Good thread/question from "Kaksteen" on Pravda's Main Forum
1. Are todays politiciams more stupid??
Not only they are more stupid,they are also much more corrupted .Worst part is that almost none of today's global leaders have any political experience and what so ever. Do you think that anglo politicians are more stupid coze they eat hormone infested Mc Sheatburgers??
cougarwoman
Location Oak Ridge, TN
Yeah I think that is exactly right. It is the chemicals in the foods etc; plus it is the killing the blood on their hands. Somehow governments believe that killing people doesn't hurt their being because it is legal for them to kill; but that is not the real truth. They have all this blood on their hands and they do nothing to right their wrongs and they are still alive, Many of them. Saddam they killed so no chance for him to right his wrongs; but Bush is still alive, the man we won't name is still alive, taliban chiefs are still alive, many of the killers in Africa are still alive; they can still change their ways undo the things that they did wrong. But will they; can they? how much is the people whom are scared of freedom willing to do to make sure no one ever becomes good to their people because goodness grows; it creates beauty; and some people are scared of something that they don't make themselves. It is easy to make a prison and make pain inside the walls; but it is not something that any one person can control to create beauty in the world because it grows it doesn't destroy.
Quote Originally Posted by kaksteen View Post Not only they are more stupid,they are also much more corrupted .Worst part is that almost none of today's global leaders have any political experience and what so ever. Do you think that anglo politicians are more stupid coze they eat hormone infested Mc Sheatburgers?? I don't think they changed a bit, they've always been the same type, not intelligent - with an keen survival instinct perhaps, but not intelligent at all. Particularly greedy, corrupt, power hungry, and ruthless. Always has been this way along History. The only thing that changed though, was that today, they don't fear the populace at all. They learned the lessons from History, starve the population, but not enough - if the People's children starve, People riot. Steal them, but lure them with shiny toys and games (football, rugby, american football, reality TV, soap operas, iPhones, iPads, iWannas, whatever).
Above all flood the information channels with properly filtered information. You can count by the fingers of one hand the number of media outlets (TV stations, newspapers) that present an unbiased objective reporting of stories, without using: * 1) prepackaged Reuters or AP "reports" * 2) having the piece content "edited" behind the back of the journalists that did the stories (there are some good journalists out there, but they're being relegated to another sphere of influence - new information channels - independent media, internet, even online video is replacing TV, hence all the flooding of proposals to "regulate the internet" - to protect us all from terrorists, and hate speech, and of course, to protect the children from online predators/paedophiles - and if you're against it, you're a terrorist, or a paedophile). Panis et circenses - it still applies today. The only thing that changed with today's politicians is that, not only they don't fear the populace, they make sure that they don't have to fear the populace, they never let the situation get out of control in full Louis XVI style. All those internet, and electronic interception and surveillance programs, well, they're not meant for the little people - we're not worthy of the resources. They're meant however to gain the political high ground over any political opposition, home or abroad - after all, you wouldn't want photos of your extra-marital affair published in a tabloid specially if it involved an homosexual affair, or the news that while publicly you defend the tight monitorization of bank account movements to avoid tax evasion, you have an undeclared bank account in Vanuatu or the Caiman Islands.... and so on. Not that occasionally the little people aren't the victims of such surveillance programs, but the real objective is to subdue political opponents. Methods change, the goals remain the same, everything remains the same.
Add to the mix, the mingling of private interest and State interest, and the information disseminated is nothing but pure corporate propaganda. And then you have masterpieces such as sheeple claiming Iran invaded Iraq in the 80s..... Or that Iraq had WMDs, or that the Iran will have a nuke in 5 years, or that Iran will be able to attack the US with a missile, or even Bush's nuclear mushroom: Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI...sh.transcript/
"The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946,
"Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert's book 'Nuremberg Diary.'
Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess." www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...id=1059272755/
"(...) Let the answers be wrong, let the philosophy be mistaken — errors are more valuable than truths: truth is of the machine, error is alive; truth reassures, error disturbs. (...)" Yevgeny Zamyatin, in "On Literature, Revolution, Entropy, and Other Matters", 1923
5.
paul tatar
Registered User paul tatar has a spectacular aura
Politicians more opportunistic than stupid
Politicians are not any more ignorant or otherwise retarded than voters who elected them. In fact they are smart enough to know that unless they fully support Organized Jewry's moves to maintain the illegal Israeli state they, as candidates in elections, are not going to get the kind of financial and media support needed to get elected. Politicians are also smart enough not to acknowledge that the only reason they sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq is to ensure Israel's dominance in the Middle East. As the following letter indicates Canada is still maintaining that it sent troops to Afghanistan in response to al Qida's 9/11 attack on the WTC even though an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence points to the attack being a false flag organized by Israel's Mossad and its dual agents in the US to get a war going against Afghanistan's Taleban and prevent them from aiding Palestinians in getting back land stolen by Israeli terrorists: Mr. Laurie Hawn, Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, has forwarded to me your email of April 16, 2010, concerning the U.S. invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan. I regret the delay in replying to you.
In reply to your question on the origin of the conflict in Afghanistan, the United States launched "Operation Enduring Freedom" on October 7, 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in an effort to oust the Taliban regime. On December 20, 2001, the United Nations (UN) passed UN Security Council resolution 1386, which authorized the deployment of a multinational force in and around Kabul to help stabilize the country.
With respect to Iraq, the UN adopted resolution 1483 on May 22, 2003, which affirmed the United States and the United Kingdom responsible for Iraq as the "occupying powers under unified command", empowering the U.S.-U.K. coalition as the legitimate and legal governing and peacekeeping authority. The resolution also recognized the creation of a transitional governing council of Iraqis. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan subsequently appointed a Special Representative for Iraq. In August 2007, the Security Council voted to expand the role of the UN in Iraq, particularly the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). UNAMI supports the efforts of the Iraqi people and government to strengthen institutions for representative government, promote political dialogue and national reconciliation, engage neighbouring countries, assist vulnerable groups, including refugees and internally displaced persons, and promote the protection of human rights and judicial and legal reform.
Canada does not have a peacekeeping or policing mission in Iraq. In 2003, given the absence of a mandate from the UN Security Council, the Government of Canada took the decision to abstain from joining the coalition in Iraq, led by the United States, and as such, did not deploy Canadian Forces. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council and find a peaceful solution to the impasse. Unfortunately, our efforts and those of others working toward this goal were unsuccessful. Our decision not to participate in military action did not, however, mean that we held any illusions about the brutality of Saddam Hussein or his regime.
The Government of Canada remains committed to working with the UN and the international community to help Iraqi people rebuild their lives. For information about Canada's efforts in Iraq, I invite you to visit the website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada at www.canadainternational.gc.ca...eral_relations _bilaterales/canada-iraq.aspx?lang=eng.
Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P. Minister of Foreign Affairs
Tatarewicz1 P.S. Don't know who added the "spectacular aura" bit; trust no one has noticed such a thing. And BTW Pravda would not let me use my last name as a handle; there are close to 200 tatarewiczs in Poland, probably some in Russia and Belarus, but I've never seen a post by one.