for the skeptics....(nwo)

Saddam Hussein was a big boy, he grabbed power and held it through war and UN sanctions, civil strife, religous discord. He certainly was not a U.S. tool.

He was ready to pass the regime down to his two creepy sons.

He had plenty of support from Russia who lent him billions for military toys. Every defense contractor in the world was ready to extend him credit.

The big question is really: Why when Bush & Co. called him in for a sit-down, he said "Fuck You" ?

He had previously been slapped around real bad in the 90's. He knew we were ready to wack him. Seems he had no nukes anyway?

If he was such a toady he would have showed up at the table, probly saved his regime? Thats the million dollar question.

 

But Pepik, I was not replying to Rat, I take most of what he says with a large helping of salt. I was replying to you saying Greenspan never said that. He did state the obvious, a regulated market is not a true "free market". I never stated that regulation is bad. I never supported the idea of NWO, or even its existence. If you read my other post you will see that I do not think the US handpicked and put Saddam in power, just that our actions created the opportunity for him to take power.
Seems like you are the one looking for any excuse for an argument.
(How about we keep the name calling, i.e. "thats just stupid" to a minimum. We can disagree on some things and still be civil.)

 

I'm shocked by how naive some of you people are, including Skip. For those of you who still refuse to believe or accept that a "new world order" is being gradually implemented into our everyday reality (through "incrementalism") check out these quotes:


"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." George Herbert Walker Bush

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether
World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." -- Statement made before the
United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

"How to Achieve The New World Order" -- title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine
(March 1994)

What the frick do you think Globalization is??? It's just another term for the "New World Order".

 

Then free markets do not and have never existed anywhere, democracy does not exist, free speech doesn't exist... in fact what does actually exist?

Can you explain the point to me of taking things to such an abstraction that there is nothing left to debate?

Its bizarre because Rat is somehow trying to contort himself into an argument that reducing government interference in trade is a plot to increase government control of the economy. It is totally incoherent, yet you want to add another layer of philosophical abstraction on top of this nonsense.

 

It's actually quite COherent. It's also called "deregulation". When interference is reduced, that paves the way for more corporations to run things as they see fit, without having to adhere to any laws of ethics or moral codes of conduct. They essentially attain "free reign" which is what they've wanted all along. That by its very nature increases the power of government-corporate control over the economy. Corporations are essentially global governing bodies now. The U.S. government is run like a business. Soon, the U.S. government will give way to a global one world corporation (if they succeed, that is).

 

But in reality, free trade has little to do with trade at all. It's about setting up a standardized system between countries by eliminating sovereignty, which only creates more bureaucracies. John Dee, who was an advisor to Queen Elizabeth I and was the first to coin the term 'New World Order,' said back in the 1500's that a global system would be set up based on free trade. Just look at NAFTA and what that's turning into. So anyone who says it's about less government control, really doesn't know what they are talking about. Free trade would be free if it wasn't for trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, which is just more government bureaucracy designed create standardized regulations in order to merge us into a global system of control.