Discuss and talk about any general topic.
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Cliff notes version:
Saddam became "bad" after the Iran-Iraq war ended and the West had no more use for him & he dared try to get Kuwait back (former province, plus the bastards were slant-drilling into Iraq's oil fields).
Gaddafi was "bad" for not allowing a western-controlled central bank, like a good puppet state, while trying to unite northern Africa under a gold-backed dinar.
They both became "very bad" when they each got the bright idea to trade their resources for something other than dollars.
не поглеждай назад.
"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
The western powers such as America and Britain appoints and funds these dictators, then once these dictators no longer want to maintain an alliance with or do what the western powers tell them to do, then they either kill these dictators or they fund military forces to drive them out of power.
"Allow me to show you the Power Cosmic!" - Silver Surfer
Like a lot of dictators installed by the banksters, they eventually went off the reservation and started supporting the interests of their own people, so naturally they had to be removed. Gaddafi's Libya was probably the best run country in Africa.
These people who run our lives are counterfeiters plain and simple, these folks are praying the idiots do not wake up to the con.
Yaa, if anybody tries to go outside the credit monopolies game plan they are removed, we cannot have honest trade in this world.
The whole system is parasitic, and the parasites have their eyes on the whole world.
Time to Hide!
Both of them were typical strongman dictators who were considered stand up guys when they were working for the western dominated global system. When they started to go off the reservation and do their own thing that's when they suddenly became bad guys. During the Iraq-Iran war Saddam was considered a golden boy by the neo-con elites. Everyone has seen all those pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands and paling around with Uncle Saddam.
However he threatened the status quo big time when he invaded Kuwait. It wasn't just the neo-cons who were threatened but the OPEC elite too.
I don't break it down into a black/white good/bad narrative though. I don't think anyone really cares if people are getting oppressed in their own country it's all about how well you play ball with other world powers.
Iraq had a claim on Kuwait, wasn't Kuwait just a puppet regime set up after WW1. If somebody came in and cut us off from our water port and then set up a oil outpost from our stolen land I think I would be real pissed.
From some of the light reading I have done on WW1 it was England's not being able to accept Germany becoming a major world player in the oil region which set the war off and America entered the war under the orders of the International Bankers who controlled our central bank.
Germany was building a rail line to Iraq for oil and England stopped that with WW1 and then set up Kuwait for a sea oil going port for themselves cutting Iraq's deep water port access off ? No when you stand back and look at it I believe it is pretty black and white, all England offers is digits made up out of thin air for trade and payment and anybody who wants to do a honest system is then branded a terrorist and targeted by the debt paper empire.
This is a dishonest con and very much black and white. This fiat system is headed to it's real value 0 and the people who created this system have practically stolen the world with it and got it all for free. The fraud involved here is the largest I have ever seen.
Time to Hide!
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yohan and 3 guests