So their profits are falling. Boo hoo. Don't care.
But maybe if we had a nice new war, more people would watch TV, and the state would want more aircraft engines and so on from GE.
Oh wait, GE owns whole TV networks.TV networks push war propaganda.
Public opinion influenced by media.
Government action influenced by public opinion.
Corporate profits influenced by government action.
Media agenda further influenced by corporate profits.
Public opinion further influenced by media agenda.
Government action further influenced by public opinion.
Corporate profits further influenced by government action.
NO!
War is a racket.
________________________________________________________________
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit longer" - Henry Kissinger (source)
But isn't Iran a threat, a bunch of irrational people who want to get nuclear weapons to use in suicide terrorism in Western cities, and who is a clear and present danger to the world, so much so that they must be eliminated pre-emptively (i.e. before they do any of the things our media says they will do)?
"That which is presented without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence"
But I'll present some anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Posts
.jpg)
4 comments:
Waa, Waa
GE's far reaching arms spread leftist propaganda far and wide across the not just the U.S., but across the World. I don't know whether they are in the business of making money off wars since GE owns MSNBC and that channel was/is quite outspoken about being against both the wars, but GE could be.
I think a good question would be, how close is Iran to achieving nuclear power capabilities? And, I believe Iran is closer to achieving that, then the U.S. and others might think.
MSNBC was pro-Iraq war until they realised they'd make more money pretending to be opposed to it :)
In my opinion, leftists (or at least the leaders of the 'left) aren't anti-war, they're anti-Republican-war so to speak. This is why the left controlled the anti-war movement to make it all about Iraq, so they could expand the Afghan war once being elected without looking too hypocritical.
"I believe Iran is closer to achieving that, then the U.S. and others might think."
Maybe so. But should we not have invaded Russia at the end of WWII? Or Pakistan in the early 90s? They were developing nuclear weapons. And I needn't remind you that only one country has actually used nuclear weapons in combat.
First, I think your correct about the left being anti-Republican war. Well, the reason we dropped two nuclear bombs in Japan is because if we hadn't, our troops would have been massacred. So, I would say the nukes were dropped for good reason.
If Iran becomes a threat to either/both the United States and/or Israel than I believe that it would be our duty to defend ourselves and/or help Israel with defense against Iran blowing them off the map.
Check out the "Samson Option" (search it). Nobody would attack Israel with nukes, it's suicide.
As an example of nutcases with nukes, see how Kim-Jong Il hasn't nuked South Korea yet. 'Cause when it comes down to it, he knows he would become part of the atmosphere within hours.
Also, there's the slight problem of US-occupied Iraq being between Iran and Israel. Methinks the Zionists will be fine. Wouldn't want to be a Persian right now though...
Post a Comment