International Relations Omnibus

[Nintii]

Hah, non-partisan ... The Council for Foreign Relations was founded on Marxist principles ... and I quote ...

 

"The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Actually, he was more than just a prominent aide of the President; he dominated the President. He was referred to as Wilson’s "alter ego" (other self), and was credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.

 

House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912, House wrote the book "Philip Dru: Administrator" in which he stated that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In this book, House laid out a plan ... telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. And he asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank, which were both proposed in "The Communist Manifesto". And it was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, that both of these proposals became law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the united States Congress. And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified.

 

end quote ... actually I should have made the entire quotation orange.

 

And I quote yet again ...

 

"The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR[, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":

 

"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."

 

[i guess the Prof should know seeing he was one of them, right]

 

"Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the Cfr for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization’s intentions:

 

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereingty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

 

[And another legit voice steps out of the closet]

 

And Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., summarized the organization’s purpose as follows:

 

"The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it."

 

[ And another one]

 

In other words, the CFR’s activities are treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to put an end to the United States of America, and to make the country a part of their global government scheme.

 

end quote ...

 

I don't need to continue and i'm not going to defend the above ... I'm sure a bit of research will verify the claims made AGAINST the CFR by the PEOPLE who were ACTUAL MEMBERS of the GROUP.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Nintii

[ginnyfizz]

QED, Aurelius.

 

So a conservative site article and the PDF which was an official US court transcript IIRC (and I know I do) are not valid evidence, but the Muslim Brotherhood's own website IS valid and of course totally unbiased?

:facepalm:

 

That article you linked, marharth, says nothing very much. Although a House Committee could not all totally agree about the subject, they were in little doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood has inspired terror and has some very dubious friends (Al Qaeda, Hamas, you know who you are....);-

 

FBI Chief says Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism

 

Whatever you think of Mubarak, they did try to assassinate him, not exactly peaceful methinks.

 

Here's another article

 

Muslim Brotherhood

 

Renouncing violence in public, teaching and inspiring Ayman al Zawahiri in private. Peaceful chaps to be sure. And the word "Brotherhood" is pretty significant. I wonder what the women think about it all? Not a lot, I suspect, but then of course, they won't count.

[marharth]

I read your links and looked further into the site. To be fair you should of posted these links earlier. What it led me to realize was that even if they were not violent, they still incite violence within other groups and people.

 

The PDF was a single member speaking about the group, in the past, in a US branch. I still do not see that as valid evidence. I also do not see a right wing biased site as valid evidence. The reason I thought they were non violent was due to previous news reports and the online site I mentioned. Also saw the thing I linked. It is a bit diffusivity to switch positions when the only thing given to me originally was a PDF file. Like seriously if I told you something that was completely against what you thought as true would you take a single PDF file as your only evidence to switch your opinion? That is besides the point anyways.

 

Also I did some research into the site and noticed that the Arabic version is actually significantly different then the English one. The Arabic one uses the normal symbol in the banner with swords and has text that has something to do with "get ready." Also noticed on the Arabic one it mentioned martyrs and some other strange stuff. I should of checked this earlier actually.

 

Also I would like to mention I never agreed with the Muslim Brotherhood. I am a Atheist and I dislike almost every religion. I understood they had some bad ideas and morals, but that is not what I was auguring about. I thought they were non violent.

[Lisnpuppy]

You doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat?

Then try reading this;-

 

Fear The Muslim Brotherhood

 

Of coursethey want you to believe that they are peaceful. A rose (or rather an Al Qaeda) by any other name....

@Ginney

We have covered this ground with a certain unread 'Nameless'. You present evidence, he will say not good enough, you will present more convincing evidence he will say 'logical fallacy', you will get frustrated and post the most devastating proof you can find and will get a one liner in return. Why don't we just cut to the chase instead....he won't accept any evidence no matter how factual or convincing that you present and you will get frustrated banging your head against that wall. As far as the Muslim Brotherhood goes.... you see them as the threat they are and 'Nameless' does not.

 

That MIGHT save six or seven posts..or not. :confused:

 

 

This is completely off-topic and unnecessary. Don't comment on post of people you have on ignore or speak of "nameless" posters. This is dangerously close to flame-baiting. Don't do it again.~Lisnpuppy

[Nintii]

Well another thing that has also caught my interest of late is the NEW REGIME IN NORTH KOREA ... let's hope that the new set man Kim Jong-un will finally end the madness and the games his father played with their nuclear capabilities and finally get North Korea on the road to a desperately needed recovery ... after all how long must a nation's people eat grass (fact) before it's leaders see reason and abandon the failed Stalinist doctrines of lack and destruction ?

 

Here is the latest news (1st of March 2012) from the Telegraph on the current goings on over there, and i quote:

 

"Robert Gates, the former US defence secretary, had a salty phrase for summing up the problem of negotiating with North Korea. "I'm tired of buying the same horse twice," he said while attending a security conference in Singapore in 2009.

 

Gates was referring to a familiar pattern that has emerged in America's dealings with the world's last Stalinist state. North Korea promises to freeze its nuclear programme in return for US food aid or other concessions. Washington duly supplies the goods, while North Korea breaks the deal. Pyongyang then says "please give us more aid and we will keep the deal that we've already broken". The US coughs up again – and North Korea breaks its side of the bargain. Again. And so the process goes on, with North Korea extracting more concessions in return for agreeing to keep an agreement that it has already broken (and then reneging on the deal to keep the deal).

 

North Korea's latest pledge to stop enriching uranium and obey a moratorium on nuclear weapons tests should be seen in this light. You might remember that back in 2007, North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions altogether. The Bush administration duly removed it from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. Whereupon North Korea conducted a nuclear test in 2009.

 

The odds must be that North Korea will cheerfully ignore the new deal in the same way that it has broken all the others. This time, however, there is a new regime in Pyongyang, with Kim Jong-un having inherited power from his father. That is why the Americans are willing to give this a go: they want to test whether the new fat Kim might be different from the old thin Kim. If this agreement actually sticks, then something important really will have changed in North Korea. As such, this is an important moment.

end quote.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Nintii

[HeyYou]

Well another thing that has also caught my interest of late is the NEW REGIME IN NORTH KOREA ... let's hope that the new set man Kim Jong-un will finally end the madness and the games his father played with their nuclear capabilities and finally get North Korea on the road to a desperately needed recovery ... after all how long must a nation's people eat grass (fact) before it's leaders see reason and abandon the failed Stalinist doctrines of lack and destruction ?

 

Here is the latest news (1st of March 2012) from the Telegraph on the current goings on over there, and i quote:

 

"Robert Gates, the former US defence secretary, had a salty phrase for summing up the problem of negotiating with North Korea. "I'm tired of buying the same horse twice," he said while attending a security conference in Singapore in 2009.

 

Gates was referring to a familiar pattern that has emerged in America's dealings with the world's last Stalinist state. North Korea promises to freeze its nuclear programme in return for US food aid or other concessions. Washington duly supplies the goods, while North Korea breaks the deal. Pyongyang then says "please give us more aid and we will keep the deal that we've already broken". The US coughs up again – and North Korea breaks its side of the bargain. Again. And so the process goes on, with North Korea extracting more concessions in return for agreeing to keep an agreement that it has already broken (and then reneging on the deal to keep the deal).

 

North Korea's latest pledge to stop enriching uranium and obey a moratorium on nuclear weapons tests should be seen in this light. You might remember that back in 2007, North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions altogether. The Bush administration duly removed it from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. Whereupon North Korea conducted a nuclear test in 2009.

 

The odds must be that North Korea will cheerfully ignore the new deal in the same way that it has broken all the others. This time, however, there is a new regime in Pyongyang, with Kim Jong-un having inherited power from his father. That is why the Americans are willing to give this a go: they want to test whether the new fat Kim might be different from the old thin Kim. If this agreement actually sticks, then something important really will have changed in North Korea. As such, this is an important moment.

end quote.

 

I fully expect the new kim to be exactly the same as the old kim. After all, his policies worked great. He has the advantage. Absolute power over his people, control of any media within his state, so, his people are left with just HIS side of the story (about how the US is evil, and is making every effort to keep the N. Korean people in poverty.....). The army is pretty happy, and are unlikely to toss him out on his ear..... The whole "pretend you are giving them what they want, until I get what I want, and then going off and doing exactly as I please" formula has worked perfectly. They made numerous promises, and have kept none, they have attacked S. Korea, at least twice.... and completely gotten away with it. All the other parties involved are oh so careful about using diplomacy, sanctions, etc, when the only thing that is going to actually WORK, is military action. Kim knows the world has lost it's taste for the US invading small countries, so they pretty much have carte blanche. I am sure they would also have zero issues testing one of their nukes on some targets in S. Korea, or, even in their own territory, if they felt it would give them an advantage.

[Nintii]

@ HeyYou ... agreed, I'm sure that the Army over their would toss the "fat Kim" out on his blessed assurance if gave into any American demands in any real way ... and yes, the military option to freeing the NK's seems to be the best solution to save that people but I doubt that China is going to sit idly by and allow any Western styled democracy to pop up on it's door step either.

[HeyYou]

@ HeyYou ... agreed, I'm sure that the Army over their would toss the "fat Kim" out on his blessed assurance if gave into any American demands in any real way ... and yes, the military option to freeing the NK's seems to be the best solution to save that people but I doubt that China is going to sit idly by and allow any Western styled democracy to pop up on it's door step either.

 

Good points. (excellent points...) China is the problem here. For a supposed "ally", they sure are a funny one. And given that we are SSSSoooooooo dependent on China now for a pretty good percentage of our manufactured goods..... (not to mention the money our government borrows from them....) we can't really afford to annoy them. I think China has more sway over the american government than the american people do at this point.

[Marxist ßastard]

I doubt that China is going to sit idly by and allow any Western styled democracy to pop up on it's door step either

Um, China enjoys quite healthy relations with Mongolia and South Korea.

 

EDIT: I was going to tell you to educate yourself and start reading Foreign Policy, but you think the CFR is an Illuminati conspiracy... so yeah...

 

 

Please see My link ~Lisnpuppy

Edited March 2, 2012 by Lisnpuppy

[Nintii]

@ HeyYou ... it just struck me as I was reading your response ... if that was the case of America being so dependant on China then it not also be a reciprocal that China would be dependant on America and then, America would at very least have some sort of leverage in the area to have the Chinese toss out the regime in NK ... for the sake of NK's people.

Also, NK could go gaga and use their nukes on the Chinese as well, so it's in their best interest to push the NK to a final and permanent solution.

 

@ MarxistBastard ... I'm not to clued up with Mongolian politics but will look at the SK's.