Even back in the days of paper ballots there were ways to cheat both during the campaign and at the time of voting.
Now with most votes passing through electronic machines, and both parties controlled by the same globalist entities, voting is just a means of demonstrating one's submission.
The vote itself doesn't count at all. But they want people to keep pretending it does. At least for now. Soon they won't even care about that. They'll just do away with voting.
You, Conrad, are hilarious in a tragic sort of way. Your thinking's upside-down, so you "climb" deeper every day. You hide behind emoticons and senseless ridicule Because the more you speak, the more you give opponents fuel.
My guess is that far less than 50% really support such a war. But the polls will always reflect what the ruling elite want.
As an example. My brother and his wife were big supporters of Bush and his neo-con regime back during his first term. They were on some sort of list so that they were called every day to respond to national telephone polls. Most people only get called once or twice a year. But in their case the pollers knew that their opinions would always favor the administration.
In other words, the polls are rigged. They don't really reflect the public opinion. They reflect the opinion that the ruling elite want the public to accept.
It's futile for the soldiers. It's hell on earth for the poor people caught up in the violence.
But its a very profitable goldmine for a tiny but powerful minority. The arms producers and merchants, the oil companies, the military industrial complex, the bankers who get interest on loans for all that activity, and the politicians who get support from all of the above.
If war was futile for everybody there would be no war. But that ain't the case.
How in the world can people be so dumb as to equate the invasion and occupation of poor sovereign countries on the other side of the world as "protecting" freedom.
The US and Britain are the invading aggressors in Afghanistan.
And it is they who created, armed, and still control the Taliban.
The Taliban's only function is to serve as a supposed justification for the occupation of strategic regions by the Western powers for the sake of oil and wealth (for the super rich only).
The real issue is who will profit from China and India's expanding need for oil.
The West wants to continue to steal oil from the Caspian Sea oilfields, pipe it across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India and also to ports on the Indian Ocean for transport to China.
Iran, on the other hand, wants to pipe its own oil across Pakistan to India. And to supply China by sea from its own ports.
That's the only real issue behind the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the push for war against Iran. It's the only reason the Russians and Americans ever wanted to invade Afghanistan in the first place.
As though Russia could trust the US to give information that would allow Russia to penetrate NATO missile defenses.
To keep any semblance of parity, Russia should demand the right to deploy nuclear missiles and anti-missile systems in Cuba, promising to give similar VBO data to the Americans.
Not me buddy. I've been an enemy of LaRouche for decades. Even back when he was pretending to be a Communist and his cult called itself the US Labor Party.
That was way back before his overnight morph into a supposed champion of free enterprize and neo-con values.
And he's flip-flopped several times since then. Always trying to present himself as the champion of whatever political breeze is prevailing at the moment.
It wouldn't surprise me if LaRouche himself were a CIA asset.
But, having said that. Like other cult leaders and politicians, sometimes LaRouche accidentally does use a little bit of truth in the process of pushing his big lie.
Yes, the Iranians see the CIA all over the place because experience has taught them to keep their eyes open.
Don't forget that the CIA already toppled their democratically elected president once before and set up a brutal dictator over them, just so the west could steal their oil for a couple of decades.
And if that wasn't enough, when the Shah was getting old and losing his grip on the country, instead of letting the people replace him with a democratic government it was the CIA who brought in the Ayatollah and let him set up a fundamentalist Islamic Republic.
This was better for the West because the ensuing conflict could be portrayed as a clash of cultures and religions instead of an imperialist grab to steal the oil of a poor country.
That the CIA aided the rise of the Ayatollah is a matter of public record, although the CIA tries to spin it in a way to suggest that the result was not what they expected or intended.
William Engdahl and Richard Dreyfuss in his book Hostage of Khomeini states that the US was afraid of a communist takeover in Iran because many of the early protestors were Iranian communists. The CIA secretly supported the overthrow of the Shah and to replace him with Pro-American Islamists...recruited by the CIA. The US had the same plan to surround the Soviet Union with hostile Islamic states that were friendly to the US. The CIA was also successful in overthrowing President Bhutto of Pakistan to install General Zia al Haq as the new leader, which changed Pakistan from a secular country into a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. It is through Pakistan that the CIA then fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.
So the CIA admits it helped set the Ayatollah in power, but pretends that they thought it would lead to a moderate democratic government. But does the CIA ever set up moderate democratic governments?????? Name one if you can.
More likely the plan worked exactly as planned. Democracy was stifled, and the new regime could be vilified and attacked as being "Islamic fundamentalists".
Thus an imperialist war to steal a poor nation's oil could be presented as a clash between the "good", "christian", west and the "evil" "islamic" east. Just in the same way the Israelis created Hamas and set them up to be the imaginary leaders of Palestine. So that conflict could also be misrepresented as a clash between religions instead of an imperialist land grab.
And it was the CIA's golden boy of the epoch, Sadam Hussein, who immediately launched a CIA backed war against Iran. A war in which the US had furnished the weapons for both sides.
Makes you wonder what the CIA was thinking doesn't it?
All this was made easier by the installation of the MI6/CIA joint venture media outlet Al Jezeera, in Qatar (where the US was already preparing to build its biggest base in the world, and where there are now 10 times more Americans than Qataris).
It's not strange to see the CIA behind every rock and tree wherever oil is concerned. They are certainly there.
What's curious is when people pretend they don't see them.
RayfromUSA Forum Posts (6,611)
RE: messing up the flag
Where would they get the millions for all the primary races?Only corrupt puppets need apply.