You wonna know why they didn't find any WMDs in Iraq?

I've been puzzled for a while now how come Bush cabal couldn't find any WMDs in Iraq. After all if they're behind it they could have implanted it themselves.

It's all very clear. In politics nothing happens by accident, if it does then it was planned.

They wanted others to see America launch unjustified war.
What it accomplished i hear you asking?

Not much ... except we now have 1 billion of angry Muslims gagging for revenge...

Have a nice day

I think there was no plan other than to just go in there and remove the ability for Iraq to price its oil with euros. Consequences of picking the wrong causes be damned. They did it to keep the U.S. dollar as the continued standard for world currency. The U.S. is in a dire money situation whether it was planned by the NWO or not and the U.S. can't invade countries for monentary reasons or the already completely shredded facade of a peaceful nation that we have would be totally torn away.

This isn't even going to be a "blowback" scenario that the CIA likes to term when plans eventually go awry. They know there is going to be retaliatory attacks to U.S. citizens and property, but obviously this administration has chalked it up to collateral damage. Much like their reasoning for allowing the attacks of 9/11/01 to happen to precipitate this attack.

Bush Sr. is calling the shots here. He coined the term "fodder units" for U.S. citizens. So you can see how little the current administration thinks of harm to the masses. We are nothing. Sure its been that way for a while, but its very obvious now.

Next stop, Iran. There's no way it won't happen. I imagine sometime shortly after the 2004 election it will take place. If they can't dredge up enough support for it, another 9/11 will happen (blamed on Iranians).

[Edited on 13-9-2003 by heelstone]

My post from here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on 12-9-2003 at 13:21 Post Number: 177623 edit quote report

#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro

www.projectcensored.org...

OMFG!!!

I would have a field day with this, but i really cant as it was William that pointed these to us..


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Richard Nixon removed U.S. currency from the gold standard in 1971. Since then, the world's supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Countries must provide the United States with goods and services for dollars � which the United States can freely print. To purchase energy and pay off any IMF debts, countries must hold vast dollar reserves. The world is attached to a currency that one country can produce at will. This means that � in addition to controlling world trade � the United States is importing substantial quantities of goods and services for very low relative costs.
The Euro has begun to emerge as a serious threat to dollar hegemony and U.S. economic dominance. The dollar may prevail throughout the Western Hemisphere, but the Euro and dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East.
In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros. Since then, the value of the Euro has increased 17%, and the dollar has begun to decline. One important reason for the invasion and installation of a U.S. dominated government in Iraq was to force the country back to the dollar. Another reason for the invasion is to dissuade further OPEC momentum toward the Euro, especially from Iran- the second largest OPEC producer, who was actively discussing a switch to Euros for its oil exports.
It is estimated that the dollar is currently overvalued by at least 40%, burdening the United States with a huge trade deficit. Conversely, the euro-zone does not run huge deficits, uses higher interest rates, and has an increasingly larger share of world trade. As the euro establishes its durability and comes into wider use, the dollar will no longer be the world�s only option. At that point, it would be easier for other nations to exercise financial leverage against the United States without damaging themselves or the global financial system as a whole.
Faced with waning international economic power, military superiority is the United States� only tool for world domination. Although, the expense of this military control is unsustainable, says William Clark, "one of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel." If American power is ever perceived globally as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order, the U.S. systems of control can be eliminated and collapsed. When acting against world opinion � as in Iraq � an international consensus could brand the United States as a �rogue nation.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dollar 40% overrated,
Iraq invaded cause it would rather use euros,
US listed as rogue nation (member of Axis of evil)..

I just did post a topic on these as these belong to William..

I agree with that assessment 100%. Anybody who thinks the U.S. went into Iraq to stem terrorism and stop a madman is a complete buffoon.

Unfortunately, a lot of my own family falls into this buffoon category and I cannot dissuade their opinions.

Its my opinion that the only other rabbit the U.S. has to pull out to save its economic butt beyond military force is the alien tech information. Though I'm certain no administration will ever want to have to resort to this as the consequences of this revelation will be dire to the world in and of itself. If push comes to shove regarding money though, it'll happen. Basically as an attempt to throw # at the wall and see if anything sticks in an act of desperation.

[Edited on 13-9-2003 by heelstone]

Originally posted by heelstone
I agree with that assessment 100%. Anybody who thinks the U.S. went into Iraq to stem terrorism and stop a madman is a complete buffoon.

Unfortunately, a lot of my own family falls into this buffoon category and I cannot dissuade their opinions.

[Edited on 13-9-2003 by heelstone]

Yes, this is sad how some people cant see trough the smoke screen, or choose not to even try..

I just wonder that how many of those that say that the war against Iraq is war agaisnt terrorism actually know that this is not the truht but just claim to others so, cause they think by doing so they are supporting US people?

I Really dont know, but that i know that this doesnt support the people at all, and only Bush and his buddies benefit from such "beliefs".

But not only the possibility of Saddam converting to euro.

The US companies that are enjoying the profits from rebuilding are feeding those profits into the US stock market in an attempt to conceal just how bad the economy is in the US,that is how they can claim the economy is on an upswing when it is really in a freefall.

Call it "dis-placed economics",if you will.

Either way it is a lie.

The US is in deep #,so is Britain,and it will get worse before it gets better.

If it ever does,who knows??.

I think that US has been "the great" allready some overtime..
they will crumble within next 20 years.. just like did the USSR, but with US this will be different..
as US has enemies lots of enemies and they will all attack once US is as weak the Russia was.

Of course they'll find something.

The CIA director George Tenet HIMSELF appointed the lead investigator, David Kay.

usinfo.state.gov...

"CIA Director George Tenet announced June 11 that Kay will be based in Iraq and responsible for refining the overall approach to the ongoing search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The new Department of Defense's Iraq Survey Group will provide direct support to the Special Advisor.

"David Kay's experience and background make him the ideal person for this new role. His understanding of the history of the Iraqi programs and knowledge of past Iraqi efforts to hide WMD will be of inestimable help in determining the current status of Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons," Tenet said in the text of a June 11 CIA news release . "

I may be a bit of a cynic, but I'm fairly certain the Central Intelligence Agency wouldn't appoint an investigator whom they didn't completely trust, do you? I'd imagine that they'll be doing all the spellchecks and editing and "sanitizing" of any reports that Mr. Kay submits to them.

jakomo

As for finding WMD. I wonder if the almartinraw.com report of a secret WMD planting operation had its cover blown.

www.dailytimes.com.pk...

I don't see why it would require the CIA or any other secret agency to plant the evidence as the U.S. military could do it themselves without anybody finding out.

The whole thing about not finding WMD, real or planted, is odd.

Who are due their just rewards?,our government and it's Imperialistic foreign policies.

If you think that the government collapse of the US would leave us open for invasion and this actually occurred,the Patriotic resistance activity would pale compared to what US troops face in Iraq or anywhere else,it would be onehelluva fight,at least from me.

I think most countries would think twice before going against the US again as Britain did when we said No More the first time.

Big,Big fight.

Technology breaks down,and the supply lines would be too long unless it was coming from south america,and it seems that the communist leaning governments are becoming more numerous to the south.

"Red Dawn",yowsers!.

I think, personally, that anyone that thinks that Iraq didn't have WMD is being foolish. Where they at.....that remains to be seen....to me, the issue is meaningless.
The real reasons for why this war is being fought should be the topic....not WMD.

The "War on Terrorism" is Bogus!

Link:
www.guardian.co.uk...

Excerpt:

"Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "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."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways."......


This is a very good read and deserving of attention and thought.
Did the 9/11 attacks give the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its "superpower" status or for global dominance?

Here is some further things I dug up on PNAC:

PNAC= Project for a New American Century and it was written up by the JewishInstitute for National Security Affairs.

The Earlier Document they call about was Clean Break: A strategy for securing the (Jewish) realm, it was put together by the IsraeliThink tank the Institute for Advanced Political and Strategic Studies.

Does this underpin a/an Jewish Conspiracy or not?
Found this informative article:
"The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel"
Link:
www.thornwalker.com:16080...

Yes. I know of the PNAC agenda. In either case regarding economics or the PNAC agenda, both situations work out as to reasons for the invasion of Iraq. The key operators in PNAC are currently in power, but I don't know how they would be able to maintain this kind of control over the government when new administrations eventually have to come in. The U.S. currency vs. the euro is a certainty for this war's pretext, and PNAC comes in right behind it.

As for finding legitimate WMD evidence, if they could pay guys to release info on military leaders, then they should have been able to do so for WMD. Hasn't happened and is unlikely to at this point.

[Edited on 13-9-2003 by heelstone]