Why would we do that? For one thing, tons of Afghans' livelihoods are in opium production. You don't just disenchant the entire southern Afghan country by destroying their means of living. We've already pushed some of the more moderate tribes into extremism by destroying more poppy fields than was necessary. And it's not like all opium is sold into illegal markets. Painkillers prescribed in hospitals are derived from these opiates. It's a very important drug for treating pain.
Then explain why they haven't destroyed their heroine factories.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, the war is about money(power). I'm just trying to show some people that it wasn't for the welfare of the people, it wasn't in the interest of catching Osama or Sadam, the soul purpose was power. The Taliban burnt the fields in order to hurt the U.S. so we had to find a justified reason to come in and regrow them. It also had to do with a pipeline that we needed to build that would span Afghanistan. Iraq was just where we decided to set up our base of power in the middle east. I guarantee our next target is Iran. America is seeking to be The World Police. I don't see how any of you can deny it. The whole world is a chessboard for those with true power, America is just playing smart.
I'm really torn on this issue though. On one hand I want a single government and language (maybe Japaneses). But on the other I fear we may lose what rights we have left. On one hand the power of a single government could do spectacular things. But on the other the power of a single government could do atrocious things.
This thread is designed to seek out the problems and solutions of a singular government, to come up with a dynamic solution to control power and keep people happy with their rights intact.
Also, you may talk about how you think a certain government may go about taking over the world (what steps would you take?)
Then explain why they haven't destroyed their heroine factories.
The majority of Afghans who make their living off of poppy, do so by growing it, not refining it. That's for other countries who buy their poppies to do. So even if there are heroin factories in Afghanistan, the number of them would be too negligible to even go after them. And why would we? The war on drugs is a domestic agenda, not an international one. The CIA and U.S. military are there to fight the Taliban and help keep Afghanistan stable. They are not there to fight the war on drugs.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I'm just trying to show some people that it wasn't for the welfare of the people, it wasn't in the interest of catching Osama or Sadam, the soul purpose was power. The Taliban burnt the fields in order to hurt the U.S. so we had to find a justified reason to come in and regrow them.
Eh, I don't think so. The Taliban wouldn't purposefully burn poppy fields. You have to understand that whoever strives to protect the poppy fields is in a better position to win the hearts of the farmers in southern Afghanistan of which there are many. Whenever the Taliban may have intentionally burned someone's fields, it was a retaliation act for collaborating with Karzai's government or U.S. forces. The U.S. itself has lost the support of many Afghans by bombing areas with poppy fields and civilians in search of al-Queada and Taliban targets.
And yes, invading Afghanistan was for the purpose of catching Osama bin Laden. Why do you think there is so much money invested in Afghanistan's poppy fields that we went there just to protect them? It's not like opium is as prized a commodity as oil. So why didn't we catch bin Laden in Afghanistan then? Well unfortunately the fight against terrorism is a highly politicized one. Where the CIA initially invaded Afghanistan and pushed the Taliban up against the southern Afghan border next to Pakistan, the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfield managed to take control of the operation. And once he did so, he denied the CIA the additional manpower and equipment needed to further pursue the remaining Taliban and al-Queada operatives before they escaped into Pakistan. Instead, the DOD contracted the remaining job of hunting bin Laden to the Pakistani security forces, many of which are conflicted with their feelings about the U.S. and bin Laden.
If the CIA had been successful in catching bin Laden, the DOD and Rumsfield would become marginalized in the fight against terrorism and so it was a political maneuver to gain control of the operation and deny the CIA what it had needed to finish the job.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I guarantee our next target is Iran.
I will not deny this outright, but it is still very unlikely we are going to war with Iran any time soon. There are a lot of changes happening with Iran itself and many pundits are willing to let those changes take place and see where Iran is headed.
Quote from "Murderface" »
America is seeking to be a The World Police.
Are you equating America with current administration? Cause the neoconservatives who have largely influenced the U.S.'s foreign policy of world policing and nation building are greatly diminished. Their credibility in the face of the handling of the Iraq war and their grossly manipulating of intelligence has been ruined. And even more traditional conservatives like McCain, while he may not wish to pull out of Iraq, a guy like him is not as fond of an aggressive international policy as Bush and his neoconservatives are.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I don't see how any of you can deny it. The whole world is a chessboard for those with true power, America is just playing smart.
Yeah I guess so. But playing smart may not necessarily mean being the world police. For all you know, it may be the more prudent thing to not be the world police and that's how America may play it smart.
The majority of Afghans who make their living off of poppy, do so by growing it, not refining it. That's for other countries who buy their poppies to do. So even if there are heroin factories in Afghanistan, the number of them would be too negligible to even go after them. And why would we? The war on drugs is a domestic agenda, not an international one. The CIA and U.S. military are there to fight the Taliban and help keep Afghanistan stable. They are not there to fight the war on drugs.
In order to understand this you need to know what the CIA's real purpose is. The CIA is a organization that deals with foreign affairs, business deals and the like. These deals aren't always legal and that is why they need such secrecy and impunity. They work completely outside the law importing their clients goods with immunity. In exchange the client invests his/her money earned in government contractors. The CIA then sells the drugs to dealers via a scapegoat. The DEA catches the drugs and gives them back to the CIA, CIA sells them again. and the cycle continues.
Eh, I don't think so. The Taliban wouldn't purposefully burn poppy fields. You have to understand that whoever strives to protect the poppy fields is in a better position to win the hearts of the farmers in southern Afghanistan of which there are many. Whenever the Taliban may have intentionally burned someone's fields, it was a retaliation act for collaborating with Karzai's government or U.S. forces. The U.S. itself has lost the support of many Afghans by bombing areas with poppy fields and civilians in search of al-Queada and Taliban targets.
And yes, invading Afghanistan was for the purpose of catching Osama bin Laden. Why do you think there is so much money invested in Afghanistan's poppy fields that we went there just to protect them? It's not like opium is as prized a commodity as oil. So why didn't we catch bin Laden in Afghanistan then? Well unfortunately the fight against terrorism is a highly politicized one. Where the CIA initially invaded Afghanistan and pushed the Taliban up against the southern Afghan border next to Pakistan, the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfield managed to take control of the operation. And once he did so, he denied the CIA the additional manpower and equipment needed to further pursue the remaining Taliban and al-Queada operatives before they escaped into Pakistan. Instead, the DOD contracted the remaining job of hunting bin Laden to the Pakistani security forces, many of which are conflicted with their feelings about the U.S. and bin Laden.
If the CIA had been successful in catching bin Laden, the DOD and Rumsfield would become marginalized in the fight against terrorism and so it was a political maneuver to gain control of the operation and deny the CIA what it had needed to finish the job.
They did burn them, because they made it illegal to grow.
Have you ever bought opium man? Shits expensive!
Bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai on the day of the attacks, we knew it was him on 9/12?
Are you equating America with current administration? Cause the neoconservatives who have largely influenced the U.S.'s foreign policy of world policing and nation building are greatly diminished. Their credibility in the face of the handling of the Iraq war and their grossly manipulating of intelligence has been ruined. And even more traditional conservatives like McCain, while he may not wish to pull out of Iraq, a guy like him is not as fond of an aggressive international policy as Bush and his neoconservatives are.
You don't need credibility if you have absolute power. It may sound like a movie cliche but I think the cabinet, congress, and the supreme court are all just marionettes swinging to the symphony of destruction.
Yeah I guess so. But playing smart may not necessarily mean being the world police. For all you know, it may be the more prudent thing to not be the world police and that's how America may play it smart.
The simple fact is that you need enforcement to maintain power or else it all goes away, people are just too chaotic to manage themselves effectively under a single regime without laws to constrain them. Political squandering is ineffective, the simplest solution is usually the best. If the entire world was one giant free market money flow would increase, technology would benefit that and eventually the world may become automated, leaving its inhabitants to pursue more fulfilling things. Of course that is a far off goal but none the less one worth pursuing. Though some jobs will always exist like scientists, writers and all kinds of self indulgent jobs.
In order to understand this you need to know what the CIA's real purpose is. The CIA is a organization that deals with foreign affairs, business deals and the like. These deals aren't always legal and that is why they need such secrecy and impunity. They work completely outside the law importing their clients goods with immunity.
The CIA's purpose is to gather intelligence. With their intelligence that they had been gathering on Afghanistan, they were able to initially lead the charge there. And no, they don't operate completely outside the law. That's just your paranoid fantasy. They are funded like any other government agency and is subject to the same scrutiny and transparency as any other agency. I'm not saying they probably haven't done illegal things and have bad agents that often do illegal things, but the whole mysterious illegal CIA myth is really blown out of proportion.
Quote from "Murderface" »
In exchange the client invests his/her money earned in government contractors. The CIA then sells the drugs to dealers via a scapegoat. The DEA catches the drugs and gives them back to the CIA, CIA sells them again. and the cycle continues.
This is the strangest claim I've ever read on the internet.
Quote from "Murderface" »
They did burn them, because they made it illegal to grow.
What they burned was what was burned by the military in blundering tactical moves. You're not listening at all to my point about the livelihoods of the Afghans and why the U.S. government (that includes the CIA) feels it is important not to screw these people over.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Have you ever bought opium man? Shits expensive!
Still pales in comparison to the price of oil. It's a highly traded commodity, I'll give you that. But you overestimating its importance to the degree of entertaining conspiracy theories of some kind of nefarious cycle where the CIA sells them, gives them back, and somewhere the DEA (a domestic organization, mind you) is involved as well.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai on the day of the attacks, we knew it was him on 9/12?
Many people did, yes. Bill Clinton, who had studies intelligence reports for years on bin Laden was certain on the day of the attacks that it was him. But just because some people who have tracked him for some time knew he was responsible, that doesn't mean they're gonna be able to catch him the day after the attacks. And it's not like we went into Afghanistan the next day to go after bin Laden. But as the U.S. was planning to attack the Taliban, all the CIA intelligence was indicative of him being in Afghanistan. The Taliban was simply friendly to organizations like al-Queada. I'm not exactly sure what your question here meant anyway though.
Quote from "Murderface" »
You don't need credibility if you have absolute power. It may sound like a movie cliche but I think the cabinet, congress, and the supreme court are all just marionettes swinging to the symphony of destruction.
Well, that either really is a cliche or more of your paranoid fantasy about secret government agencies and worldwide convoluted conspiracies.
Quote from "Murderface" »
The simple fact is that you need enforcement to maintain power or else it all goes away, people are just too chaotic to manage themselves effectively under a single regime without laws to constrain them.
Huh? So basically what you're saying is that laws need to be enforced? Is anyone disagreeing with this?
Quote from "Murderface" »
Political squandering is ineffective
Is it? The political squandering that Cheney and Rumsfield engaged in to keep the State Department and the CIA out of the frontlines of the war in Afghanistan proved very effective for a long time. And besides, everything you described about the CIA's cycle of opium distribution is a prime example of political squandering (even though I don't subscribe to your claim). Political squandering is ineffective when it comes to getting the job done. But political squandering for the sake of political gain continues to be very effective indeed.
Quote from "Murderface" »
If the entire world was one giant free market money flow would increase, technology would benefit that and eventually the world may become automated, leaving its inhabitants to pursue more fulfilling things.
Your thinking is polluted. If the entire world was one giant free market with no regulation, governments with real power would cease to exist. You talk about governments oppressing people and there being world police, well what about the effects of multinational corporations. They are pretty powerful as it is. But with no regulation in an entirely free market, I bet they would become more powerful than you care for.
And what on Earth makes you think the world may become fully automated? This is the problem with people who think technology is going to solve everything and make our lives easier. Do you really think that technology doesn't actually complicate our lives? With every bit of automation comes systems that need to be maintained in order to allow the automation to continue. You don't just create a system and let it work perfectly on its own. Whenever we create a system, we must create a number of other systems to maintain it. And that, while seemingly simplifying our lives, makes our lives more complicated.
And you can't just create a system to maintain another one indefinitely. Cause somewhere along the line, it requires humans to be at the end of those systems to make sure everything is running smoothly.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Of course that is a far off goal but none the less one worth pursuing. Though some jobs will always exist like scientists, writers and all kinds of self indulgent jobs.
You are going off in all these directions that it's difficult to keep a lot of what you're saying into context. This is also called biting more than you can chew.
The next time I'm not making sense or offshooting in multiple directions, I'll be sure to chalk it up to being drunk. How convenient that is.
I always offshoot regardless, alcohol just magnifies that factor.
The CIA's purpose is to gather intelligence. With their intelligence that they had been gathering on Afghanistan, they were able to initially lead the charge there. And no, they don't operate completely outside the law. That's just your paranoid fantasy. They are funded like any other government agency and is subject to the same scrutiny and transparency as any other agency. I'm not saying they probably haven't done illegal things and have bad agents that often do illegal things, but the whole mysterious illegal CIA myth is really blown out of proportion.
Well, that proves my point right there. Because the whole point of going to Afghanistan was for business purposes that weren't necessarily lawful. The CIA is kind of like the swiss army knife of government shadow ops. Many programs in the government aren't subject to scrutiny, the highest level of secrecy called cosmic (kinda weird name) is above all scrutiny(even the pres.) indefinitely.
This is the strangest claim I've ever read on the internet.
Thank you, half of that theory is my own adaptation. The part with the CIA dealing drugs is the accepted theory, not the whole DEA thing though (thats my brain child)
What they burned was what was burned by the military in blundering tactical moves. You're not listening at all to my point about the livelihoods of the Afghans and why the U.S. government (that includes the CIA) feels it is important not to screw these people over.
Back in 2001 our government gave Afghani farmers $10,000 (I don't remember the exact number) to regrow opium fields. Why didn't they just give them other stuff to plant?
Many people did, yes. Bill Clinton, who had studies intelligence reports for years on bin Laden was certain on the day of the attacks that it was him. But just because some people who have tracked him for some time knew he was responsible, that doesn't mean they're gonna be able to catch him the day after the attacks. And it's not like we went into Afghanistan the next day to go after bin Laden. But as the U.S. was planning to attack the Taliban, all the CIA intelligence was indicative of him being in Afghanistan. The Taliban was simply friendly to organizations like al-Queada. I'm not exactly sure what your question here meant anyway though.
How hard could it be to catch a tall sick man in a hospital?
We will never catch him because he is under protection by our own government(probably)
Well, that either really is a cliche or more of your paranoid fantasy about secret government agencies and worldwide convoluted conspiracies.
Paranoid fantasy? You are demeaning me for my theories? I would have thought you were above doing that in a public debate. I didn't mean all of them are marionettes but just enough to assume complete control. Perhaps if you listened to Megadeth you would understand my terminology.
Is it? The political squandering that Cheney and Rumsfield engaged in to keep the State Department and the CIA out of the frontlines of the war in Afghanistan proved very effective for a long time. And besides, everything you described about the CIA's cycle of opium distribution is a prime example of political squandering (even though I don't subscribe to your claim). Political squandering is ineffective when it comes to getting the job done. But political squandering for the sake of political gain continues to be very effective indeed.
There is a contradiction there at the end. Isn't getting the job done the whole point of political gain? So it is either effective or ineffective.
Your thinking is polluted. If the entire world was one giant free market with no regulation, governments with real power would cease to exist. You talk about governments oppressing people and there being world police, well what about the effects of multinational corporations. They are pretty powerful as it is. But with no regulation in an entirely free market, I bet they would become more powerful than you care for.
And what on Earth makes you think the world may become fully automated? This is the problem with people who think technology is going to solve everything and make our lives easier. Do you really think that technology doesn't actually complicate our lives? With every bit of automation comes systems that need to be maintained in order to allow the automation to continue. You don't just create a system and let it work perfectly on its own. Whenever we create a system, we must create a number of other systems to maintain it. And that, while seemingly simplifying our lives, makes our lives more complicated.
And you can't just create a system to maintain another one indefinitely. Cause somewhere along the line, it requires humans to be at the end of those systems to make sure everything is running smoothly.
First of all who do you think is running the government?
What if the products we buy become nearly indestructible? Less need slows production. Less production needs less maintainence. Maintainance can be carried out by AIs. AIs can maintain each other. Like I said "this is a far off goal" I meant centuries if not longer. I also said that "people will always have jobs" maybe not manual labor jobs, but jobs nonetheless. That kind of close minded thinking is whats holding us back.
You are going off in all these directions that it's difficult to keep a lot of what you're saying into context. This is also called biting more than you can chew.
I will admit that my jaw is working overtime But seriously I was drunk as fuck! I'm amazed I could have formed such sentence structure In the drunken stupor state that I was in at the time. You try drinking a bottle of SoCo and see if don't start to ramble a bit.
Well, that proves my point right there. Because the whole point of going to Afghanistan was for business purposes that weren't necessarily lawful.
What proves your point? The CIA keeping tabs on Afghanistan was part of its ongoing mission to collect intelligence wherever may be prudent. We did not finally invade Afghanistan for business purposes. We went to destroy the Taliban who was harboring the al-Queada.
Quote from "Murderface" »
The CIA is kind of like the swiss army knife of government shadow ops. Many programs in the government aren't subject to scrutiny, the highest level of secrecy called cosmic (kinda weird name) is above all scrutiny(even the pres.) indefinitely.
They are subject to appropriation committees who decides who much government money the CIA gets. And you don't get your money with some transparency of what you're doing. Think about, the CIA submits its request for the next year's budget. The appropriations committee then asks, "Very well then. What is it you'll be doing with this money?" The CIA responds, "Oh, we can't tell you that. We're of a level of secrecy known as cosmic." The committee then responds, "Then take a hike Mr. CIA!"
Quote from "Murderface" »
Thank you, half of that theory is my own adaptation. The part with the CIA dealing drugs is the accepted theory, not the whole DEA thing though (thats my brain child)
Well, as long as you're acknowledging it's just a theory.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Back in 2001 our government gave Afghani farmers $10,000 (I don't remember the exact number) to regrow opium fields. Why didn't they just give them other stuff to plant?
Again, why the hell would we tell them what to grow? Afghanistan is a legitimate government. There is no international law against growing poppy. A state within itself is free to say whether or not those things are legal. And what are we supposed to tell them to grow that will be just as helpful to their economy? Corn? Potatoes? Get real. Those crops won't yield as high an income as poppy. And how do we know what lucrative crop is even capable of growing in Afghanistan. Obviously the climate and elevation in Afghanistan is ideal for growing poppy. You don't just tell someone to grow something other than what they're growing because it's not helpful to their economy and you cannot think of a better substitute.
Quote from "Murderface" »
How hard could it be to catch a tall sick man in a hospital?
I think you may be overgeneralizing the situation just a bit here. But I honestly don't know how hard it would be to catch a tall sick man in a hospital. I don't even know if what you say is true because I would think if I were going to commit a major terrorist attack and claim my organization was responsible for it, I wouldn't exactly be found in a public medical facility.
Quote from "Murderface" »
We will never catch him because he is under protection by our own government(probably)
Probably not actually. But if you read more carefully what I previously said, the problem of not being able to catch him is a political one. In order to effectively go after a guy like this, you really need to drop all the politics and work together. But once you get close to catching him, you will get all the different groups suddenly trying to cut everyone else out because they want credit for catching him. But this action is always too premature and then only again a guy like bin Laden manages to slip away. Plus, if he is really in Pakistan like many believe he is, we are not so sure as to the veracity and cooperation of the Pakistani government. While there may be a large number of moderates within Pakistan, there is also an increasing number of extremists, especially close to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Paranoid fantasy? You are demeaning me for my theories? I would have thought you were above doing that in a public debate. I didn't mean all of them are marionettes but just enough to assume complete control. Perhaps if you listened to Megadeth you would understand my terminology.
I was aware of your Megadeth reference. And you would like to think I was demeaning you and claim I am using a logical fallacy in attacking your personal character rather than sticking to the issues. But I was in fact, demeaning your theories as paranoid fantasy.
Quote from "Murderface" »
There is a contradiction there at the end. Isn't getting the job done the whole point of political gain? So it is either effective or ineffective.
I realize I probably didn't word this too well. Political gain does not always get the job done. Sometimes to get political gain, you only need to discredit others and blame others for failures. While it will make the accuser look better, it still doesn't get the job done.
Quote from "Murderface" »
First of all who do you think is running the government?
Lots of different organizations I suppose. Some more than others. It depends on lots of different things. I'm not sure I'm qualified to give you a simple answer to this.
Quote from "Murderface" »
What if the products we buy become nearly indestructible?
That's a big what if. And if you buy an indestructible or nearly indestructible product, that doesn't mean that you won't replace it anyway. The whole point of consumerism is to get people to continuously buy new things. So no matter how good I may think my 512 megabyte mp3 players is, I have many external influences cooing me to get the latest 100 gigabyte iPod that's the size of my thumbnail. And I'm like, "But I like what I already have. It works well for me." And the cooing continues, "But it's not the latest gear. You simply must have the latest model."
Quote from "Murderface" »
Less need slows production. Less production needs less maintainence. Maintainance can be carried out by AIs. AIs can maintain each other. Like I said "this is a far off goal" I meant centuries if not longer.
I'm not saying that what you're suggesting is impossible. I just don't see it really happening in this way. And AI is just going to be another system that we must constantly upkeep and maintain.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I also said that "people will always have jobs" maybe not manual labor jobs, but jobs nonetheless. That kind of close minded thinking is whats holding us back.
Unless you start suggesting what types of there will be in this ideal future of yours, I'm not gonna continue debating this point.
Forget all this other shit, from now on I'm working from one point so that I can reveal everything in a single thought process.
Lots of different organizations I suppose. Some more than others. It depends on lots of different things. I'm not sure I'm qualified to give you a simple answer to this.
I can give you a simple answer "Contractors". They are the force that drives America. The government is poised to channel this force in the way it sees fit. The contractors profit immensely from this relationship. The CIA is partially charged with the acquisition of foreign investors to feed the contractors. The CIA helps the investors make money so that they will want to invest in the stock of U.S. contractors. This system is highly profitable for all parties, and when they aren't Illegal in nature the CIA isn't needed for these tasks and they fall into the hands of business men. All this makes sense when you consider that America is a capitalist country.
You may be asking yourself "why don't they just legalize drugs then?"and the strange truth is that if they weren't Illegal people wouldn't buy as much and the cash crop would slowly descend, possibly dragging down the United States with it.
Um, it's like you either respond to my arguments with a non sequitur or you just ignore them completely. I can only hope other people will read this thread and judge for themselves who makes the more compelling argument.
Well, that proves my point right there. Because the whole point of going to Afghanistan was for business purposes that weren't necessarily lawful. The CIA is kind of like the swiss army knife of government shadow ops. Many programs in the government aren't subject to scrutiny, the highest level of secrecy called cosmic (kinda weird name) is above all scrutiny(even the pres.) indefinitely.
If this is true, then it sounds like the CIA is filled with scumbags whom no one can touch within the law. Since they're no nice followers of the law themselves, how come these guys still get to operate? Wouldn't it be better to just kill them so the President/Congress etc. can get back and work as they want to?
And if it is classified above everything, who issued that order? At some point in time, it would have had to be less secret.
Quote from "Murderface" »
How hard could it be to catch a tall sick man in a hospital?
I think you're overestimating the speed at which information travels and is received. Ok, he was at a hospital in Dubai. Why would anyone there be looking for bin Laden? They wouldn't care, he'd be a patient just like everyone else.
Quote from "Murderface" »
First of all who do you think is running the government?
I think you need to answer that since you mention the "government" in every point.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Forget all this other shit, from now on I'm working from one point so that I can reveal everything in a single thought process.
I can give you a simple answer "Contractors". They are the force that drives America. The government is poised to channel this force in the way it sees fit. The contractors profit immensely from this relationship. The CIA is partially charged with the acquisition of foreign investors to feed the contractors. The CIA helps the investors make money so that they will want to invest in the stock of U.S. contractors. This system is highly profitable for all parties, and when they aren't Illegal in nature the CIA isn't needed for these tasks and they fall into the hands of business men. All this makes sense when you consider that America is a capitalist country.
What are these contractors? You're speaking in terms that are so vague that they can be interpeted anyhow. Has similarities with doomsday prophecies; they always turn true because they can be interpreted as meaning virtually anything.
What you're speaking of is an insanely large formation of people, thousands of them that act behind the law. You're telling me no one has been able to leak any form of solid proof that could have been broadcasted over the world, but tons upon tons of vague statements exist everywhere, upon which you base your arguments?
Quote from "Murderface" »
You may be asking yourself "why don't they just legalize drugs then?"and the strange truth is that if they weren't Illegal people wouldn't buy as much and the cash crop would slowly descend, possibly dragging down the United States with it.
Why would people buy less if it was legal to buy? The people who now get it illegally could still get it, and the people who do not get it right now, because it is illegal, would also get it. So sold units would increase.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
the reason we went into iraq was for our own saftey. british intel, was constanly telling us that they had weapons of mass destruction and all that stuff. America the world superpower, had to step in and do something.
thats like all the members on this forum in one room, then sia tells me murderface has a gun, and is going to kill people. I would have to do something, becuase sia is either to weak or to small. (just an example)
and yes, this was one of the few cases were our intel was incorrect, there were no "weapons of mass destruction"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DIABLO = DEVIL its not supposed to be a nice game autostats are rediclous lack of pots is not welcome if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
Sianoq, if you really want me to I can continue those other arguments I can do it effectively through this one.
If this is true, then it sounds like the CIA is filled with scumbags whom no one can touch within the law. Since they're no nice followers of the law themselves, how come these guys still get to operate? Wouldn't it be better to just kill them so the President/Congress etc. can get back and work as they want to?
And if it is classified above everything, who issued that order? At some point in time, it would have had to be less secret.
I wouldn't say that they are scumbags, they have a job like everyone else, and they are doing us a great service by bringing us all kinds of good drugs.
The CIA Director.
I think you're overestimating the speed at which information travels and is received. Ok, he was at a hospital in Dubai. Why would anyone there be looking for bin Laden? They wouldn't care, he'd be a patient just like everyone else.
I think you underestimating how fast our government can deploy. But nevertheless, we wouldn't have anyway because Bin Laden is our friend, and I'm sure you are all still too brainwashed to believe this.
What are these contractors? You're speaking in terms that are so vague that they can be interpeted anyhow. Has similarities with doomsday prophecies; they always turn true because they can be interpreted as meaning virtually anything.
What you're speaking of is an insanely large formation of people, thousands of them that act behind the law. You're telling me no one has been able to leak any form of solid proof that could have been broadcasted over the world, but tons upon tons of vague statements exist everywhere, upon which you base your arguments?
I don't see how I'm being vague at all, I'm just using relative terms so It doesn't seem like such a bad conspiracy.
I'm trying do avoid key terms that seem to strike a cord in people to shut down and stop listening.(LALALALALA [(>.<)], cant hear you, LALALALALA)
so here:
Contractors: big business that is funded by the government to supply them with the things they need from toilet paper to the M1A1 Abrams.
Investors: foreign drug cartels.
Why would people buy less if it was legal to buy? The people who now get it illegally could still get it, and the people who do not get it right now, because it is illegal, would also get it. So sold units would increase.
Something that is illegal has a greater allure because "they don't want you to do it" so you rebel and do it anyway. It feels good, I know.
Quote from "HARDCOREPOORE" »
the reason we went into iraq was for our own saftey. british intel, was constanly telling us that they had weapons of mass destruction and all that stuff. America the world superpower, had to step in and do something.
thats like all the members on this forum in one room, then sia tells me murderface has a gun, and is going to kill people. I would have to do something, becuase sia is either to weak or to small. (just an example)
and yes, this was one of the few cases were our intel was incorrect, there were no "weapons of mass destruction"
You believe that horse shit? Where is this evidence of wmd's, show me it and I will lend you credit.
Health Net and Pennsylvania State Unviersity? They're defense contractors?
Quote from "Murderface" »
I wouldn't say that they are scumbags, they have a job like everyone else, and they are doing us a great service by bringing us all kinds of good drugs.
This doesn't explain why people who do not like them work against them. No organization is so water-proof that it can remain hidden forever.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I think you underestimating how fast our government can deploy. But nevertheless, we wouldn't have anyway because Bin Laden is our friend, and I'm sure you are all still too brainwashed to believe this.
Yeah. Out in a hospital on the other side of the world. You have 10 million possible places where bin Laden can be, and of course you're going to catch him on the first day, because the U.S intel system is so flawless and perfect that it can cover the whole globe and handle all the information that is relayed to them perfectly.
It's always easy to say "Hey, we should have done it like this!" when you look back at the past.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I don't see how I'm being vague at all, I'm just using relative terms so It doesn't seem like such a bad conspiracy.
I'm trying do avoid key terms that seem to strike a cord in people to shut down and stop listening.(LALALALALA [(>.<)], cant hear you, LALALALALA)
so here:
Contractors: big business that is funded by the government to supply them with the things they need from toilet paper to the M1A1 Abrams.
Investors: foreign drug cartels.
And who makes up the government. You mentioned that the President can't even touch the "upper levels" of CIA. Who is running the country then?
Quote from "Murderface" »
Something that is illegal has a greater allure because "they don't want you to do it" so you rebel and do it anyway. It feels good, I know.
That is untrue for a larger scale. Alcohol is a prime example. In Sweden, we've had quite the serious regulation on alcohol during the 20th century. Once we entered the European Union however, it became legal for us to go to Denmark/Germany and buy large amounts of alcohol. And what do you know, sales in Sweden plummeted and sales in Denmark and Germany rose.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Health Net and Pennsylvania State Unviersity? They're defense contractors?
Apparently.
This doesn't explain why people who do not like them work against them. No organization is so water-proof that it can remain hidden forever.
Have you ever heard of secret societies? Most of our presidents have belonged to them. There is a secret initiation that I speculate is a process that hardwires the mind, "brainwashing" if you will. I may try and research some CIA agents and see whether or not they belonged to any secret societies.
Yeah. Out in a hospital on the other side of the world. You have 10 million possible places where bin Laden can be, and of course you're going to catch him on the first day, because the U.S intel system is so flawless and perfect that it can cover the whole globe and handle all the information that is relayed to them perfectly.
It's always easy to say "Hey, we should have done it like this!" when you look back at the past.
He was on the grid, and If they really cared about catching him they could, they didn't ignore the evidence attained by multiple intel agencies. They didn't care about him because he wasn't an issue.
And who makes up the government. You mentioned that the President can't even touch the "upper levels" of CIA. Who is running the country then?
The president still has presidential tasks and such and the CIA just acts as a liaison between corporations and Illegal investors, in order to supplement their income.
That is untrue for a larger scale. Alcohol is a prime example. In Sweden, we've had quite the serious regulation on alcohol during the 20th century. Once we entered the European Union however, it became legal for us to go to Denmark/Germany and buy large amounts of alcohol. And what do you know, sales in Sweden plummeted and sales in Denmark and Germany rose.
Ah, fundamental flaw there, drinking liquids comes natural, inhaling smoke, shooting, and snorting does not.
What do all these links prove? Any type of business or industry there are going to be tons of. And some of those businesses you listed are telemarketing companies.
Quote from "Murderface" »
Sianoq, if you really want me to I can continue those other arguments I can do it effectively through this one.
You can respond to all the argument I've made by sticking to this one of yours about how defense contractors own/run the government?
Quote from "Murderface" »
I wouldn't say that they are scumbags, they have a job like everyone else, and they are doing us a great service by bringing us all kinds of good drugs.
More of that theory of yours. You totally disregarded what I said about poppy in Afghanistan anyway. I'm done arguing this point for now.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I think you underestimating how fast our government can deploy.
And I think you overestimate how fast our government can deploy.
Quote from "Murderface" »
But nevertheless, we wouldn't have anyway because Bin Laden is our friend, and I'm sure you are all still too brainwashed to believe this.
Oh woe are those who are brainwashed into thinking that bin Laden actually is not our friend! It is true that a lot of bin Laden's training came from a U.S. organization. But he is indeed not our friend. Get real.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I don't see how I'm being vague at all, I'm just using relative terms so It doesn't seem like such a bad conspiracy.
I think you're confusing relativity with distortion.
Quote from "Murderface" »
I'm trying do avoid key terms that seem to strike a cord in people to shut down and stop listening.(LALALALALA [(>.<)], cant hear you, LALALALALA)
A worthy goal. But I have this creeping feeling like you haven't listened to any of my arguments. Do you think I am really speaking as if I'm brainwashed? Is there nothing that I've said at least that sounds reasonable or sensible to you?
Quote from "Murderface" »
You believe that horse shit? Where is this evidence of wmd's, show me it and I will lend you credit.
I also don't believe Hussein possessed WMDs. But I really didn't think we were getting into.
What do all these links prove? Any type of business or industry there are going to be tons of. And some of those businesses you listed are telemarketing companies.
What are these contractors? You're speaking in terms that are so vague that they can be interpeted anyhow.
I was just clarifying.
You can respond to all the argument I've made by sticking to this one of yours about how defense contractors own/run the government?
Yup, because its at the heart of it all. (except the whole future industry shit)
A worthy goal. But I have this creeping feeling like you haven't listened to any of my arguments. Do you think I am really speaking as if I'm brainwashed? Is there nothing that I've said at least that sounds reasonable or sensible to you?
The problem with being brainwashed is that the individual being brainwashed would never know it, thats why its such a powerful tool.
If you think your theory is better, then please point out the holes in mine.
If you think your theory is better, then please point out the holes in mine.
Ay caramba! That's what I've been doing. Pointing out the holes in yours. But now I'm only totally convinced that at best you must be skimming my posts, getting a bare understanding of them, and replying with ideas that are so all over the map that it becomes difficult to even respond to them. Was this intentionally your plan?
I can give you a simple answer "Contractors". They are the force that drives America. The government is poised to channel this force in the way it sees fit. The contractors profit immensely from this relationship. The CIA is partially charged with the acquisition of foreign investors to feed the contractors. The CIA helps the investors make money so that they will want to invest in the stock of U.S. contractors. This system is highly profitable for all parties, and when they aren't Illegal in nature the CIA isn't needed for these tasks and they fall into the hands of business men. All this makes sense when you consider that America is a capitalist country.
You may be asking yourself "why don't they just legalize drugs then?"and the strange truth is that if they weren't Illegal people wouldn't buy as much and the cash crop would slowly descend, possibly dragging down the United States with it.
I was talking about this theory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, the war is about money(power). I'm just trying to show some people that it wasn't for the welfare of the people, it wasn't in the interest of catching Osama or Sadam, the soul purpose was power. The Taliban burnt the fields in order to hurt the U.S. so we had to find a justified reason to come in and regrow them. It also had to do with a pipeline that we needed to build that would span Afghanistan. Iraq was just where we decided to set up our base of power in the middle east. I guarantee our next target is Iran. America is seeking to be The World Police. I don't see how any of you can deny it. The whole world is a chessboard for those with true power, America is just playing smart.
I'm really torn on this issue though. On one hand I want a single government and language (maybe Japaneses). But on the other I fear we may lose what rights we have left. On one hand the power of a single government could do spectacular things. But on the other the power of a single government could do atrocious things.
This thread is designed to seek out the problems and solutions of a singular government, to come up with a dynamic solution to control power and keep people happy with their rights intact.
Also, you may talk about how you think a certain government may go about taking over the world (what steps would you take?)
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Eh, I don't think so. The Taliban wouldn't purposefully burn poppy fields. You have to understand that whoever strives to protect the poppy fields is in a better position to win the hearts of the farmers in southern Afghanistan of which there are many. Whenever the Taliban may have intentionally burned someone's fields, it was a retaliation act for collaborating with Karzai's government or U.S. forces. The U.S. itself has lost the support of many Afghans by bombing areas with poppy fields and civilians in search of al-Queada and Taliban targets.
And yes, invading Afghanistan was for the purpose of catching Osama bin Laden. Why do you think there is so much money invested in Afghanistan's poppy fields that we went there just to protect them? It's not like opium is as prized a commodity as oil. So why didn't we catch bin Laden in Afghanistan then? Well unfortunately the fight against terrorism is a highly politicized one. Where the CIA initially invaded Afghanistan and pushed the Taliban up against the southern Afghan border next to Pakistan, the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfield managed to take control of the operation. And once he did so, he denied the CIA the additional manpower and equipment needed to further pursue the remaining Taliban and al-Queada operatives before they escaped into Pakistan. Instead, the DOD contracted the remaining job of hunting bin Laden to the Pakistani security forces, many of which are conflicted with their feelings about the U.S. and bin Laden.
If the CIA had been successful in catching bin Laden, the DOD and Rumsfield would become marginalized in the fight against terrorism and so it was a political maneuver to gain control of the operation and deny the CIA what it had needed to finish the job.
I will not deny this outright, but it is still very unlikely we are going to war with Iran any time soon. There are a lot of changes happening with Iran itself and many pundits are willing to let those changes take place and see where Iran is headed.
Are you equating America with current administration? Cause the neoconservatives who have largely influenced the U.S.'s foreign policy of world policing and nation building are greatly diminished. Their credibility in the face of the handling of the Iraq war and their grossly manipulating of intelligence has been ruined. And even more traditional conservatives like McCain, while he may not wish to pull out of Iraq, a guy like him is not as fond of an aggressive international policy as Bush and his neoconservatives are.
Yeah I guess so. But playing smart may not necessarily mean being the world police. For all you know, it may be the more prudent thing to not be the world police and that's how America may play it smart.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
They did burn them, because they made it illegal to grow.
Have you ever bought opium man? Shits expensive!
Bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai on the day of the attacks, we knew it was him on 9/12?
You don't need credibility if you have absolute power. It may sound like a movie cliche but I think the cabinet, congress, and the supreme court are all just marionettes swinging to the symphony of destruction.
The simple fact is that you need enforcement to maintain power or else it all goes away, people are just too chaotic to manage themselves effectively under a single regime without laws to constrain them. Political squandering is ineffective, the simplest solution is usually the best. If the entire world was one giant free market money flow would increase, technology would benefit that and eventually the world may become automated, leaving its inhabitants to pursue more fulfilling things. Of course that is a far off goal but none the less one worth pursuing. Though some jobs will always exist like scientists, writers and all kinds of self indulgent jobs.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
This is the strangest claim I've ever read on the internet.
What they burned was what was burned by the military in blundering tactical moves. You're not listening at all to my point about the livelihoods of the Afghans and why the U.S. government (that includes the CIA) feels it is important not to screw these people over.
Still pales in comparison to the price of oil. It's a highly traded commodity, I'll give you that. But you overestimating its importance to the degree of entertaining conspiracy theories of some kind of nefarious cycle where the CIA sells them, gives them back, and somewhere the DEA (a domestic organization, mind you) is involved as well.
Many people did, yes. Bill Clinton, who had studies intelligence reports for years on bin Laden was certain on the day of the attacks that it was him. But just because some people who have tracked him for some time knew he was responsible, that doesn't mean they're gonna be able to catch him the day after the attacks. And it's not like we went into Afghanistan the next day to go after bin Laden. But as the U.S. was planning to attack the Taliban, all the CIA intelligence was indicative of him being in Afghanistan. The Taliban was simply friendly to organizations like al-Queada. I'm not exactly sure what your question here meant anyway though.
Well, that either really is a cliche or more of your paranoid fantasy about secret government agencies and worldwide convoluted conspiracies.
Huh? So basically what you're saying is that laws need to be enforced? Is anyone disagreeing with this?
Is it? The political squandering that Cheney and Rumsfield engaged in to keep the State Department and the CIA out of the frontlines of the war in Afghanistan proved very effective for a long time. And besides, everything you described about the CIA's cycle of opium distribution is a prime example of political squandering (even though I don't subscribe to your claim). Political squandering is ineffective when it comes to getting the job done. But political squandering for the sake of political gain continues to be very effective indeed.
Your thinking is polluted. If the entire world was one giant free market with no regulation, governments with real power would cease to exist. You talk about governments oppressing people and there being world police, well what about the effects of multinational corporations. They are pretty powerful as it is. But with no regulation in an entirely free market, I bet they would become more powerful than you care for.
And what on Earth makes you think the world may become fully automated? This is the problem with people who think technology is going to solve everything and make our lives easier. Do you really think that technology doesn't actually complicate our lives? With every bit of automation comes systems that need to be maintained in order to allow the automation to continue. You don't just create a system and let it work perfectly on its own. Whenever we create a system, we must create a number of other systems to maintain it. And that, while seemingly simplifying our lives, makes our lives more complicated.
And you can't just create a system to maintain another one indefinitely. Cause somewhere along the line, it requires humans to be at the end of those systems to make sure everything is running smoothly.
You are going off in all these directions that it's difficult to keep a lot of what you're saying into context. This is also called biting more than you can chew.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Well, that proves my point right there. Because the whole point of going to Afghanistan was for business purposes that weren't necessarily lawful. The CIA is kind of like the swiss army knife of government shadow ops. Many programs in the government aren't subject to scrutiny, the highest level of secrecy called cosmic (kinda weird name) is above all scrutiny(even the pres.) indefinitely.
Thank you, half of that theory is my own adaptation. The part with the CIA dealing drugs is the accepted theory, not the whole DEA thing though (thats my brain child)
Back in 2001 our government gave Afghani farmers $10,000 (I don't remember the exact number) to regrow opium fields. Why didn't they just give them other stuff to plant?
How hard could it be to catch a tall sick man in a hospital?
We will never catch him because he is under protection by our own government(probably)
Paranoid fantasy? You are demeaning me for my theories? I would have thought you were above doing that in a public debate. I didn't mean all of them are marionettes but just enough to assume complete control. Perhaps if you listened to Megadeth you would understand my terminology.
There is a contradiction there at the end. Isn't getting the job done the whole point of political gain? So it is either effective or ineffective.
First of all who do you think is running the government?
What if the products we buy become nearly indestructible? Less need slows production. Less production needs less maintainence. Maintainance can be carried out by AIs. AIs can maintain each other. Like I said "this is a far off goal" I meant centuries if not longer. I also said that "people will always have jobs" maybe not manual labor jobs, but jobs nonetheless. That kind of close minded thinking is whats holding us back.
I will admit that my jaw is working overtime But seriously I was drunk as fuck! I'm amazed I could have formed such sentence structure In the drunken stupor state that I was in at the time. You try drinking a bottle of SoCo and see if don't start to ramble a bit.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
They are subject to appropriation committees who decides who much government money the CIA gets. And you don't get your money with some transparency of what you're doing. Think about, the CIA submits its request for the next year's budget. The appropriations committee then asks, "Very well then. What is it you'll be doing with this money?" The CIA responds, "Oh, we can't tell you that. We're of a level of secrecy known as cosmic." The committee then responds, "Then take a hike Mr. CIA!"
Well, as long as you're acknowledging it's just a theory.
Again, why the hell would we tell them what to grow? Afghanistan is a legitimate government. There is no international law against growing poppy. A state within itself is free to say whether or not those things are legal. And what are we supposed to tell them to grow that will be just as helpful to their economy? Corn? Potatoes? Get real. Those crops won't yield as high an income as poppy. And how do we know what lucrative crop is even capable of growing in Afghanistan. Obviously the climate and elevation in Afghanistan is ideal for growing poppy. You don't just tell someone to grow something other than what they're growing because it's not helpful to their economy and you cannot think of a better substitute.
I think you may be overgeneralizing the situation just a bit here. But I honestly don't know how hard it would be to catch a tall sick man in a hospital. I don't even know if what you say is true because I would think if I were going to commit a major terrorist attack and claim my organization was responsible for it, I wouldn't exactly be found in a public medical facility.
Probably not actually. But if you read more carefully what I previously said, the problem of not being able to catch him is a political one. In order to effectively go after a guy like this, you really need to drop all the politics and work together. But once you get close to catching him, you will get all the different groups suddenly trying to cut everyone else out because they want credit for catching him. But this action is always too premature and then only again a guy like bin Laden manages to slip away. Plus, if he is really in Pakistan like many believe he is, we are not so sure as to the veracity and cooperation of the Pakistani government. While there may be a large number of moderates within Pakistan, there is also an increasing number of extremists, especially close to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
I was aware of your Megadeth reference. And you would like to think I was demeaning you and claim I am using a logical fallacy in attacking your personal character rather than sticking to the issues. But I was in fact, demeaning your theories as paranoid fantasy.
I realize I probably didn't word this too well. Political gain does not always get the job done. Sometimes to get political gain, you only need to discredit others and blame others for failures. While it will make the accuser look better, it still doesn't get the job done.
Lots of different organizations I suppose. Some more than others. It depends on lots of different things. I'm not sure I'm qualified to give you a simple answer to this.
That's a big what if. And if you buy an indestructible or nearly indestructible product, that doesn't mean that you won't replace it anyway. The whole point of consumerism is to get people to continuously buy new things. So no matter how good I may think my 512 megabyte mp3 players is, I have many external influences cooing me to get the latest 100 gigabyte iPod that's the size of my thumbnail. And I'm like, "But I like what I already have. It works well for me." And the cooing continues, "But it's not the latest gear. You simply must have the latest model."
I'm not saying that what you're suggesting is impossible. I just don't see it really happening in this way. And AI is just going to be another system that we must constantly upkeep and maintain.
Unless you start suggesting what types of there will be in this ideal future of yours, I'm not gonna continue debating this point.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I can give you a simple answer "Contractors". They are the force that drives America. The government is poised to channel this force in the way it sees fit. The contractors profit immensely from this relationship. The CIA is partially charged with the acquisition of foreign investors to feed the contractors. The CIA helps the investors make money so that they will want to invest in the stock of U.S. contractors. This system is highly profitable for all parties, and when they aren't Illegal in nature the CIA isn't needed for these tasks and they fall into the hands of business men. All this makes sense when you consider that America is a capitalist country.
You may be asking yourself "why don't they just legalize drugs then?"and the strange truth is that if they weren't Illegal people wouldn't buy as much and the cash crop would slowly descend, possibly dragging down the United States with it.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
And if it is classified above everything, who issued that order? At some point in time, it would have had to be less secret.
I think you're overestimating the speed at which information travels and is received. Ok, he was at a hospital in Dubai. Why would anyone there be looking for bin Laden? They wouldn't care, he'd be a patient just like everyone else.
I think you need to answer that since you mention the "government" in every point.
What are these contractors? You're speaking in terms that are so vague that they can be interpeted anyhow. Has similarities with doomsday prophecies; they always turn true because they can be interpreted as meaning virtually anything.
What you're speaking of is an insanely large formation of people, thousands of them that act behind the law. You're telling me no one has been able to leak any form of solid proof that could have been broadcasted over the world, but tons upon tons of vague statements exist everywhere, upon which you base your arguments?
Why would people buy less if it was legal to buy? The people who now get it illegally could still get it, and the people who do not get it right now, because it is illegal, would also get it. So sold units would increase.
thats like all the members on this forum in one room, then sia tells me murderface has a gun, and is going to kill people. I would have to do something, becuase sia is either to weak or to small. (just an example)
and yes, this was one of the few cases were our intel was incorrect, there were no "weapons of mass destruction"
its not supposed to be a nice game
autostats are rediclous
lack of pots is not welcome
if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
I wouldn't say that they are scumbags, they have a job like everyone else, and they are doing us a great service by bringing us all kinds of good drugs.
The CIA Director.
I think you underestimating how fast our government can deploy. But nevertheless, we wouldn't have anyway because Bin Laden is our friend, and I'm sure you are all still too brainwashed to believe this.
I don't see how I'm being vague at all, I'm just using relative terms so It doesn't seem like such a bad conspiracy.
I'm trying do avoid key terms that seem to strike a cord in people to shut down and stop listening.(LALALALALA [(>.<)], cant hear you, LALALALALA)
so here:
Contractors: big business that is funded by the government to supply them with the things they need from toilet paper to the M1A1 Abrams.
Investors: foreign drug cartels.
Something that is illegal has a greater allure because "they don't want you to do it" so you rebel and do it anyway. It feels good, I know.
You believe that horse shit? Where is this evidence of wmd's, show me it and I will lend you credit.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
This doesn't explain why people who do not like them work against them. No organization is so water-proof that it can remain hidden forever.
Yeah. Out in a hospital on the other side of the world. You have 10 million possible places where bin Laden can be, and of course you're going to catch him on the first day, because the U.S intel system is so flawless and perfect that it can cover the whole globe and handle all the information that is relayed to them perfectly.
It's always easy to say "Hey, we should have done it like this!" when you look back at the past.
And who makes up the government. You mentioned that the President can't even touch the "upper levels" of CIA. Who is running the country then?
That is untrue for a larger scale. Alcohol is a prime example. In Sweden, we've had quite the serious regulation on alcohol during the 20th century. Once we entered the European Union however, it became legal for us to go to Denmark/Germany and buy large amounts of alcohol. And what do you know, sales in Sweden plummeted and sales in Denmark and Germany rose.
Have you ever heard of secret societies? Most of our presidents have belonged to them. There is a secret initiation that I speculate is a process that hardwires the mind, "brainwashing" if you will. I may try and research some CIA agents and see whether or not they belonged to any secret societies.
He was on the grid, and If they really cared about catching him they could, they didn't ignore the evidence attained by multiple intel agencies. They didn't care about him because he wasn't an issue.
The president still has presidential tasks and such and the CIA just acts as a liaison between corporations and Illegal investors, in order to supplement their income.
Ah, fundamental flaw there, drinking liquids comes natural, inhaling smoke, shooting, and snorting does not.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
You can respond to all the argument I've made by sticking to this one of yours about how defense contractors own/run the government?
More of that theory of yours. You totally disregarded what I said about poppy in Afghanistan anyway. I'm done arguing this point for now.
And I think you overestimate how fast our government can deploy.
Oh woe are those who are brainwashed into thinking that bin Laden actually is not our friend! It is true that a lot of bin Laden's training came from a U.S. organization. But he is indeed not our friend. Get real.
I think you're confusing relativity with distortion.
A worthy goal. But I have this creeping feeling like you haven't listened to any of my arguments. Do you think I am really speaking as if I'm brainwashed? Is there nothing that I've said at least that sounds reasonable or sensible to you?
I also don't believe Hussein possessed WMDs. But I really didn't think we were getting into.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Yup, because its at the heart of it all. (except the whole future industry shit)
The problem with being brainwashed is that the individual being brainwashed would never know it, thats why its such a powerful tool.
If you think your theory is better, then please point out the holes in mine.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I was talking about this theory.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.