2008)

There is no doubt planes hit those buildings but i doubt they brought them down, I don't hate america but if people don't believe that a government wouldn't hurt its own citizens need only look through history. 

There is just so many inconsistantcies and when you think about it alot of people stood to gain from those events.

A plane crashes into the pentagon causing little damage and another brings down a tower ? And there are any renound and well known engineers that rebuff many of the main stream assumptions. Information is controlled and manipulated in every country in the world. 

There are so many coincidences.... Is it also any coincidence that a week before Iran is due to open it's oil bourse selling oil in euro's that 5 undersea cables are mysteriously cut ! I mean i still don't really know what the main stream news explaination on that was, it changed every day. It is coincidence that there are basically democratic riots in Tibet and now many countries are talking boycott of the olympic opening. China is coping alot of outside pressure at the moment and it has US prints all over it. They are purposly destabilising the region. Look at eastern Europe NATO is on Russia's door step. Russia and China are been encircled does the US really need interceptor missiles in Europe, England, California, Greenland and Alaska to counter a couple rouge missiles from Iran and North Korea ! Think about it it you had the only system that could defeat other nuclear capabilites, no more MAD you would essentially control the world.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm sure that most could agree with the possibility of some sort of collapse in the area affected. But member failure would surely be asymmetrical due to inconsistent levels of heat at different points of the building. Yet the collapse in all three cases has remarkable symmetry.
> 
> How so?




The towers were made up of a internal steelcore with cross sections joining the outter skin of the building which was like a light exo-skelton, because a few floors of the exo-skelton were destroyed or weakened in the impact alot more weight was placed o the internal core,... the internal steel core in most buildings is encased in concrete (which would have saved the building) how ever when the trade centors were designed the replaced the concrete with a light weight fire retarding layer, which was to protect the steel core from "flame".

The designers made one fatal error,.... the light weight fire proofing was not intended to protect against a blast or explosion,

when the planes entered the building at 900km/hour a combination of framents shredding through the building and blast from the exploding fuel ripped away the light weight fire proofing leaving the steel core exposed to the fire that followed.

buildings, especially a high rise such as the trade centre is already perfectly balanced and centred to the pull of gravity,... so when the internal steel collom runningup the cente of the building failed and turned to mush under the weight the building fell perfectly verticle straight down,


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

As for the other arguements,...

as For the collapse to be cause by a controlled demolition it would take weeks of preping tonnes of explosives and there would be no question it was explosives,... you would see and hear the explosions.... and as I said earlier the explosives would have been damged in the impact of the plane.

As for the comment of the first bombing not dropping the tower there for the plane shouldn't have,..... The first bombing was only 1 van filled with explosives ( and crudly made explosives which were probally not pure there fore weaker) that were placed in the bottom of the building which would be the strongest most concrete encased part of the whole building,.... secondly it was not the explosion that took out the building it was the weakening of its steel core,.... the 1st bombing was not only a much smaller bang than the plane but it was in a concrete encased part of the building and there was no fire....


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Im no engineer, but i have seen interviews with those who built/designed/planned the towers, and they stated they were *designed to survive being hit by a passenger jet*
> 
> Plus the way they collapsed is so suss...




quite the opposite actually,... I have seen a doco talking bout how the owers were not designed to take the impact of a plane,....

and out of all moden buildings,... those two building were probally the least able to accept that sort of damage.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Just a note with my Mod's hat on.
> 
> Please refrain from calling each other nutters, deluded, tin foil hatters or whatever. Let's just stick to the facts as we know them.
> 
> Thanks Guys.




wayne,..

I call a duck a duck,... and a crackpot a crack pot...

some of these guys are deluded,...


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2008)

OK I'm not an engineer so accept that possibility, while still having doubts when credible voices have opposing views. Jury still out for me on WTC 1 & 2.

Here FWIW is the opposing view http://physics911.net/stevenjones

All well beyond me I'm afraid.

But that still leaves WTC 7.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> wayne,..
> 
> I call a duck a duck,... and a crackpot a crack pot...
> 
> some of these guys are deluded,...



Yes, on both sides of the fence. But lets leave that language for the true nutters, not for those who simply disagree with the official line, K?


----------



## Stan 101 (4 April 2008)

Wayne, you worded that well. There is a possibility. 


Tyson, your understanding of the fire retardant being a sheet style is the same as mine...I'm just trying to remember where exactly I got that info from..


cheers,


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> As for the other arguements,...
> 
> as For the collapse to be cause by a controlled demolition it would take weeks of preping tonnes of explosives and there would be no question it was explosives,... you would see and hear the explosions.... and as I said earlier the explosives would have been damged in the impact of the plane.
> 
> As for the comment of the first bombing not dropping the tower there for the plane shouldn't have,..... The first bombing was only 1 van filled with explosives ( and crudly made explosives which were probally not pure there fore weaker) that were placed in the bottom of the building which would be the strongest most concrete encased part of the whole building,.... secondly it was not the explosion that took out the building it was the weakening of its steel core,.... the 1st bombing was not only a much smaller bang than the plane but it was in a concrete encased part of the building and there was no fire....





EXACTLY CHAMP it takes a highly trained team of demolition experts in conjunction with dozens of workers weeks to drill and strategically place explosives to make a building collapse like that but your argueing that a boeing 767 can do it neatly in an hour! How do you explain traces of thermite and molten spots on the base steel structure consistant with demolition explosives found at the site ? Sure i wouldn't believe that I some guy on a forum said it but if you research you'll find it was actually the guy in charge of the clean up / investigation of the site that made the claims.

Your analysis of the steel structure is simply not right, watch the video then do some research then come and argue some points. The bomb in the basement was hundreds of kilo's of high explosive exactly the same type as Oklahoma ! Yeah that building held up real well 

A boeing 767 weighs under 100 tonnes and jet fuel burns at 1300 degrees. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a smaller jet but still there is no possible way that it caused that collapse . Steel pillars are extremely strong when you place force on top of them rather than from the side your trying to argue that the weight of 20 floors of WTC is enough to desintergrate 100 floors below into pieces the size of a car  

How about the video evidence that shows that the fires weren't even that bad and were by no means hot enough to cause the steel to collapse. Hell even a firefighter reached the 76th level south tower Where it was hit and is recorded as saying there were small localised fires, he was fairly clear that the fires were not a serious threat. 

Video taken before the collapse in the lobby area clearly shows tiles dislodged from the walls and cracks in the walls. An explosion over 80 stories up could not have caused that damage. The elevator shafts in the towers aren't continuous there are 3 stages each is atmospherically sealed. The tower manager for maintainance was in the basement at the time and reported a much larger explosion eminating from the basement area just before he felt another explosion that was clearly from the upper floors. 

I'm not trying to dis your arguement and I was saying the exact same thing about 6 months ago but in all seriousness you raise two points of why it did happen that way. This documentary alone provides hundreds of clearly undeniably proven facts backedup with evidence from official documents, eye witness reports, expeert testimonies which shoot down every arguement I could think of which would point to it really been a terorist attack.

You know the biggest problem is it is a known fact that at least 6 of the supposed highjackers are alive and well in countries around the world ! 

Even the pilot that flew the exact plane same ID numebr everything that "flew" into the pentagon has said that the airial manouvers the plane was doing on route to its target were impossible and that the plane would have stalled. His exact words were "it appeared more like the movements of a military aircraft"


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

Stan 101 said:


> Wayne, you worded that well. There is a possibility.
> 
> 
> Tyson, your understanding of the fire retardant being a sheet style is the same as mine...I'm just trying to remember where exactly I got that info from..
> ...




It was on a doco on foxtel a couple of years ago,... I can't recall what it was called. But in the doco they were explaining how most traditional high rises should easily survive an impact from a plane because they are heavy buildings.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> EXACTLY CHAMP it takes a highly trained team of demolition experts in conjunction with dozens of workers weeks to drill and strategically place explosives to make a building collapse like that but your argueing that a boeing 767 can do it neatly in an hour! How do you explain traces of thermite and molten spots on the base steel structure consistant with demolition explosives found at the site ? Sure i wouldn't believe that I some guy on a forum said it but if you research you'll find it was actually the guy in charge of the clean up / investigation of the site that made the claims.
> 
> Your analysis of the steel structure is simply not right, watch the video then do some research then come and argue some points. The bomb in the basement was hundreds of kilo's of high explosive exactly the same type as Oklahoma ! Yeah that building held up real well
> 
> ...




Firstly the explosive charge in the trade centre was much smaller than oaklohoma (trade charge was carried in  van and oaklohoma was carried in a truck).

Secondly the Anfo (ammonium nirate fuel oil explosive) is barely classed as a high explosive, especially if you get the mix wrong or don't have a large enough booster charge ( if you don't have a large booster charge = 10% of the weight in anfo in TNT then alot of the anfo's energy will be transferd to flame rather than heat).

thirdly the oaklohoma bombing only collapse one side of the structure the core remained intact.

and yes steel pilliars are extremly strong under presure, untill heat is applied that is why they have the fire retarding in the first place,... If the designers feel they have to protect the steel pilliars from a fire invoving office furniture and waste paper, don't you think a plane crashig into the pillars and then jet fuel burning around them will have some affect.

A steel pillar would not have to reach it's melting piont to fail, it would not hold 100% of it's intergity to the point in reaches melting piont and then fail,... as it getts hotter and hotter it gets progressivly weaker,... add to that the extra weight placed on it, and the possible damage from the high speed impact of a vehicle weighing tonnes.

If tonnes of high explosives were used then there would certainy have been more evidence,.... and what about the team of 50 or so guys that took weeks to place the explosives, surely one of them would have cracked by now and said somthing.

And what would the motive be for doing this any way.


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> There are some pretty nutty theories, not backed my good evidence. Let's just not go there OK.
> 
> If we can stay within the realms of sensible argument without going off at a tangent, this could be a really good discussion.
> 
> No straw men here please.




who said planes werent flown into the twin towers? it is the pentagon where there is doubt about an plane hitting it.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

motives

1. The US now has an open slather on attacking countries in deems as been terrorists 
2. George Bush now has almost total control and can bypass laws as he see's fit. He spy's on US citizens then years later makes it legal before he ends his term.
3. Profit: There was heaps of gold at the site not all accounted for. The owner took out huge insurance and thousands of investigations relating to large business figures are vapourised.

It was the americas new pearl harbour.


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

and just on the ability of the twin towers to withstand the impact of an airliner...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html



> Statements by Engineers
> 
> Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> This all i will say on this subject,people denying that planes  did not fly into the towers have...MASSIVE problems...tb




i havent read anything in this thread where anyone has suggested planes never hit the twin towers. 

when you post stuff like that, you should post the quote you are refering to. 

i notice that people here that are doubtful of the official story post links and quotes to back up their arguments. while the official storyline followers rarely do. some even start name calling as they have an absence of facts to back their position.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2008)

metric said:


> who said planes werent flown into the twin towers? it is the pentagon where there is doubt about an plane hitting it.



Yes that was my point. A saw a straw man being built and I am determined to keep that, and other nonsense such as ad hominem insults, right out of this thread.

Cheers


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> motives
> 
> 1. The US now has an open slather on attacking countries in deems as been terrorists
> 2. George Bush now has almost total control and can bypass laws as he see's fit. He spy's on US citizens then years later makes it legal before he ends his term.
> ...




If it were not to kill or capture terorist threats what other reason would the USA have to spend billions in fighting a war in afganistan.


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> If it were not to kill or capture terorist threats what other reason would the USA have to spend billions in fighting a war in afganistan.




i have heard a few possible reasons why. one of which is the opium trade. by 2001 the taliban had effectively shut down the opium growing trade of afgahnistan. http://opioids.com/afghanistan/opiumban.html

today, the opium trade is thriving again.. http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/200...ved-in-drug-trafficking-from-afghanistan.html

iraq is also becomming a new player in the opium trade.. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/487/opium_poppies_cultivated_iraq

the cia has been accused of being involved in the south american drug trade..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

also, afgahnistan is a strategic military/energy position.
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

but...DYOR


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Afghanistan is strategically located and is essential is exerting influence over asia and Russia.

It is a well known that Central Asia is seen as the key to controlling the whole of Eurasia. Along with countries such as kazakistan etc.

You can't maintain effective control over the resource rich caspian basin from bases in Iraq, Germany, Saudi Arabia etc. And the US can't basically take control of Russia's vast resouce richees so the next best thing it to control the transport routes which basically counteracts their power.

Resource rich countries are only successful and quite "rich" because they have a market to sell to if you take control of the market you are basically controlling the resource. Russia, Iran etc would never completely cut off their supply to EU otherwise they would be digging their own grave and have no income.

You can also make alot of money from the transport of resources such as gas pipelines etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see big US firms getting more into the trransport side. After all it takes huge capital to build these projects.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

metric said:


> i have heard a few possible reasons why. one of which is the opium trade. by 2001 the taliban had effectively shut down the opium growing trade of afgahnistan. http://opioids.com/afghanistan/opiumban.html
> 
> today, the opium trade is thriving again.. http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/200...ved-in-drug-trafficking-from-afghanistan.html
> 
> ...




I doubt the US would be trying to expand the drug trade the biggest effect drug trade has is taking tax dollars and revenue out of the US economy. They actually spray alot of nasty long lasting herbicides in Columbia They will end up turning it into another vietnam in terms of environmental pollution


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> I doubt the US would be trying to expand the drug trade the biggest effect drug trade has is taking tax dollars and revenue out of the US economy. They actually spray alot of nasty long lasting herbicides in Columbia They will end up turning it into another vietnam in terms of environmental pollution




did you read the wikipedia link kiwi? im no fan of wikipedia but you must admit they are mainstream media. for them to suggest what they have on that link gives credibility to the posibility. i dont know if control of the drug trade is a significant reason to invade afgahnistan, but it is billions of $ per year. and opium growing has flourished since the invasion. you should look at the links i posted.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

metric said:


> i have heard a few possible reasons why. one of which is the opium trade. by 2001 the taliban had effectively shut down the opium growing trade of afgahnistan. http://opioids.com/afghanistan/opiumban.html
> 
> today, the opium trade is thriving again.. http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/200...ved-in-drug-trafficking-from-afghanistan.html
> 
> ...




The usa spends billions of dollars on the war against drugs,... why would they then spend billions on a war to support drugs,.... it doesn't make sense


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Afghanistan is strategically located and is essential is exerting influence over asia and Russia.
> 
> It is a well known that Central Asia is seen as the key to controlling the whole of Eurasia. Along with countries such as kazakistan etc.
> 
> ...




The usa doesn't not control russias resources by occuping afganistan,...

and amaericas power over europe or asia has not been enhanced by fighting in afganistan. it any thing it has een eroded becuse of the huge war debt they have taken out with asian countries.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

when you say the US is spending billions on war that is not technically correct.

They are spending billions on paying US soldiers and buying US made arms that destroy Afghan made assets.

They are spinning their own money machine, over 10% of jobs in the US are Defence jobs and its prob more like 20%+ when you take into account all the service work that is indirectly involved. War is profitable.

The money recycles around the US economy and the net effect is Afghanistan is leveled back to the 15th century.

Ever wonder why the rebuilfing in Oraq is so dodgy. Iraqi oil revenue pays US contractors to do a dodgy job building new Iraqi infrastructure. 

In essence Iraqi is paying through the teeth for dodgy laboour and materials from the US. There are over 100 000 US defence contractors in Iraq not to mention the thousands of companies that get contracts for millions then sub contract it out for nothing to iraqi workers etc.

Rebuilding a country is a farce and is not in the US interest unless the country is been rebuilt by US companies etc.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> The usa doesn't not control russias resources by occuping afganistan,...
> 
> and amaericas power over europe or asia has not been enhanced by fighting in afganistan. it any thing it has een eroded becuse of the huge war debt they have taken out with asian countries.




No the US just builds bases very close to the border of the east and west so it doesn't have to fly mssions from the persian gulf or quam to bomb the cr@p out of central asia. So instead of a ten hour round trip its a two hour round trip and now you can do 5 times the missions.

Do you really think that China will ever see a equitable return of teh money it has lent the US? By US inflation running high Value of US dollar dropping and the Yuan appreciating the real worth of US dollar holding s by China is decreasing rapidly. last quarter alone the USD dropped over 10% against most major currencies so now the 750 Bill USD china holds is worth 675 Bill and what if this trend continues ? Another whammy is that resouces are going up Rice the staple of China has risen 45% in last quarter So not only is their buying power decreasing the cost of goods is increasing.

I personally believe that it would not be unreasonable to think that the current USD weakness and commodity ralley hasn't been helped along by the US. Think about how much they gain compared to the losses from developing nations and the fed doesn't seem to care at all about inflation. The only reason why this works for the US is because you really can only buy oil in USD. Which brings me back to Iran and Iraq, Iraq waas going to start selling oil in non USD now they are occupied Iran is about to start a non USD bourse and 5 internet cables are cut and US forces build up in the Gulf comparible to the months before Iraq invasion.

Have a look on internet at how many strike groups are actually in persian gulf at the moment.

The biggest threat to US hegemony is the developing nations and the best way to restrain them is to keep them poor and starve them of resources.


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> The usa spends billions of dollars on the war against drugs,... why would they then spend billions on a war to support drugs,.... it doesn't make sense




i agree, it doesnt make sense to spend all those billions just to profit all those billions. i doubt they will show us the books to see if they are in the black. but the drug trade is political. it may be that they would rather control the drug trade, than have someone else control it. pure politics?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> when you say the US is spending billions on war that is not technically correct.
> 
> They are spending billions on paying US soldiers and buying US made arms that destroy Afghan made assets.
> 
> ...




not true, if the only reason was to recycle more money to stimulate and keep the economy going why fight a war,... you might think that it is recycling money but the resources being used are real,...

why not conduct infrastructure projects,... give tax cuts to the public instead of blowing the money on a war and build consumer goods instead of weapons.... 

War does not make a profit,... it would generated dimishing returns a best,

this arguement reminds me of the episode of the simpsons where homer is frying bacon to collect and sell the grease,.... when Bart points out that he only got $0.45c for the grease but the bacon cost $17.50 homer replied saying "but your mum pays for the bacon",... bart said " doesn't mum get her money from you,.... and homer said "yes,... and I get my money from grease"


----------



## metric (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> not true, if the only reason was to recycle more money to stimulate and keep the economy going why fight a war,... you might think that it is recycling money but the resources being used are real,...
> 
> why not conduct infrastructure projects,... give tax cuts to the public instead of blowing the money on a war and build consumer goods instead of weapons....
> 
> ...




dont you love homer!!



perhaps an insight into your questions is in this article, and on video at the link. ron paul is lecturing bernanke over america moving towards a fascism, and the relationship of business and government. 




> The Federal Reserve's insistence on rewarding its own failures by granting itself new powers was harshly rebuked by Congressman Ron Paul during yesterday's Joint Economic Committee meeting, as Paul all but accused Ben Bernanke of contributing economicallly to a broader move towards fascism in America.
> 
> "There's a political philosophy that advocates merging together the interests of business and government at the same time with a loss of civil liberties of the people and I'm afraid we're moving in that direction," said the Congressman, citing warrantless searches, lack of medical, Internet and financial privacy as well as the loss of habeas corpus since 9/11.
> 
> ...


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> not true, if the only reason was to recycle more money to stimulate and keep the economy going why fight a war,... you might think that it is recycling money but the resources being used are real,...
> 
> why not conduct infrastructure projects,... give tax cuts to the public instead of blowing the money on a war and build consumer goods instead of weapons....
> 
> ...




The US has been a net importer of Oil since 1970's They don't really have any huge amounts of any resource in particluar except for coal and arible land. You must understand the military industrial complex of america has been built up over the last 6 decades and can't simply be dismantled that easily to produce a new economy plus there are so many vested interests. 

Think about what powered the industrial revoultion cheap abundant energy. When you country runs out of the stuff you are at the mercy of countries that do have it. The US fights wars to develop strategic energy reserves and for its own energy security. Sure war isn profitable its just not profitable to an entire country its profitable for the elite few that control the country but it is much cheaper to go and take resources than it is to buy them on the open market and have no real conrtol over the long term fture of your country.

Cheap oil is goooone and oil reserves are going to go into dcline very soon if not now. China has cheap labour the US has cheap abundant oil to offset this. Think about what the US economy is really based on....  nothing they have the largest current account deficiet in the world both public and government debt and they really don't produce anything in great amounts. There main industry is the service industry and the economy has been growing for 10 years on consumer spending, consumer spending is 70% of their economic output ! not production consumption. they are in an economic tailspin. 

Lets say they did cut the military budget in half and build huge infrastructure new road, new schools, dams renewable energy. What exactly is going to improve their productivity building better ports to import oil cheaper because they sure don't export much from these ports. Make laptops faster and more efficiently ? Perhapes they can build millions more homes which will add to the couple million surplus they have now. Spending on infrastructure to boost your economy only works if you have an export maket to improve otherwise your just ramping up consumption. In australia if we expand a port we very quickly ramp up our income from the additional exports. 

The auto industry is gone its R & D is 20 years behind the Japs and ten behind korean. The military is holding the US together as soon as they cut back their military they will be the next england. The european nations in the 19th century eg. spanish , dutch, french and english got rich off controlling resources.


----------



## arminius (4 April 2008)

gday all, not sure if im repeating someone else here, but a central factor in the determination of the US to smash the iranian nuclear enrichment plant, which has been backed by france, is to keep future profits of enriching u308 in the hands of westinghouse, ge, and areva. the money this will bring in to the US and French economies in the near future is simply staggering. its not about potential bombs but potential riches. you wont find the japanese opposing all this either, as toshiba and hitatshi are v heavily involved as well. 

i dont foresee any action though, considering the absolute farce that bush has become in the eyes of the us public and the us army/navy/marines. if he gave the order i reckon they'd tell him to go jump. somehow, sanity must prevail. 

israel may launch an 'unsanctioned raid', and knock it out. who knows what will happen then...


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Exactly right U is the next oil IMHO the russians are running around the globe trying to build reactors everywhere.

And as for wars not been profitable US has been the country spending the most on war and conducting the most wars in the last 50 years but in the last 50 years they have had the highest GDP per person and high living standards. Although this seems to be getting worse in last 10 years eg. Medicade etc.

The Dutch got rich off the east indies, England got rich off India, Spain got rich off South America and the US will get rich off Iraq, Iran and others.

Think about China they have set up a massive export based economy producing gadgets and gizmo's crappy plastic toys, stuffed bears, cheap cups etc just about everything that is intrinsically useless and doesn't actually build anything for the future. without consumption they are screwed and their own people can't really even afford to buy their own cr@p not to mention that in the process they have killed their rivers, turned their land to desert and given there future generations the gift of infant disformaties, high cancer rates etc. 

The smartest thing the West did was to offshore this stuff to China.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> The US has been a net importer of Oil since 1970's They don't really have any huge amounts of any resource in particluar except for coal and arible land. You must understand the military industrial complex of america has been built up over the last 6 decades and can't simply be dismantled that easily to produce a new economy plus there are so many vested interests.
> 
> Think about what powered the industrial revoultion cheap abundant energy. When you country runs out of the stuff you are at the mercy of countries that do have it. The US fights wars to develop strategic energy reserves and for its own energy security. Sure war isn profitable its just not profitable to an entire country its profitable for the elite few that control the country but it is much cheaper to go and take resources than it is to buy them on the open market and have no real conrtol over the long term fture of your country.
> 
> ...




how much oil are they importing from afganistan,...


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

hahahahahaha
Iraq is for the oil afghanistan is for the stategic locality. There whole plan isn't just based on marching into oil rich nations do you think they could have ever spread democracy to Afghanistan as they did Kosivo, Ukraine, belarus etc. This is a mostly muslin nation and they have a habbit of not towing the line so to speak.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> hahahahahaha
> Iraq is for the oil afghanistan is for the stategic locality. There whole plan isn't just based on marching into oil rich nations do you think they could have ever spread democracy to Afghanistan as they did Kosivo, Ukraine, belarus etc. This is a mostly muslin nation and they have a habbit of not towing the line so to speak.




Even if all these conspiracy theories about US domination are true,

They still won't have attacked there own people, and taken out there own buildings, there are easier ways to start a war,

and I don't believe the US needs afganistan to influence the rest of asia,


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Encirclement ?


----------



## disarray (4 April 2008)

i think the american elites are perfectly capable of screwing their own peons to further their own ambitions. the problem with the US is that they can't be trusted. "they" have a history of lies, cover up and misinformation with regards to many issues, like pearl harbour, JFK, central american interventions, iraq mwd's, iranian nuclear capacity, the CIA and its role in international drug smuggling, area 51, cold war political destabilisations, stolen elections, and so on. like when china goes on about human rights and we all call bullsh1t, i have the same attitude towards US policy because they have a long and consistent history of being dodgy and underhanded in everything they do.

i'm not suggesting its some overarching illuminati conspiracy or something, but the US has a lot of well funded, loosely monitored government departments which seem to be given a lot of free reign to be involved in a lot of shady activity. for a country claiming to be the worlds premier democracy and defenders of truth, liberty and the american way, their actions do not mirror their words.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Even if all these conspiracy theories about US domination are true,
> 
> They still won't have attacked there own people, and taken out there own buildings, there are easier ways to start a war,
> 
> and I don't believe the US needs afganistan to influence the rest of asia,




There are easier ways to start a war but do you really think there is any other way to start a war that doesn't make the one who throws the first punch look like the agressor. There is no other way to build public support and its not like they haven't killed their own citizens before eg. University shootings during vietnam war protests. etc.

Suicide bombings are only used by desperate people who have no way of fighting back and nothing to loose. eg Japanese at end of war, Palestinians who have been occupied for 50 years. If 911 was terrorist attacks how does leveling a country stop terror attacks if anything it would create more. If they were serious about catching terrorist why occupy a country why destroy its infrastructure. Why not just sit back and rain cruise missiles anytime they show their face ? After all wars aren't profitable :


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (4 April 2008)

disarray said:


> i think the american elites are perfectly capable of screwing their own peons to further their own ambitions. the problem with the US is that they can't be trusted. "they" have a history of lies, cover up and misinformation with regards to many issues, like pearl harbour, JFK, central american interventions, iraq mwd's, iranian nuclear capacity, the CIA and its role in international drug smuggling, area 51, cold war political destabilisations, stolen elections, and so on. like when china goes on about human rights and we all call bullsh1t, i have the same attitude towards US policy because they have a long and consistent history of being dodgy and underhanded in everything they do.
> 
> i'm not suggesting its some overarching illuminati conspiracy or something, but the US has a lot of well funded, loosely monitored government departments which seem to be given a lot of free reign to be involved in a lot of shady activity. for a country claiming to be the worlds premier democracy and defenders of truth, liberty and the american way, their actions do not mirror their words.




Agreed but that said every large country in the world does exactly the same. China , Russia and US are all as bad as each other. The human rights are all equally horrific they are all sneaky, capitalist (even china elite wealth is skyrocketing) and would have no problems in using their citizens. After all what really is a government other than a group of INDIVIDUALS. I mean what world changing feats can one hope to get done in a four year term, often to make the long term future good you need short term pain but show me one polli which will say I am going to put this country in a mild recession for 1yearso we can have 5 years of good growth. Recessions are inevitable and neccesary but your screwed if your the poor schmuk in charge when it happens (often because of your predessor)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...one-as-British-troops-prepare-for-action.html

This could very well escalate quite dramatically.



> The RAF could become involved in any operation by this evening, according to British sources. However, the raids may be spearheaded by an Arab nation such as Qatar or the UAE.
> 
> Last night, Col Gaddafi threatened to launch retaliation attacks against passenger aircraft in the Mediterranean if foreign countries launch air strikes against Libya.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## nioka (18 March 2011)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> show me one polli which will say I am going to put this country in a mild recession for 1yearso we can have 5 years of good growth. r)




Curtain, Menzies, Keating .


----------



## konkon (18 March 2011)

World War III will not happen. 

The main reason for this is because unlike previous eras of powerful and wealthy nations and leaders hating each other, nearly all leadership in most wealthy (key word) countries have a mutual interest in the future of their and the world's economy; they are there to make money off an overworked and conforming consumer in their and other countries. My point here is that in this day and age, most wealthy countries are making lots of money off their and other nations' consumers, not to mention a cross-boarder market system that nearly all nations can participate in. The leadership in these (wealthy) countries have a mutual agreement to be more proactive participants in this global economy, rather than to fight and bicker endlessly over territories, commodities etc. Some countries will continue to fight over land etc, but they are not influential enough to reign-in all major countries into a global war. It just won't happen. 

Sure you will find citizens in several countries fighting, but they are fighting with their own governments/people for more wealth and a better future for their families and fellow citizens. They, overall, don't have it in for other people from other countries, in general, and even if they did they wouldn't have enough gravitational pull to force other nations into a major conflict. 

In the past, you had deep-seeded hatred (and xenophobia) of other races, nationalities, from the top (leadership) down (us, the people). Leaders in various rich counties in the past were ready to go to war with each other way before a major war had even started. You do have some rouge nations today, but the key here is that no wealthy nation has any real interest to go to war with other wealthy nations. So there isn't going to be a major world war. 

We are also too busy chatting with others on social media outlets and using interesting applications on our fancy phones to worry about politics too much or starting some #@$#&^% with others from another country! And this is a good thing.


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2011)

nioka said:


> Curtain, Menzies, Keating .




Keating never telegraphed a recession for future growth (a concept I entirely agree with), merely pointed out that it was "a recession we had to have" after the fact.

Big difference.


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...one-as-British-troops-prepare-for-action.html
> 
> This could very well escalate quite dramatically.
> 
> ...





Agree... and just the fact that Gadaffi makes the threats highlights that he is an international terrorist.

Should he attempt to carry out his threat I suspect he will feel the wrath of France, Britan and the US in no uncertain terms. His offshore acounts are already frozen. He is looking pretty isolated. It may not be pretty, but I expect it would be easier than Iraq and Afganastan if they let the Libyans do the ground work and just clean up Gadaffi's airforce and defences... and 'accidently' mistake a few tanks and artillary for aac aac guns. 

But I can't see it escalating to anything like a world war now that the Arab league have condemned him and the UN no fly zone resolution with no UN member opposing it, just abstaining.


----------



## xyzedarteerf (20 March 2011)

2011 Kegs and Eggs Riot (House of Pain Remix) - U-Albany Albany Students


----------



## Tisme (28 May 2017)

Interesting transcription article from post war 1946 by Marxist

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol07/no06/thorne.htm


----------

