What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 12 March 2004 - 06:14 PM
But security will be half the the cost of running the games.
Will everyone be photographed and fingerprinted before they enter any premesis or venue?
What would it cost to go there, who could afford it but the rich.
Eventually there will be only one team representing UE, as in the US and the Soviet Union.
Posted 12 March 2004 - 07:28 PM
I think you're correct about the eventual continental teams: one Africa, one Asia, one Europe....of course, with the American ego, they would never join a team with Canada or Mexico.
Security at the games has always been a problem and will only increase in the future: Munich, Atlanta, etc. Odd thing about Atlanta, when the FBI thought they'd chosen a suspect that would roll over and play dead they played up their expertise and greatness, but once the man fought back and beat them; another word was never heard. Once again, American ego. What a waste.
I've never been a fan of the EU or the Euro. I think its destined to fail. I've felt that way for about eighteen years and have never been afraid to say it. In secondary school, I shared my opinions and was suspended from school for not rescinding and changing my opinion. I still think its a mistake. A false economy if you will.
Posted 13 March 2004 - 02:19 AM
Posted 13 March 2004 - 04:51 AM
The point of the matter is, that Lincoln printed the greenback and it was wholly unconstitutional.
Will France's recent religious argument regarding illegalizing the wearing of religious apparel and symbology in schools affect the mid-easts view of the EU? I suspect it will mean more to the mid-east religions who have traditional costumes? Any effect on acceptance of the Euro?
It is true that religion has never been outside of politics except in officially atheistic countries. It must appear invisible and irrelevant to the American citizen as regards politics but this is a pretense as the influence is not entirely null.
Posted 13 March 2004 - 05:20 AM
As an American, I must say that religion plays a massive role in American politics. Most Americans don't like to admit it, as the image and notion of a "separation between church and state" sounds good and seems attractive. Unfortunately, that is not the case. American political parties and politicians, mainly the Republicans, count on and cower to the "religious right." Lets remember that our "esteemed" leader, Bush, thinks that God spoke to him and told him to run and he also doesn't believe in evolution. Religion is great for some people, but I think it should be kept out of political decisions.
Posted 13 March 2004 - 06:07 AM
Why should all of the nations east of the Atlantic join the UE?
If they should why shouldnt all of Asia join China.
The only interest can be collective power like the Soviet Union,
isnt in the interest of the people. Systems should be designed to serve people not the reverse. It seems obvious to me that the UE is a power thing, modern day Roman Empire, which started with the treaty of Rome, and in fact was first attempted by Joseph
Incredible regarding your experience over not recanting for believing what many do, that the UE will not last. Did this happen in an Americam school? Unbelievable.
The notion that it wont succeed is so common, I remember a Prime Minister of NZ expressing the same doubt, because it was common, in regards Britain joining and effecting NZ exports to the UK which were going to have an impact on our economy.
However it supprises me that you then suggested Russia join
something you think will fail. What have you got against the Russian people?
Some people have to do something different than rush out into the sea and drown like leemings. I would hope the Russians
after what they we put through for over 70 years, impossed on their from outside, would think different and see the folly.
I dont envisage one team from Africa, Asia etc at the Olympics.
The Soviet Union - of many nations had only one team because it was one state. UE will become one state, so there will not be a German team, French etc. The US is also a union of states and only has one team. One could wonder if the original people who formed the union envisioned one team rather than each state fielding teams in their own right.
Africa, Asian and Sth America are not thinking about one state,
the regional economic regimes like Nafta etc are not states but
there is the potential to form mega-states like UE and it is likely so for the completion of the NWO.
It is a mistake as you say and folly and false economy but thats what debt finance systems do, it centralises power and takes control of everything. Which is why, as I have said several times before why Marx who understood the money system, the power
behind capitalism, never exposed it.
I find it interesting that in todays world of anti-nationalism the Olympic Games are still allowed to be popular. I guess it assists to support the one global village perception.
Posted 13 March 2004 - 01:39 PM
None. Because first Turkey illegalized wearing scarves to school and this fact was highly prized by US as first step to civil society.
Posted 13 March 2004 - 02:14 PM
Pravda.Ru http://english.pravd...259_Madrid.html asks question; **********why be so cowardly as to attack innocent people going to work and why not have the courage to at least attack those who made the decision to join the USA's circus of mass murder as it spreads its tentacles around the globe in a stranglehold?*************
Because attack for liable individuals is so far impossible; Government spent tax money to protect only themselves. It was funny to see Clinton visiting American troops, as Commander in Chief who were with body guards between their own soldiers. Even if you fly other Washington you can not move to use restroom. It would be consider as an attempt to hijack attack of airplane. ha, ha ha.
Unless victims will not start use democratic efforts to enforce government accountability for their acts, the victims will victimize themselves.
I join Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey in the question ;
******** However horrific the outrage was and however wrong it is to kill civilians, what is the difference between the victims in Madrid and the ten thousand Iraqi civilians butchered by US military forces?
What is the difference between a civilian dying in a blast in a train and a busload of civilians slaughtered by a trigger-happy US pilot in Yugoslavia?
What is the difference between an explosion on public transportation at rush hour and an attack with precision weaponry against a wedding party in Afghanistan?*********
Anyone to answer the questions?
Posted 13 March 2004 - 11:11 PM
translated "effect", on the minds of the world.
The presentation of the Spanish incident is much the same as we have had for years about what the Palestinians have done to
Israelis in comparison to the reverse.
The news commentary said as is now common propoganda that "it had all the hall marks of..." but there is never anything to justify the claim, just an explosion that didnt fail to explode.
Only the Bush crusade is the first and foremost to gain. What would anyone else gain unless they claims ownership in relation to a cause?
There is no pattern, no strategy, no rhyme or reason to all the incidents that are attributed to terrorism other than reinforce the
Bush wars. The same with the anthrax scares.
Its a psychological war as much as anything.
So no crimes against humanity is recognised - just the boogyman.
Age old ploy. While the victims of the Bush crusade number way above the "terrorists". And if Iran and Syria were to be invaded there would be no change, other than more crimes against innocent humanity.
There is no ready "answer" to the dress issue in French schools.
Grossly petty on the one hand, while they accept such people into their country to become citizens and then add the fine print later is a disgrace.
It shows up the stupidity of the UN policy to mix up the races and culture, so there is no right or wrong, all so-called equal- a
unbalanced distortion disguised as an ideal- because it is a ready
cause of conflict and reaction. When locals try to protect their
culture they are called fascists while those who think creating the same problems uniformly across the globe will lead to solving all problems is typical of the warped mindset that has gravitated to the top.
People have seen the strategy of increasing chaos and social upheaval as a means of justifying world govt decades back.
Posted 14 March 2004 - 03:32 AM
The EU will not fail as long as those who planned and constructed it are around. Of course it has the blessing of global financial interests or it would never have gotten this far.
It will, however, be a failure to the European citizenry. If resistance to the change is encountered I fully expect coercion to be the tool employed for it's full establishment and the attainment of this globalist dream. Und you vill like it!
>>>What is the difference between an explosion on public transportation at rush hour and an attack with precision weaponry against a wedding party in Afghanistan?<<<
Although the results are similar - dead people - there is a difference.
I do not defend the actions of Bush as there are agendas of which we are not aware but of which we are suspicious and if true, accentuate the criminality of a war. I do not defend any acts of violence, as I'm sure most rational people don't.
The main difference is Spain is not at war. By asking this question do you intend to mitigate the Spanish episode and make it seem a fully justifiable, reasonable action? Two wrongs don't make a right.
The only other point I can make is that we are not certain that the war in Afghanistan and terrorism in Spain aren't acts that are of opposing factions! Does one necessitate the other?
As for France... I guess in celebrating our diverse cultures here in Canada we can look forward to everyone being legislated to equality. Well, that's one way to get rid of the Government department of multi-culturalism, one of our government's biggest boondoggles.
Posted 14 March 2004 - 05:54 PM
Russia created their seeds to be # 1. Regardless what political status was , UK and French and Austria or Japanese attacked this biggest Slavic country. US only was late, thirst time it was at 1917. US was late , but attacked very vigorously. Especially after time when Gagarin and Valentine Tereszkova won with US competition for Cosmos.
*********Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" Quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski Jan, 1998* (This interview was deleted from the version of Le Nouvel Observateur ***********
So everybody might see, US planned Muslims as a tools to fight Russia. At first tUS even had some victories in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
But now looks like that US agenda is not Muslim fundamentalists agenda. US started war, become painful for US and their allies. And communism will be final result of war on Islamic Fundamentalism .
Reformed communism and atheism is world future. Russian , Slavic country ideas will prevail world wide, isn
Posted 14 March 2004 - 06:53 PM
The policy of multi-culturism isnt English its global, its roots probably come out of the Roman Empire, its UN policy.
Mixing up races, re-education, to eliminate beliefs and certain ethnicities are clearly part of the goal not just a global society
of socially engineered cross-bread sheeple, neo-communism mixed with neo-fascism.
Its a joke for Bzrezinski to talk about liberating Eastern Europe
(to go from one block to another) when it was given to Stalin
by Roosevelt before the end of the second world war.
If Slavs want to rule they had better give up atheism. Lucifer
will want to be worshiped. Its those in the Lucifarian cults like Bush and Kerry, and they are around the world will be key players. The new world religion will eliminate certain beliefs,
quite obviously monotheism (Judaism,Christianty and Muslim)
because they believe or claim to believe in the Creator and Judgement of Lucifer and his world.
On the US dollar we see Lucifarian/Masonic and Roman symolism
writing and claims. It indicates that that power is the one that is
the instrument to bring in the NWO, that the UN seeks to inherit.
Its not being done for Slavs anymore than the English, Jews or other imperialistic nationals.
Posted 14 March 2004 - 07:11 PM
I guess that's the plan. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, it will not happen. It is a capitalist, corporate plan to weaken anyone's ability to threaten the wealth and power of the global elite. Quite smart. Who would suspect capitalism of disseminating and enforcing it's antithesis on the rest of the world. Splendid indeed!
>>>Haven-t Iraqis rights to self defense? <<<
You confuse terrorism with self-defense. It is not, in my opinion, a means to an end. Terrorism only serves to hide the injustices of it's target.
Sorry for my ill-informed comment on Spain not being involved in Iraq. I stand corrected.
Posted 14 March 2004 - 07:54 PM
Correctly said. It is a tool and "..divided we fall."
You know, I keep hearing about the Luciferian influence on the NWO. I have always tended to dismiss it as irrelevent and frankly quite preposterous. True, I do see the symbology around but hey,
in the understanding of something where one seeks answers that he considers are purposely hidden, he tends to assign significance to anything hinting at a key to the answers.
I can assume the point of view that the Luciferian/Cultic influence is valid but it does not provide me with any particular insight into world events. The volume of data written about it is never in the mainstream and I consider it a sidetrack with the purpose of discrediting anyone doing research by giving them the appearance of lunacy. When someone goes off on this tack they enter the realm of the metaphysical and proofs are entirely subjective.
My particular viewpoint is that of a godless,soulless corporate entity that is insane with the acquisition of power and global dominance at any expense, even genocide.
At this point in time, the Luciferian concept is on the sidelines as just information. I haven't assigned any importance to it.
Posted 14 March 2004 - 11:25 PM
It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. Incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to bring home the 1,300 troops Spain has stationed in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July. #######
It was victory for democracy.
90 % of Spanish population were against war in Iraq.
Time to teach the government an accountability. Glory, glory Alleluia.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users