PDA

View Full Version : true romance ending- chapel scene faceoff- enemy of the state kitchen scene.


FinalSolace2
08-09-2005, 10:38 PM
what do they all have in common?- a final showdown


now take the same scenario and apply it to major world nations with very varied political structure in relation to each other.

if there was a final showdown scenario where everybody was pointing weapons at eachother in deadlock and no one would back down- would someone break???

human nature??

this concept epithinised itself from the following....

Next 9/11 - We'll attack Iran (whether it's their fault or not!!!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney?s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing?that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack?but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Irrelevant of evidence.... we're going to send a load of our own people to an unnecessary death.. AGAIN!!
Irrelevant of evidence.... we'll probably waste billions in taxes on unauthorised military spending.. AGAIN!!
Irrelevant of evidence.... we're planning to drop nukes on Iran and probably kill tens/hundreds of thousands of innocents like we did in Iraq.

at least it now looks like even the conservative mags are in disgust... are these idiots finally waking up??? pinch me... i must be dreaming!!!


i think that were definately easily capable of such a situation.

Oh... also worth mentioning is this Halliburton have helped Iran with it's nuclear programme, and have provided centrifuge's etc. throughout the last 15 years... (but then, what do we expect from Halliburton, they were fined $3million for giving nuclear capability to Libya and didn't care.)

It's as if Halliburton (and other govt. linked corps) go to a country, give them a load of dangerous **** to make them a plausible 'threat'. And then.... use that as justification to steal our taxes to fix the problem they caused in the first place... profitting from both sides, from cause and from repair.

In fact... why are Halliburton allowed to continue doing what they do when they've broken laws and put the world at serious risk of violence in the name of max. profits? ... and when their actions almost always end up resulting in a reaction that costs the taxpayer so much money just to make us 'safe' from the threat they funded and supported.

Halliburton provide the terror threat. The US govt. fixes it by making our money disappear via ******* companies like Halliburton.

It's like anti-virus-vendors writing viruses so that people will buy their ****... except it's larger and a lot more lethal... to the point that masses of people are wiped out.

Halliburton help cause the terror... Halliburton help fix it.

Anyone see a problem with this picture???

Peace!!

continue this trend and were setting ourselves up

No way! N. Korea has nuclear weapons and a very large military that could do real damage to ours and cause major damage to surounding nations.
Iran on the other hand has a very much smaller military and as of now has no nuclear weapons.
The current administration will not take on any nation that my give our military a run for its money. It is much easier for them to fight a nation with a 3rd or 4th rate military.
Another reason Bush and his buddies won't go after N. Korea is because China would be more then glad to aid N. Korea if we attacked them. China has a "WHOOOOOOLE" lot of nukes that can reach us and a lot of our world wide interest.

have china got too much to lose???

China on the other hand is an emerging nation that has a lot to loose. They would most likely stay out of any kind of N. Korea/US conflict. Besides, if the US did goto war with N. Korea, we would get military aid from S. Korea and Japan (base usage and perhaps some troops/personnel.) These countries are China's top trading partners...piss them off and their economy goes straight to the toilet.

China recently has distanced itself from N. Korea, and I would suspect they will continue this policy in the future. I wouldnt be surprised if they even aided the US in some way if there were a future conflict.

what if they aided america- it would be against its conscience- it will be profit induced decision

i dont think china would be a happy nation afterwards in this situation- i think tentions would increase


the direct destabilisation would draw in russia and hard european intervention.

nobody will give up their greed profits for another country to mess that up, if the profits wre talking about are huge enough-- NUCLEAR STAND OFF-- and would be 6- 10 times more intence than the cold war....imho


it just takes one person to think **** it- if we cant stand we'll take everyone else out with us.... remember were just lowly citizens in the big guys war.

Nem
08-09-2005, 11:10 PM
Didnt read all that, but Iran is had good has bombed invaded and burned already. Im sure Mr. Boss of the free world will take care of that. Too bad he doesnt free us from himself for slowly killing the planet with polution. But hey, whats a free world without company profit and industrial wastes?!

Oops! ended up ranting too much :sweat:

justin_credible
08-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Don't talk like that, you must be crazy. My mind is fighting the truth, it's easier than dealing with reality. They've done this to all of us, we go into defensive mod when things we accept as fact are questioned. It is not human nature but we are taught this way in school. There is tons of Orwellian double talk that was talked about in 1984 from people everywhere such as "I would gladly lose my liberty for security against those darn terrorists" but what if the terrorists are the ones taking your liberty? Let's just ignore that Chaney, Rumsfield and Jeb Bush were all involved in in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and stated we needed a Pearl Harbor type event on American soil because of a need of an increased presence in Iraq in 2000, one year before we got that Pearl Harbor event, they were obviously just joking. More double think, make excuses for the ones that control us, because if I'm so worried about what others may think of me, they may think I'm a "conspiracy nut" it's better to be normal and not think for myself. Fitting in is good, going against popular opinion is bad.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush?s ?war cabinet.?

Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.

The group?s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. ?We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,? the statement?s first principle reads.

The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: ?to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values? and ?to accept responsibility for America?s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.?

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,? reveals that the current members of Bush?s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: ?The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.?

?Even should Saddam pass from the scene,? the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, ?may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.?

A ?core mission? for the transformed U.S. military is to ?fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,? according to the PNAC.

The strategic ?transformation? of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to ?a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,? the PNAC plan said.

?The process of transformation,? the plan said, ?is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event?like a new Pearl Harbor.?

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for ?a new Pearl Harbor.?

Sources:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

FinalSolace2
08-09-2005, 11:54 PM
i think maybe they want world war- maybe they are working with aliens to weaken our planet and demoralise our people- that how fucked up all this ****.

maybe they are true satanist bent on world hell.

maybe they are illuminati and want to create a future world order of some kind.

the bible if it were fake (i'm catholic so i believe not) created a new world sort of order for generations to come

this scheme has long term agenda or consequences- why would they do it in the first place.

it looks at this point that america really is trying to take over the world.

they can script wars by selling weapons to countrie that they can then call threats and destroy and take over.

do you think they want tentions to increase to increase the liklyhood of another pearl harbour event.

maybe they want american soil to be nuked at least once so they can go into the whole axis of evil while everybody is in a state of sympathy for those american citizens prolly thousands are dead while other nations take a back seat to objection against american independant conflicts or coalitions in the future- even china.

would we stand in the way of someone doing something crazy if theyre wife was just shot in the head and there was no concluisive evidence on who done it- maybe the husband riled someone up to the point until that person- a loose cannon killed his wife-

why jeapodise your wife for the sake of hateful wrath against someone else.

do you see the parable i'm making??

maybe he didnt love his wife, maybe he is using it as more of an excuse to fuel his rage against someone who fucked him on a deal due to his shady and selfish practices.

who knows- these are dangerous games and you know what happens when you play games with people- even the biggest securist guy could end up the victim- like hotshot gangland bosses that think they are invincible.

SavedFromSin
08-10-2005, 01:05 AM
Your whole post is your typical conspiracy theory rant, but what was the deal with the reference to 1984, Justin?

justin_credible
08-10-2005, 01:32 AM
Your whole post is your typical conspiracy theory rant, but what was the deal with the reference to 1984, Justin?

Just that "double talk" and "double think" as mentioned in 1984 happens every single day. People will stop their mind short of accusing their Government of corruption and block it out and try to give out petty insults to the person informing them of such, instead of listening with an open mind. It's something in our minds that just blanks for a second when you're told something that doesn't fit right with what you've grown up believing, we black it out and shut down and turn it around on the defensive side. If our brains were computers that would be a system flaw, I've seen it happen even with members of my own family and many many others I've told about this, not on the internet but in real life. Most people will defy all logic sometimes just because it might make them seem different that the average person if they question something. Just look at the JFK assassination, the Government story is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Doesn't matter to most people, it's easier not to use their brains and it's ok to be good dogs and obey their masters no matter what bull**** they say. Most people want to be controlled and they just assume that hey they're the Government and they're in charge they must be just and fighting for our best interests at all times.

1984, although fiction was a warning that could EASILY happen to us all, and I believe it's starting to. Cameras everywhere, thought crimes Bush's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" terrorism is the easiest way to control a society.

FinalSolace2
08-10-2005, 03:41 AM
theres more truth in logic- than the said word.

logic cant be lied- but what is said, can.

thats my new saying.


WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 commission will investigate a claim that U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the hijackings but didn't forward the information to law enforcement.

ADVERTISEMENT
Get Our Top 20? Newsletter
in Your Inbox Each Week!
The Most 'WOW!' Travel Deals
on the Internet - here's a sampling: Released
3 AUG 2005

3 Million Flights on Sale from 8 UK Cities ?0.03 & up Ryanair

Palma Mallorca: 7 Nights & Flights ?149 Thomas Cook

100,000 Eurostar Tickets to Paris (Return) ?59 Eurostar

Fly to Oktoberfest in Munich (Return) ?29.98 easyJet

Click on Any Deal and Check Them Out Today!
*Fares listed may not include all taxes, charges and government fees.
More information. ? 2005 Travelzoo UK Ltd.

Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said Tuesday the men were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger." If true, that's an earlier link to al-Qaida than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta.

Sept. 11 commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton said Tuesday that Weldon's information, which the congressman said came from multiple intelligence sources, warrants a review. He said he hoped the panel could issue a statement on its findings by the end of the week.

"The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."

The Sept. 11 commission's final report, issued last year, recounted numerous government mistakes that allowed the hijackers to succeed. Among them was a failure to share intelligence within and among agencies.

According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of a cell the unit code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.

Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

Weldon did not provide details on how the intelligence officials identified the future hijackers and determined they might be part of a cell.

Defense Department documents shown to an Associated Press reporter Tuesday said the Able Danger team was set up in 1999 to identify potential al-Qaida operatives for U.S. Special Operations Command. At some point, information provided to the team by the Army's Information Dominance Center pointed to a possible al-Qaida cell in Brooklyn, the documents said.

However, because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" ? a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence ? Special Operations Command did not provide the Army information to the FBI. It is unclear whether the Army provided the information to anyone else.

The command instead turned its focus to overseas threats.

The documents provided no information on whether the team identified anyone connected to the Sept. 11 attack.

If the team did identify Atta and the others, it's unclear why the information wasn't forwarded. The prohibition against sharing intelligence on "U.S. persons" should not have applied since they were in the country on visas ? they did not have permanent resident status.

Weldon, considered something of a maverick on Capitol Hill, initially made his allegations about Atta and the others in a floor speech in June that garnered little attention. His talk came at the end of a legislative day during a period described under House rules as "special orders" ? a time slot for lawmakers to get up and speak on issues of their choosing.

The issue resurfaced Monday in a story by the bimonthly Government Security News, which covers national security matters.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he was unaware of the intelligence until the latest reports surfaced.

But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the 9/11 Commission looked into the matter during its investigation into government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.

Hamilton said 9/11 Commission staff members learned of Able Danger during a meeting with military personnel in October 2003 in Afghanistan, but the staff members do not recall learning of a connection between Able Danger and any of the four terrorists Weldon mentioned.

The commission expired last year after releasing its final report, but the members now work together as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project to publicize their findings and monitor the government's response to their recommendations.

ironically this news just appeared on yahoo today.

whats not said can be used for private agendas-

they knew about mohammed atta and the bombers but they didn't tell law enforcement- looks like intel is working for the wrong people.

superRSXs
08-10-2005, 04:38 AM
did u guys know that the US Military has a contingency plan for an alien invasion? (i am dead serious)

...kinda funny, but it's called a contingency plan for a reason...same with Iran, N. Korea, China, etc. we have these plans so in the case something goes wrong we can better assess and control the situation to our advantage.

Its not feasible for us to invade N. Korea, there is no sensible way we can land ground forces and expect light losses...US forces in Korea (2ID is there right now) is only there to act as a 'trip-wire,' if N. Korea invades all (yes, ALL) of them are expected to go bye-bye, but i dont think that we should give up on the government just yet. lets do our part to support those who genuinely care, namely the soldiers on the ground.

Terrorism can only be explained in historical context (every event is unique) and thus i am apprehensive of this label of 'al-queda' on every single act thats been happening these days...generalization of terrorism can be very dangerous very fast.

my $.02 :spinface:

FinalSolace2
08-10-2005, 04:51 AM
did u guys know that the US Military has a contingency plan for an alien invasion? (i am dead serious)

...kinda funny, but it's called a contingency plan for a reason...same with Iran, N. Korea, China, etc. we have these plans so in the case something goes wrong we can better assess and control the situation to our advantage.

Its not feasible for us to invade N. Korea, there is no sensible way we can land ground forces and expect light losses...US forces in Korea (2ID is there right now) is only there to act as a 'trip-wire,' if N. Korea invades all (yes, ALL) of them are expected to go bye-bye, but i dont think that we should give up on the government just yet. lets do our part to support those who genuinely care, namely the soldiers on the ground.

Terrorism can only be explained in historical context (every event is unique) and thus i am apprehensive of this label of 'al-queda' on every single act thats been happening these days...generalization of terrorism can be very dangerous very fast.

my $.02 :spinface:

i reckon america would nuke them- theres no war american forcres can take on 20 million N. korean troops and 120,000 special forces- america dont stand a chance- plus nuclear capability and loads of hover crafts.

1337haxxor
08-10-2005, 10:23 AM
Um... Is it just me or did this already happen... like within the last 40 years... I think it was called the cold war.

maybe they are working with aliens to weaken our planet and demoralise our people

Heh, if they wanted that, they would just legaliaze gay marrage. Oh, Christian right owns you! poor gays, you always get the bad rap.

Most people want to be controlled and they just assume...

You shouldn't say things like that when your debating Justin. First of all it doesn't really add to your argument. Second, its not based upon anything you can prove, even if it was true you could never come up with data to represent it. Last it leaves a little hole for people like gearhoud to tear at. The opposition may not have anything to countr your points but if they can exploit a flaw in your logic you can loose alot of credibility.


did u guys know that the US Military has a contingency plan for an alien invasion?

Its true, Regan also wanted to build lasers to shoot down planes and projectiles.

I don't think anyone is going to nuke anyone right now. While it is true that U.S. forigen policy dictates that the U.S.A. always has to be the supreme nation on the planet but bobing people in that way will never accepted in the world community again. The U.S. does not have the resources to fight with the whole world viewed from a political, military and economic standpoint.

Poltically, the U.S. is on mostly everyones bad list, its sort of like when Hitler invaded Poland, everyone was like "WTF are you doing?! Stop that!" No one is very happy with the U.S. reguardless of weither they stand to profit off of their actions.

From a militraistc stand point, the U.S. deffinitly has the means to produce and moblize a large fighting force but in doing so it would let loose alot of things. The american public wouldn't be happy being drafted. The failing economy couldn't support it for to long. War more outwards would definitly make reason for armment limitations upon places like Japan and China void giving the U.S. more to deal with.

Economicly, you might reason that it would be smarter to join the Americans in a full scale war to take profit in the spoils of war but I'm of the opinnion that world leaders would see the fall of the American Empire as their oppertunity to rise as a power in a new America-less world.

I feel nukes are out of the question because there has been so much support around the world after the 2nd world war to destroy the damn things. To use them again would upset ALOT of people.

FinalSolace2
08-10-2005, 11:35 AM
Poltically, the U.S. is on mostly everyones bad list, its sort of like when Hitler invaded Poland, everyone was like "WTF are you doing?! Stop that!" No one is very happy with the U.S. reguardless of weither they stand to profit off of their actions.

From a militraistc stand point, the U.S. deffinitly has the means to produce and moblize a large fighting force but in doing so it would let loose alot of things. The american public wouldn't be happy being drafted. The failing economy couldn't support it for to long. War more outwards would definitly make reason for armment limitations upon places like Japan and China void giving the U.S. more to deal with.

Economicly, you might reason that it would be smarter to join the Americans in a full scale war to take profit in the spoils of war but I'm of the opinnion that world leaders would see the fall of the American Empire as their oppertunity to rise as a power in a new America-less world.

I feel nukes are out of the question because there has been so much support around the world after the 2nd world war to destroy the damn things. To use them again would upset ALOT of people.

What happened to the if your with us- your with us policy but if not, **** you policy.

and if other nations declared war on america then there's many nut jobs out there that will be like **** them they always hate us and increase the military sign ups ten fold- people might know its wrong but what choice do people have at the end of the day. i'm thinking rednecks as a prime example- psycho's.

what stopped thousands of people accepting the nazi way of thinking. imperialism- one race.

so if a future war came up we'd be killing eachother without an idea why? nukes would be dropping at that point.

the big heads in the government already have policies- if 20 lone terrorists were involved in getting a nuke across to america, america would bomb mecca and thousands of people around- i think they have plans for bombing major islamic cities aswell as an extreamist deterrant- if its that easy for them to launch nukes then your argument is pointless.

and why wouldn't you believe theyd do it- they are planning iran next and they already did afghanistan and iraq.


if they go into n korea- its the s koreans that are fucked to hell- a developed nation much like a cross between japan & america and other developed nations- but who should care about theyre security while increasing tentions- nope theyre integrity is not worth honering- its too expensive otherwise.

did u guys know that the US Military has a contingency plan for an alien invasion?

well thats not a bad idea- america is attracting alot of attention- maybe even across the whole galaxy, when they see the way were fucking our planet they might think **** it lets invade them dickheads- atleast we'd do a better job not wiping ourselves out. - i mean they got to be smart if they survived long enough as a civillisation to reach the stars.