Appleyard's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Appleyard's Profile › Appleyard's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 (of 245 pages)
 Foreign Affairs › Re: Russia A Hollow Superpower-the Economist by Appleyard(m): 1:41pm On Mar 25, 2016 |
bonechamberlain:The normal junk who would expect from the west. The US achieved the following policies by persuation: Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Laos, Cambodia, etc.. Western propaganda oozes like dung! |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Russia A Hollow Superpower-the Economist by Appleyard(m): 1:29pm On Mar 25, 2016 |
NairaMinted:They have even said that Putin is an alien.. When you want to have a good laugh, just tune to western focus on Putin. The man is so popular right now.  |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Russia A Hollow Superpower-the Economist by Appleyard(m): 1:17pm On Mar 25, 2016 |
birdman:What is wrong with you birdman? Can't you see you will have to feature Lil Wayne to get the ''mirror on the wall'' message through to the unrepentant heads of these children of Hollywood, eh? ;-) You know it was Russia that started bombing Syria after arming so called ''moderate rebels'' to oust Assad, thus chasing millions into Europe. That's how they ''weaponize the refugees.''  You know they never did achieve anything in Syria. And as you can see, it is the ''rebels'' that are now seated as chief in Geneva, since Assad was the one who actually ''begged'' for peace, despite all the air support the US gave him. Damit, birdman! Didn't you noticed that the ''rebels'' not Assad forces recently took two more territories from ISIS two days ago? Courtsey of whom? The US, not Russia! Is that clear? And that pipeline would still get through, anyway. That is, by the time Assad becomes an ally of the US, and Erdogan, like Sakaashvili, becomes the governor of Damascus. Do you copy that? :-P Now, I don't think your head is only there on your shoulders, but right there above the skies where you rightly sees everything, ditto your assessment! Let those who have their head buried in ISIS anus continue to grope in the darkness of western propaganda, while suffocating in waves of russophobia and self denial. How it must pained to see a ''week Russia'' thwarting and completely bamboozled the hegemonic designs for the Ukraine and Syria. Its a real pain in the a*s, and the only way to comfort oneself is to revere in anti Putin delusive propaganda Give it up for the Langley graduants! |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Russia A Hollow Superpower-the Economist by Appleyard(m): 12:20pm On Mar 25, 2016 |
1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why The West Wanted Gaddafi Out by Appleyard(m): 2:02pm On Mar 23, 2016 |
Missy89:It makes a lot of sense, and you just partially answered yourself. What do you think constitute and underlined the current economic/financial system? Control! Why are most nations (especially third nations) of the world complaining about the current system? Unequal footing/Control! What do you think is motivating the likes of China, Russia to creating their own alternative rating and payment systems? Why has China overtime increase its dumping of US treasuries holdings? In one sentence: THEY WANT TO GET FREED FROM THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SATANIC BANKSTERS! The fiat money control mechanisms and the Bretton Wood's scheme from 1971 has proved to be subjugate factors limiting and constraining the economic freedom and financial sovereignty of states, while placing the life and future of the global economic order in the hands of a relative devilish few, and many states have discovered this enslaving schemes, hence, the moves to do away with the current settings. Just wait a minute... Another sign you do not understand economics. Lets Say Libya creates her own currency and ties it to gold like you claim, the "banksters" dont have to go thru Libya central bank to have dominion. Gold is a commodity and Libya currency value will be determined by the elasticity of gold on the commodity markets. meaning, The "dinar" will increase or decrease in value when miner x who lives in Sokoto or Siberia digs up another piece of gold.You see yourself?  Tell me which economic/financial model is devoid of the tendency of either inflationary or deflationary spiral, as determine by the market force;s of demand and supply, price mechanism and government monetary policies? I will tell you: None! so basing your analysis on aspects of inflation as justification to undermine gold backed currency and blatantly denying the “dark mind” behind the Libyan invasion, is totally myopic, and a disservice to the Globalist sheer concerted efforts to keep the status quo. Now listen! There are those who believe that a fully backed gold standard with all necessary conditions put in place, would reassure relative economic/financial discipline fairplay. That there actually exist a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. And that we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. To say that this the main factor driving the gold standard evangelists, would be an understatement. These proponents believe that complete deregulation and privatization (in for-profit hands) of public commons in the hands of few, but overwhelmingly powerful people, is the recipe for economic and financial slavery. All proponents of this theory agree that a nation's monetary system must fall into this category, of a public commons, to be managed in trust, by their government, for the common good of all its peoples. This is all the more true for a non-predatory international monetary system which ought to sensibly be held in global trust as a global public commons. And it is noteworthy for privatization impetus that as a non-predatory socio-economics system design principle, when there is an infinite demand for something, and the very life of every man and every woman may depend on its availability, holding it as a social benefit, in public trust, is the mark of wisdom; whereas privatizing it in unaccountable gluttonous hands, is a mark of predatory social Darwinianism. That is the one key central platform upon which all monetary reformers are united, and have always remain united throughout history. It forms one continuous resistance against aggregated wealth holders who have hijacked control of any nation's money supply. This resistance is profoundly historical, and even today, brings to bear its entire weight of all historical arguments made against private monopolistic control of a nation's money – from Julius Caesar to Cicero to Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln to William Jennings Bryan. The latter being the last of the great challengers to private wealth holders perpetually seeking to make a precious limited commodity like gold the standard currency, before the devilish orchestration in 1913, of the present day private banking cartel of the Federal Reserve System, did one better. Legally acquired exclusive private monopoly rights over the most common element, 'thin air'! Therefore, in these times, we are seeing a resumption of that same thread of resistance – with a clearer understanding of the devil before us, and with an even greater force of cumulative arguments – right from where William Jennings Bryan left off, continuing with his own precise principled words of 1896: “We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.” And of course, not neglecting to be inspired by America's famous “I killed the bank” President, Andrew Jackson's own motivating words: “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by God, I will rout you out.” And today we are seeing the same pattern of resistance --Libya under Ghadafi, Iraq under Saddam-- to the list of many nations now calling for their gold and piling up others. Today, what your myopic textbook theory failed to realize, is that, many countries are withdrawing their gold deposits with the US. The likes of Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, France, Germany, name it. It doesn’t end there. Ecuador, Finland, Switzerland, Venezuela, Romania and Poland: They’re all either talking about repatriating national gold or they’ve already done so. Some are clearly countries run by leaders with a populist agenda — to wit, Venezuela and Ecuador. Others are run by sober governments making sober decisions about national wealth in a time of global economic worry. So, if according to your “blind man's” theory gold is bullsh*t, and is only cranks who knows nothing that wants it, then why the hell are all these countries withdrawing their gold back, asking for them back or simply adding up on them? They are all cranks and id*ots, abi? I just they look you dey laugh. Face the facts and quit living in denial! These countries want their gold back because they’ve lost trust in the global banking system that they (some of them) themselves are the very heart of. They’re the wizards behind the fiat-currency curtain … and even now, they are scared! To them, it is better to have local gold back on home ground than exposed to a global financial system that could make retrieving gold in a crisis truly problematic. Taking back their own gold now is the safe bet in an unsafe world staring at the vengeful face of fiscal Armageddon… and thus by this act, it is effectively, a vote of no confidence in modern monetary policies. Let that sink in! Now, here is something to consider. In his open letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Keith Neumeyer, chairman of First Mining Finance, stressed that the actions of real-world producers and buyers are not determined by financial market operations which are conducted only on paper. “As China boosted its gold reserves to 600 tons, there is no reasonable ground to speak about the low demand for gold. In this situation gold prices should go up, but actually they do not, according to the article. It turns out that while the market prices indicate that gold is unpromising, real customers continue to buy it in record amounts, it explains.” Can't you see that your economic theory on “gold rush –dig-ups in Minna and Siberia, etc” only exist in text books and have no bearing on the facts on ground? Too many on Wall Street, inside the Fed, and those wandering around, talking down gold as a quaint relic, would have you believe that gold has no intrinsic value. Yet all over the world, central banks in countries giant and small disagree, and are piling up gold. The facts are overwhelming already. I dey laugh ooo. But the worst of your microscopic Steven Wonders analysis is yet to come! Please, don’t look below.  And by the way, The US have the largest gold reserve ( around 8,133 tonnes compared to the sh1tty 150 tonnes you keep talking about) so lets say every country returns to gold today, US will still be the richest country without breaking a sweat. not to mention most country have their gold stored in US vaults (Germany, IMF etc). They can kiss their goodbye and the US will still maintain her financial dominance. So it is like running in circles. Dollar still wins.Blood of goat! This shows that a lot of you guys are living in fantasy @ the bolded, with heads and anus buried in Langley propaganda textbooks. If the US would still remain the king, why are they running from the idea of a return to gold standard? Why are they attacking any nation that dares the current financial order? Like i said earlier, a lot of countries are now withdrawing their gold from the US and also from the Uk. Food for thought, eh? And what in hell makes you think that the US would still remain the dominant financial power once the gold standard sets in? This alone shows that you don't even understand the dynamics at play here. The U.S. went off the gold standard under President Nixon in 1971. What may not be widely known is that the classic gold standard that the U.S. was utilizing (which Britain and France had followed before) included a 40 percent cover ratio. What does that mean? “The government will only print money if it has gold in its Treasury equivalent to 40% of the currency in circulation. Phew! That means if you have $10 billion of money in circulation, you have to have $4 billion of gold in the Treasury. A lot of gold bulls don’t realize it was a 40 percent cover. Now, How Much Gold Is In Fort Knox? (Assuming that there is still actual gold left and that empty vaults are not being guarded, if rumors making the rounds that they have been sold to third parties or stolen, are something to go by.) Given that the current U.S. federal debt stands at $19 trillion-and still counting, it begs the question, how much gold does the United States own? Currently, the U.S. like you rightly said, does have the largest gold reserves in the world at 8,133.5 tons, according to the World Gold Council. Just for comparison, Germany is a distant second with 3,395.5 tons, (and is withdrawing its own.) So, the U.S. has a lot of gold, but is it enough to back all their debt? Not even close. Not to mention backing further spending. A New Orleans based precious metals investment firm, did some quick back-of-the-envelope math. “One ton equals 2000 pounds. One pound equals 16 ounces. 2000 times sixteen equals 32,000 ounces. With spot gold about $1,760, one ton equals about $56 million,” it says. That equals about $456 billion at current market value, or roughly half a trillion in gold, the report said. And it went further to say, “Even if we liquidated our gold we could only bring our debt down to $15.5 trillion,” Beam notes. “That’s a lot of shortfall. The next step [for the gold standard] is for them to revalue gold. It would make it go up by 400-500 percent David Hargreaves, a widely watched mining consultant, has actually calculated a figure at $40,000 per ounce, based on world GDP figures (roughly 100 trillion). Others have estimated a $10,000 per ounce. But, again even that could be high, as CPM Group’s Christian notes that most gold bulls are assuming a 100 percent cover rate, while historic gold standards have only boasted a 40 percent cover. Simply put, the big positive of a return to the gold standard “would give us fiscal discipline for governments, businesses and individuals,” says Ken Goldstein, economist at the New York-based Conference Board. “It would force all of us to be more fiscally responsible. (This is exactly what the globalists don’t want to hear. They must not be restricted by any means!) With all of these aforementioned facts, how is the US going to be the greatest and dominant nation when such standard set in? You see how shallow this your theory is? It doesn’t match the facts on the ground. And again, here are the facts you are stubbornly refusing to comprehend. 1. Why did the hegemon invading forces have to switch back the financial system set by Saddam back to the status quo immediately after the invasion of Iraq, if they, like you implied, don’t give a dime about the Dollar? 2. Why was Libya labeled a threat to the global financial order? (it was never seen as a threat until the gold dinar proposal) 3. In what way did Libya constitute a threat to the world financial dealings? (other than the gold dinar) 4. Why did the rebels set up a Central Bank of Benghazi within weeks of the uprising? (question for the gods) 5. Why are rebellious or terrorists groups like ISIS not setting up their own Central Banks in places like Syria, Iraq, despite being more formidably entrenched in business dealings and control of territories? (because Assad’s case is only “pipeline,” not the Dollar?) I guess Missy89 cannot tell. Because, they are not facts on the ground, just conspiracy theories. Even as Guatamela was conspiracy theory, Syria conspiracy theory, Iraq conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories every where. No, they don’t have anything to do with the oil, the mineral resources or the cash that controls them. At this point, I shook my head in disbelief.  Even when the heat was turned on against President Jonathan, and the Boko Haram activities quadrupled, immediately after Nigeria announced that it’s going to convert half of its foreign reserve holdings from Dollar into the Chinese Yuan, the western clueless (not saying you are one) still shout – “ Sharap there, Appleyard, Nairaminted, Scully95, Zoharariel – they are all conspiracy theories”. You guys at the other end of the divide need a Rehard Burnkey mix-with T.B Joshua crusade to deliver all of you from western institute of delusive confusion! The Langley prison is oozing! 1 Like
|
| Foreign Affairs › Re: America Is Finnished.the Humiliating Moment Iran Arrested Us Sailors. by Appleyard(m): 11:29pm On Mar 21, 2016 |
NairaMinted:What a pity! Papa Ajasco must hear this. 3 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Did The Simpsons Predict The Syrian Uprising in 2001? by Appleyard(m): 10:43pm On Mar 21, 2016 |
From all indications, Trump will win the race, but i fear he won't last. As for Syria, even a blind man knows the US was behind it all. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why Did I Take Downing Russia Jet By Turkey Personal by Appleyard(m): 10:24pm On Mar 21, 2016 |
|
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why The West Wanted Gaddafi Out by Appleyard(m): 9:48pm On Mar 21, 2016 |
Missy89:Maybe you should help me break into Langley and steal files to buttress my points, since the internet is no longer a viable place to source for infos, becos the factual evidence provided that succintly clarified d point, doesn't suit ur lying narative. I greet u. The Saddam dollar and Euro thing just shows how you lack basic understanding of economicI have warned you several times that the only stain on ur analytical credibility is ur prime failure in admisibility when faced with logical reasoning underlined by glaring Facts! The wars in the Middle East and North Africa were about oil and the cash that controls it, and i will tell you. So sweep that basic economic bullsh*t under the carpet and lets face facts! Why did the US invade Iraq? For the fun of it or what? And why was it that d 1st thing they did was to switch d payment system back to d status quo? Now hear this. Saddam was setting a 'dangerous' precedent. The same thing that Ghadafi was aiming for. The real reason he was ousted was that Libya – like Iraq under Hussein –challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks: again bringing to mind Gen. Wesley unveiled plot to take out seven countries which are Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. The most renegade of the lot was Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been directly attacked. It is interesting to note that six months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.'' Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar as Africa's currency. And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. One fact hardly mentioned by western demagogues and media pundits is that: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned … As at then, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank, Underlining the fact that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya and absorbing it into its hive of compliant nations, was a major aim that never appeared in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy. Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” was the real cause [of the Libyan war and killing of Gadhafi]. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit. And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension . No wonder French President Nicolas Sarkozy went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.'' Yes! Tell me how else is Libya a threat to the global order? I laf in swahili! Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and the elite in charge of the system, and “the central banking Ponzi scheme'' which requires an ever-increasing base of demand. No wonder the rebels within a week of the uprising announced the creation of their own Central Bank, a decision which left many analysts scratching their beards. As one aptly put it: “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Maybe Miss89 have. Even d MSM couldn't deny it that more sophisticated influence than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around, was at play. John Carney of the CNBC concluded inter alia, “It certainly indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.” Face the facts, Missy. It was all about oil and the money that controls it. Your ''Basic economic'' doesn't deny d fact. 1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 6:00pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
scully95:Were you expecting a reply from her? Have you forgotten how zombie-ism works? You see, a lot of people are blinded by hate and propaganda in so much that they have lost touch with reality and can't even comprehend simple facts by applying the sumpliest of logical reasoning. So you shold be able to know that anyone crediting the hegemon for the little peace Syria is currently enjoying, is an inmate doing life in the western prison of propaganda and zombification. Thats just it, brother. The empire of lies have always wanted a Base(Africom) in Nigeria/Ecowas to complete the chain of China containment. These have been the goal/plan right from day one and the goodnews is their Saudi arabia Wahhabi boko haram terrorist instituion affiliate are also getting pounded in Nigeria.Exactly on point. I so much thank God that Buhari is not as cluesless as Jonathan initially. One thing that has been keeping this nation together is the will to survive. God is really helping us, and with Him by our side, all their devilish wish against Nigeria will never succeed. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 5:43pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Embosman: |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 5:41pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Embosman:The truth hurt like a serpent, and you just said it. Keep it up. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why The West Wanted Gaddafi Out by Appleyard(m): 4:50pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Zoharariel:Insightful. US hegemony knows no boundary. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Hillary Clinton Appears Before Rally Completely Naked (SEE PHOTOS).. by Appleyard(m): 4:42pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Rubbish |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why The West Wanted Gaddafi Out by Appleyard(m): 2:46pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Missy89:Chai! I just can't believe YOU are the one actually typing this babel! Are you mistaken the intergrity of US administrative and policy objectivity for those of Nigeria where one successive government comes in and simply discontinue with and blatantly overhaul every policy and progam of the previous administration? How on earth could you say this, when you know that policies of one government, especially when they are strategic, overlaps successive goverments? There are so many policies of Bush that were consolidated on and continued by the Obama administration. I don't even need to sight examples. The world wide web is our friend; do your bit and feed your eyes with facts. This much was even succintly captured by Charlie Savage in his book ''Power Wars,'' and even corroborated by the NYT. In fact, Obama was making his peace with Bush's long war policy as early as Santa Cruz Day, 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up a plane over Detroit with a bomb in his underwear. The underwear bombing incident was both a political and policy jolt up for Obama. The tug and pull between security and reform that existed in the first year of his presidency effectively ended, and a kind of retrenchment began. Opining that since Bush policy makers were no longer making policies as at when Obama came into power, and thus have nothing to do with Libya or such, is a very childish argument. If policy formulations are to be based on your premise, then there would be no need for developing and undertaking strategic objectives. It was a Pentagon's objective to take out 7 states (covertly and overtly,) and under Bush we saw the achievements of part of this objectives - Iraq and co, and Obama's administration simply followed up on the rest, taken on Libya and now Syria. Yet, someone is saying it doesn't make sense, when the same Rumsfield policy attested to by Wesley Clark is acting its script, huh? I guess i will need to visit the Synagogue Church of All Nations to stand in gap for you guys for a mighty deliverance from the spirit of denial. T. B Joshua must hear this. France was the country calling for Qaddafi to go since February, It was a French initiative. Who proposed a no fly zone? France and Britain.US joined because France was an ally and a NATO member (and to enforce the no fly zone)France did no sh*t! US forces were already positioned off the coast of Libya, way before Cameron, reechoed by Sarkozy, proposed their no-fly zone. And saying that the US got in as an ally simply to enforce a no-fly zone, is again, a deservice to US hospitality of spreading ''democrazy'' through color coded revolution that was the hall mark of the Libyan uprising, which initially consisted of over 1000 Al Qaeda activists. We all know how the US embassy in Libya was used as a CIA forward base for the revolution. The whole thing was US game from day 1. Even the idea of "gold dinar" and "oil" doesn't make so much sense.Obama was not sitting on any nonesense fence! They knew what they were doing. The same Obama disregarded a Congress vote down on the authorization of war against Libya, and proceeded with it. And Its all about oil, gold and dinar..and it makes alot of sense! The motivation to overthrow Gaddafi was economic. Like in August of 2000, Saddam Hussein announced he was going to sell Iraq's oil for euros. In 2003, the first thing invading U.S. troops did was take over the Ministry of Oil and switch back to dollars. Even an article in the Economist mentioned this fact, but curiously buried it deep within a large article, and phrased it in a way designed to inoculate readers against its significance. Gaddafi was about to introduce a gold dinar. A tiny but powerful group of political and financial elite enjoy the exclusive privilege of creating dollars out of nothing and forcing the entire world to use them as money. They do this by requiring the use of dollars to buy natural resources and in general to participate in the global economy. The defense of this privilege explains much U.S. government foreign policy and belligerence. This explains not only why Iran is presented as a threat, but why Russia and China are the new big concerns. The role of the dollar as the world reserve currency is coming to an end, but the powers that be aren't letting it happen without a fight. These are facts, and not what you termed rants and crankery! God is calling you, Missy89. Repent now before its too late! ;-) 2 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why The West Wanted Gaddafi Out by Appleyard(m): 9:04pm On Mar 19, 2016 |
Missy89:I read you! It is true that France had a criminal motive (for obvious reasons as refered to by the article) to see a regime change in Libya, but the Libya's intervention was never a French idea at the first place! Toppling Gaddafi was planned right after 9/11, or perhaps even before. Just as American reporter Gareth Porter aptly reported in 2008: Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders. Feith’s book,War and Decision, now released, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on ''taking down Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network,'' but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states… of which Libya was chief. The testimony of Gen. Wesley Clark further corroborated this facts. The invasion of Libya was never of French origin, but a United States strategic policy ab initio. Again, you tried to make it look like France led the rest players in the one-sided encounter, and that the US only join the party in march; but that is not totally the case. From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition consisted of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, which later expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. Which already had its fleet carrier ''the Enterprise'' in place way before the hostilities commenced on march 19th. The March 23 NATO take over was spearheaded by the US, without whom NATO is a toothless bulldog (we all know that the US runs NATO, and its the official commander.) The major players all started bombings and major operations same day. So, how did the US came in late? But lets forget about that. Back to the question: what were the bases of the US involvement? 2 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Donald Trump: What Does The Mass Support For Him Suggests About The USA? by Appleyard(m): 12:17pm On Mar 19, 2016 |
anonymous6:I Agree with you. The awakening is becoming more and more pronounce. People are now coming out of their shells, and the sound of a revolution is brewing in the horizon. Whether Trump wins or not, the seed has been sown. 3 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Dominican Religious Groups Want U.S. Ambassador Remove Over Gay Propagation by Appleyard(m): 11:53am On Mar 19, 2016 |
The senior advocate of Satan turning the natural to the unnatural everywhere they go in the name of ''democra-zy.'' 1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Why The West Wanted Gaddafi Out by Appleyard(m): 11:39am On Mar 19, 2016 |
Missy89:I have one question for you, dear Missy. What were the bases for the American led invasion of Libya? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 7:54pm On Mar 16, 2016 |
bonechamberlain:Exactly my point. Assad already negotiating from a position of strenght. I wonder why some of us just can't call things the way they are. 2 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 7:41pm On Mar 16, 2016 |
Tkester2:Dear brother, there is always a way that seemed right unto a man, but the end thereof is destruction... So, shield your sword Souljah and Let sleeping dogs lie... Only time and events hereafter will prove all of us right or wrong! So chill, Soulja! |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 7:30pm On Mar 16, 2016 |
Tkester2: 2 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 1:11pm On Mar 16, 2016 |
ValerianSteel:The earlier you and your Langley mother, Missy89 , stop being like Obasanjo (who love to hear the sound of his own voice than logical reasoning,) the better you will become, signore. No offence meant, pls! Now, initially, when the Syrian crisis started, who was all over the place calling for a political solution to the crisis? Let me help you. It was Russia. But as usual, the United States of Abomination, Abomicity and Abomilocal government and it's western cronies didn't give a dime to what Russia was saying. They were hell bent on toppling Assad, and Russia can go to hell with it's interest. But when the Red Army, led by the archangel Putin, who stand before the right hand of Jah, "entered the dragon'' in Syria, with the wrath and fierceness of heaven, bombing CIA control rooms and their pet projects like the IS, Al Nustra front, so-called ''moderate rebels'' and many more of those sons of Cain begotten by the seed of the serpent; they suddenly and painfully realized that they weren't acting ''hollywitch movie.'' Since then, who started calling for peace? Again, i will help you. None other but the United States led west. The shameless demagogues were shocked to their bones as they could only watch on from the by-lines as the angry Bear smashes their entire investments to pieces, outflanked them and completely destroy all their diabolic designs towards Syria, and Russia in the actual sense. Since they have nothing else to do to deter the Kremlin, after the SU-24 scheme failed, they shamelessly and practically pleaded with Moscow to come to the negotiating table. I have lost count of how many trips and phone calls Kerry made to and fro the Moscow route like Satan looking for Job, just to convince Russia to come to the negotiating table. Now, ask yourself and be truthful: who will be negotiating from a position of strenght? Who will be setting the conditions under the rules of negotiations for peace to reign? Assad or the terrorists? If Assad, then who create the enabling environment and the resultant framework that has necessitated this ungoing negotiations? Was it the Russian intervention or the successes of the terrorists? If it's what am thinking, then, who is now the main driving force and the major determinant that should influence whatever decisions to be taking and conclusions reach in Geneva? The terrorists or Assad/Russia? I leave all these questions for you and to all unbias minds and apostles of truths like SirShymmex, Underground, Nairaminted, Zoharariel, Scully95, Cyrus000, bonechamberlain, and others to answer. Even western ''ministries of truth'' like the NYT and others, have said the same thing. My brother, this is reality, not propaganda. On Nigeria and Boko Haram, Russia and IS, you made sense, in the sense that, ''technical defeat'' is defeat in the actual sense of the word. When you see orgnizations like boko Haram and IS in Iraq and Syria resulting to suicide bombings like in Homs and Bagdad, as the primary means of attack and measurement of success, instead of the previous capturing and controlling of many territories; then know that they have taken serious beaten, and the use of suicide missions is a testament to their almost zero or increasing inabilily to capture and own territories like before. This is what is happening now in Nigeria, as Boko Haram can no longer boast of any territory in the north under their control like the previous time when they control over nine local governments. All they could do now is ''hit and run'', or plain suicide mission. Therefore, one can say, they have be ''technically defeated.'' But it will interest you to know that the US recently claim that Boko Haram are still holding lots of Local governments in Nigeria. But last i checked, even schools have resumed in previously occupied territories deep in the north. So whats the US driving at? Why are they still insisting on sending troops even when we have refused? To resurrect and continue their pet project, i guess! On IS, though they continue to hold places in Syria and Iraq, there is no denying the fact that they have been hit hard by the tiny Russian intervention in Syria, and as well as the reselient push from the Iraqi army. These are not lies but facts! 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 11:19am On Mar 16, 2016 |
scully95:Again, very thoughtful and optimistic analysis. You see, the problem with most of our brethren at the other end of the divide is that, when they see A, they would call it Aa, instead of A. Most of them (except a few) love to live in self denial, being hateful of Russia, and as a result, they find themselves swimming with the devil in an avalanche of lies and delusion. If not, how on earth could someone possibly be applauding and supporting a country like the US known for sponsoring IS, Al Qaeda, etc? A country with the world largest conventional capabilities, who claim to be fighting IS, suddenly ''ran out of ammos'' and so could not take out IS oil convoy? And some people could still fall for such deception. I pray that someday, God will open the eyes of their understanding to see things as they are. On the possibility of Turkey and Satan Arabia taken advantage of the Russian withdrawal to invade Syria, i think their militaries would not be that daft to undertake such pact. The reasons are not far fetched. The Russian withdrawal have set the stage for a favourable and enduring resolution of the crisis, for which Europe would be the greatest benefactor, as it would ease the migrant pressure on the European mainland and bring a sigh of relief to the various governments across the EU zone. Therefore, any foolish moves on the part of Turkey and Satan Arabia, that further escalate the crisis, would definitely trigger outrage from Europe, most of whose leaders are already publicly angry with Erdogan's take over of a major newspaper, and increasing totalitarianism. And should this happen, any action that would thereafter be taken by Russia, would be passively supported by some notable European powers like France and Germany, then Greece, who have not hidden their dislike for Turkey under sultan Erdogan. Again, invading Syria would no longer be that easy. The Syrian army have now recieved alot of armament from both Russia and Iran, making the SAA plus Hezbolla and Iranian troops on the ground, more capable and dangerous than ever. There are rumours that the Russians are leaving behind some sets of the upgraded S-300Vs and other such armaments. And so, if Turkish birds (after the long self incaceration following the SU-24 brouhaha) are tempted to resume flights, then starts falling from the skies, i won't be surprise. Alot has change within six months. Plus the fact that such invasion would trigger sharp responses from the west itself, and untold retaliations from the Kremlin and Tehran. Believe me, it would be game over for them if they toe that pact now. Secondary, the Russians must have considered and anticipated this possibility, and they know how Europe would react to such an outcome: and this would further lend credence to whatever actions they may have up their sleeves. That should explain why they are significantly moving equipments into Armenia, while at the same time, they have redirected many of their satellites in orbit over the Syria airspace to cover all of Syria. It seems like a trap has been laid and the Bear is waiting to pounce. Now, you can understand why i said i smell something. 2 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 9:08am On Mar 16, 2016 |
NairaMinted:Thanks Soulja! Of course, objectives, not just achieved, but overwhelmingly achieved. Something that the coalition of sin could not do for years, a tiny deployed Russian military asset did just within six months. Andre fomine was right, but what he didn't comprehend about Putin's statement on ''objectives achieved'' was that, as long as Russia exist on the world map, no PIPELINE would cross from the Middle East, and pass through Syria into the main heart of Europe, seeking to undermine Russia's economic leverage. This is the underlying meaning to what Putin meant by ''objectives achieved.'' It was a paradoxical statement enveloped in euphemism. The summation of the matter is that, no western designs that seeks to undermine Moscow's economic viability would be allowed in Syria, even if Assad is not there. That is what the intervention entails. Ukraine and Syria are Russia's RedLines no man must cross. The Russians have again made that clear. Cross them, and there would always be a sad song! 5 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Vladimir Putin Orders Russian Forces To Begin Withdrawing From Syria by Appleyard(m): 12:18pm On Mar 15, 2016 |
bonechamberlain:So much sense! The house of Anarchy are finding it hard to keep tabs on Putin's every move. They just can't comprehend it. The terrain is now steady, and Assad's position cemented for the time being. That's why paliamentary elections would be taking place next month. The terrorists , so-called ''moderates'', can't negotiate from any position of strenght. The Russian intervention has made it clear - having restored Assad to the status quo. Now, i don't see why people should be disappointed with this move. Infact, as much as the hegemon and it's cronies are concerned, a Russian withdrawal could be much worse than a contineous presence In Syria. This is because: 1. The withdrawal underscores a de jure victory for the Russian side in both political and military terms. Militarily, it has enabled the Russians to bamboozed their russophobic and myopic military planners, analysts and geopolitical strategist counterparts in the west coast: by their rapid deployment and showcasing capabilities previously unknown; and as well dislodged the silly prevailing wisdom in the west on the inferiority of Russia's capabilities - consequently opening up the shallow minds of the deluded pigmies from western institutes of zombie-ism, jolting them back to reality as they stare in awe and wonder with mouths agape and eyes bulging like google AdsenSe. Politically, the withdrawal has tacitly and pragmatically underlined and denotes that Russia's commitment to a political solution to the Syrian debacle, is concrete, and is no longer in doubt before the very eyes of the international community. The ''burden of guilt and committal'' has now been shifted to the hegemon and its western partners in crime, whom must now prove to their people the propensity of their motives in lieu of terrorism and peace of the Syrian people. This is one quagmire the west never wanted to find themselves. Ask the Germans! Merkel is now losing regional elections, courtsey of the Syrian ''rapefugees.'' Borders are being closed in Macedonia and elsewhere. Frustration and suffocation on the already volatile EU and global economy is gradually threatening a tsunami of unprecedented economic turbulence. Adrenaline on the rise. So, they must now make a choice - continue with their sick policy of 'Assad must go', and risk further refugees implosion and possible revolts at home: or pitche tent with the Russians by fully commiting to the peace deal in Geneva, which is virtually on Russia's terms, with Assad as chief across the table; thereby accepting defacto defeat, while shamefully acquiescing to the fact that the policy to topple Assad was a foolish and stupid one from the word go! At this point, i can imagine how angry the hegemon and it's European cronies must be feeling right now. The chess master has left them caught up in the middle like a destitute in Michael Jackson's Stranger in Moscow. What a game! 2. The withdrawal notice parallels the 'clear-the-air notice delivered to the US earlier, with both carrying the element of ''shock'' entailing the successful ''entrance and exit from the Syrian dragon'', with the barest minimum of casualties, and yet, overwhelming accomplishment; all of which further showcase the Bear as the grand master of the geopolitical game, as it successfully out foxed, outwitted and outmaneuvered western diabolic designs for Syria. 3. Now this is the tricky part. If and only if by virtue of this withdrawal, the Syrian government is to be directly threatened by direct invasion, say by Turkey or Satan Arabia, the current withdrawal would further increase the legitimacy of the Russian excuse to defend Syria, on the ground that it provided for and created the necessary environment for peaceful settlement of Syria, and as such, any action that would be taken to the contrary, will provide the Russians to respond in massive and devastating proportions. This much is real in the sense that, while Putin has ordered a pull out of Syria, more significant increase in weaponry to Armenia, are been reported. I smell Something! 2 Likes |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Activist & Ex-cia Analyst Beaten, Arrested For Silent Protest At Clinton Speech by Appleyard(m): 5:56pm On Mar 13, 2016 |
The United States, fastly becoming a police state. 1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu Turns Down Obama Meeting And Cancels US Trip by Appleyard(m): 4:15pm On Mar 13, 2016 |
Missy89:Ted Cruz simply reiterated what has always been a major part of US Foreign Policy. Needless to say he is an influential personality. This does not make any sense. You said whoever control the US congress shapes US policy. I asked why the republican control congress is unable to shape Obama's Iran policy. You went on a rant that doesn't make any sense. you saidNow i know why you mostly get on the wrong side of Sir Shymmex I gave you the simple reasons why the jews couldn't stop the Nuclear deal or have their way with Iran, and you didn't even provide any form of counter argument, other than dancing on the wavelenghts of repeatition - asking the same question over and over again. Na wa for you o, Missy.The rest of the post doesn't need a response. But i will give you credit. At least you try to mask your crankery with superfluous rhetoric unlike your buddiesTake it or leave it, my lady. The needs of Israel as a nation shapes American Foreign Policy. If you don't believe it, do a simple online survey and see the numbers of Americans who knows the Jews infuences US Foreign Policy, ditto the MidEast. Lest i forget: i hope you know Trump is winning? So get ready because people like you would get kicked out alongside Obama. ;-) I will personally recommend you, my dear Missy89. You know i need you to take care of the kitchen and tend to my Siberian projects at Igbudu Market in Warri. :-P Hope you won't get mad at me? ;-) 1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu Turns Down Obama Meeting And Cancels US Trip by Appleyard(m): 10:25pm On Mar 12, 2016 |
NairaMinted:You are correct. Obama told French Man that Netanyaho is a liar. That he can't stand it any longer. But i think it was the current French prime minister. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu Turns Down Obama Meeting And Cancels US Trip by Appleyard(m): 10:06pm On Mar 12, 2016 |
Missy89:Again , you are making much ado about nothing. Call it a book or even ecyclopaedia, what i did was just explain at lenght a major reason why the Israeli lobbyHood and all of it's sympathisers in the US legislative arm, couldn't get their way on Iran. One thing i have found in you is that you like living in denial, and perhaps, this is the only blemish on your golden robe of critical analysis. Tying down Isreal's inability to invade Iran Using the US, or failure to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, as the yardstick in determining the degree of Isreal's needs infuencing US FP, is a very weak argument to begin with. Even the most dumbest US citizen knows that the political and strategic life of Israel is one of the major pinnacle that informs the basics and direction of US foreign Policy. This much was even made clear by Ted Cruz in a speech during a recent campaign, in which he stated that '' the needs of Israel must continue to form an integral part of US foreign policy, and that the US must continue to defend Israel.'' Guess what happened after that... He received a standing ovation, followed by complimentary comments from thousands upon thousands of Americans both present and from around the States. Why? Because he just stated and reiterated a well entrenched conservative doctrine governing US F.P. But that's where the problem lies. That's why he will Never win, and that's why Trump may coast to victory! Most Americans are tired of war and rumours of war. Tired of the ''death trap'' that's the MidEast. Tired of the MIC and US military ops outside the country. And this is exactly what the likes of Ted Cruz and the Criminal Hitlary Clinton represents. You need to see the huge wave of support that swung Trump's way after making his Moslem ban speech, and his vow to stay neutral on the Isreali Palestine issue, as well as meddling ties with the likes of Russia. I can still recall his speech: ''what a hell do we need war with Russia for?'' This is why the man will coast to victory, cos Americans are fed up with all the bullshits (No wonder they are calling for his assasination.) These are facts, and not over simplifying! Am even surprised that you are actually arguing this. Pls read the work of John J. Mearsheimer on ''The Israeli Lobby and US foreign policy.'' The fact that they could not get their way with Iran, does not in any way implies incompetency on their part. In fact, it was also due to the powerful arm of this notorious Israeli lobby that influences America's decision, inter alia, to impose sanctions on Iran, at the first place. Iran was NEVER A SECURITYTHREAT to Pentagon, at any time. Even the poorest American sergent know that to be true. I can't help but laugh when i hear people classifying Iran as a security risk to the US. Everything was virtually for Israel's interest.The odds was always against Isreal on Iran. Militarily, they would have invaded if Tehran was sharing borders with the city of David, but unfortunately, Iran is miles away from Israel's full ground might, and the Jews doesn't possess much of the required conventional tenacity/will to fight a prolong war for which Iran is known for. Nor does it possess the sheer size and complete conventional might, like the US, to invade Iran for a quick victory. It was never going to be easy, since Iran is no Somalia or Idi Amin's Uganda. Without the US, it is a Herculian task for the sons of Abraham. The IDF job is to prepare itself for the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. But regarding such a scenario also revolves around operative questions like: will the Americans provide Israel with an airspace corridor over Iran? How many fuel jets will be required? Etc. The important question is how willing the U.S. is to protect or aid Israel in the event of a counter attack or war with Iran. The message Israel is getting from Obama's administration at this time is that it is out of the question - and thus the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran diminishes drastically. The US under Obama was never ready for war, (which is one of the reasons he got elected,) and he made that clear right from day one on his campaign, and his stance on Afghan further reiterated that position. Plus the fact that he has over time demonstrated conciliatory tendency towards islam; all of these formed the bases why the Jews could not get their way on Iran. It was never out of incompetence! The truth is bitter, but we must live it! 1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu Turns Down Obama Meeting And Cancels US Trip by Appleyard(m): 2:44am On Mar 10, 2016 |
Missy89:Again, stop this your fishing patterns, it only invokes unnecessary discourse. And i see you have tacitly accepted the facts on the MIC, therefore, let that rest in peace! You do know you deliberately misquoted me? Maybe not what i thought. I said ''whoever runs congress shapes America's foreign policy.'' You know how vibrant that chamber is in US law making history, and its no secret how the Isreali lobby-Hood influences the decision making process about vital international issues, on many occassions. There is no need to cite examples; the list is almost endless. The fact that they couldn't have their way regarding Iran, does not in any way deny the strong grip they had over the law making process-vis US foreign policies. Iran was always a mission impossible. Why? Because the required ''degree of responsiveness of the populace'' was in the negetive. Let me explain! In the US, throughout the history of America's political and economic life, as hijacked and controlled by the elites, call them diabolic, greedy banksters, Satanist, the globalist, or whatever you want: no matter how strong they are, how diabolic, or gruesome in acts and in omission, there is always one thing they fear, one that in a way keep them in check; The Fear of the People. No government however powerful, that is more powerful than the collective will of his people. When the collective will of a people is challenged under a given situation that involves the government as the reason for the conflict, if that will became divided, with half or more than half siding with the state, the ruling class and their governmental machinery will continue having their way as long as possible, due to the acquiesence of the notable or majority divide, and it's evil ways would become more legitimate, since legitimacy is derived from the people. But if the reverse is the case, no matter how sophisticated, how cruel and powerful that government may be, it would eventually get crushed and dethroned, though many would die before the dawn breaks. The sanctity of this doctrine is enshrined in natural law, and where it is further given credence by positive law (legislation,) it's tenacity as a brazen reality becomes the more hardened and incontrovertible. This is exactly what the American people represent (the 1st and 2nd Amendments & The Bill of Rights quickly comes to mind.) To say that the elites-ruling class, are afraid of the people, is not an exaggeration. That's why the NSA is massively spying on its own people. That's why it has been signed as law that foreign troops can be deployed into the country in case of a 'massive unrest.' That's why they had to sensored Putin's speech so the people don't get to know what was being revealed. That's why they have to lie to the people in so much that when suspicion set in, they resort to ''false flag'' operations like 9/11, to keep them in line. Now, 9/11 was a false reality created to pave the way for the thrust against Iraq and the Talibans. They needed it for the people to fall in. Despite some protest and lack of credible evidence, majority of Americans supported the wars, after Bush gave a resounding speech chocolated with mouth gaping lies, the Elites went to war. The degree of responsiveness of the populace was positively elicited! It was mission successful. But when d economic realities later sets in, much of the people started to view life in a different perspective. The realisation that Iraq never had any weapon of mass destruction, was the last straw that broke the carmel's back. They have had enough! Never again would they easily fall for such craps. Infact, from there on, especially when the holes in 9/11 started filtering in, the people began to see d government as ''an enemy.'' And what happened in Hammond was a symbol of this reality. The awakening is gradually developing symptoms. The goverment knew, and b4 it gets to maturity, the guns must be taken away. And here comes gun control. All i have been trying to say is that Isreal sees Iran as a strategic threat to its existence, and thus have made it no secret to invade Iran. But they can't go it alone without the US. Here lies the problem! Most Americans don't want to hear of wars anymore, and though the Jews have a strong lobbyHood and emotional/orthodox sympathisers within the ranks of the legislative houses, the fact remains that they still have to answer to the people who are still licking their wounded memories. The positive response was never there, and d Jews couldn't have their way this time! The ill rapport with Obama who sympathises with Islam, didnt help matters, coupled with the fact that the Iraq memories are still very fresh, Obama had his way, and he won! There are other reasons, though, as to why they couldn't stop it. But the fact remains that Jewish interests largely dictates US Foreign policies! 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu Turns Down Obama Meeting And Cancels US Trip by Appleyard(m): 9:07pm On Mar 09, 2016 |
Missy89:Stop fishing in shallow waters. We know that whoever runs congress shapes American foreign policy, and the Jews do. They run congress and dictates America's foreign policy. And whomever runs America's foreign policy, also controls the MIC. Its no secret that the jews runs Homeland Security, and zionist banks are behind almost every project funding of the MIC. Common sister: even before now, we have been furnished with a deeper insight into this MIC and the warlords behind it. They call them the Khazars of the London City. NB: The London City Bankster bosses are elitist Ashkenazy Jews –by no means Khazars, a Tutk people existing about 900-1200 in the Caucasus. They converted to Judaism. The Ashkenazy genesare mixed male Jewish and European female genes – but their elite have mixed the supremacist Judaic Talmudic religion with Shabbataean-Frankist satanism. The phrase Khazar instead of Ashkenazy was launched by Jewish author Arthur Koestler in order not to separate Jews from Ashkenazy Jewish Rothschild crimes. Today, Khazar is used to avoid the most terrible of all invectives: “Antisemite.” |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 (of 245 pages)