Bingo. Iraq was invaded because Saddam threatened to sell oil for Euros instead of dollars, which would have undermined the dollar's monopoly for international trade. Gaddafi wanted to establish a gold dinar for Africa, which would have done the same thing.

Uhh.... Lybia was in the midst of a civil war. We didn't invade them.


That conspiracy theory is awful and relies on one completely ignoring the historical facts.


As for iraq, we were lied into that war for oil and war profiteers.


These theories you just gave are total bunk.

---

WJCT just announced a possible tin foil shortage set to impact Duval County.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

The biggest reveal from last night is that after 18 months since the press conference at the U.N. they still don't have an answer for the E-mail question.  Now we have the excuse of "Headers" being added to classify information.  That negates the simple truth that as SOS or in correspondance with foreign leaders she can ORIGINATE classified information. 

 

Meaning, that if she writes the nuclear codes down on a piece of paper, just because the header ferry hasn't marked it yet doesn't make it any less classified or aleviate her of her responsibility to protect said information. 

 

The damning thing from the FBI document dump is that the "most qualified person in history to be president of the united states" can't remember ever having a briefing on classified information in her 35 years of federal service including 8 as first lady and testified that she could not determine what should and should not be classified.  She further went on to say that she did not recognize portion markings that she herself has originated in seperate occasions with her signature.  THIS IS A MESS! 

 

Comey's testimony directly contradicts Clinton's.  the line of questioning by Trey Gowdy to Comey proves beyond all doubt that Clinton lied.  should be case closed, 5 years in prison.  but nope.  everybody is still looking at eachother shrugging their shoulders wondering what's going on.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6q9LOubfc

---

Uhh.... Lybia was in the midst of a civil war. We didn't invade them.


That conspiracy theory is awful and relies on one completely ignoring the historical facts.


As for iraq, we were lied into that war for oil and war profiteers.


These theories you just gave are total bunk.

 

We just blew up his military and his palace, killing his family. Not an invasion, tho...

---

like most foreign conflicts that erupt, we usually find out through declassified information years later that the CIA was an instigator.  dont be so naive to think any civil war just erupted "spontaneously" and just HAPPENED to work out in favor of our crooked leaders.

---

Wesley Clark talked about the 2007 Pentagon memo “describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, <b>Libya</b>, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

---

We just blew up his military and his palace, killing his family. Not an invasion, tho...

Correct. Air strikes and a ground war are 2 different things. We also didn't spur on the civil war. And this theory that Lybia was gonna create a continental African currency or whatever is which is the reason we attacked them is total bunk.

---

Correct. Air strikes and a ground war are 2 different things. We also didn't spur on the civil war. And this theory that Lybia was gonna create a continental African currency or whatever is which is the reason we attacked them is total bunk.

 

you dont know that

 

given our history, there is a likelihood we did

---

like most foreign conflicts that erupt, we usually find out through declassified information years later that the CIA was an instigator. dont be so naive to think any civil war just erupted "spontaneously" and just HAPPENED to work out in favor of our crooked leaders.

There's some truth to this, but at the same time we can't assume EVERY civil war is instigated by the CIA. I'm not sure what the benefit would be for us to have started the war in Syria. Especially considering what has taken place in the region since it started.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

There's some truth to this, but at the same time we can't assume EVERY civil war is instigated by the CIA. I'm not sure what the benefit would be for us to have started the war in Syria. Especially considering what has taken place in the region since it started.

 

the CIA has attempted to oust Gaddafi before.  what they have to gain is something otherwise they wouldn't do it.

---

Uhh.... Lybia was in the midst of a civil war. We didn't invade them.


That conspiracy theory is awful and relies on one completely ignoring the historical facts.


As for iraq, we were lied into that war for oil and war profiteers.


These theories you just gave are total bunk.

 

All wars are bankster wars.  Put the tinker toys away and learn how the world works. 

---

Wesley Clark talked about the 2007 Pentagon memo “describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, <b>Libya</b>, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

 

Stop confusing them with history. 

---

you dont know that


given our history, there is a likelihood we did

I hear ya. But most times when there are ulterior motives, the history of the facts line up.


Nothing lines up with BLT's theory. It's just bunk.


Just because some conspiracies occur does not mean you should believe everyone that you hear. There is nothing in the lybian revolution that points to the USA instigating it because quadaffi was planning a monetary alliance with other nations. That theory is only works if you ignore historical facts.

---

the CIA has attempted to oust Gaddafi before. what they have to gain is something otherwise they wouldn't do it.

I would think if the CIA was involved in Syria, we would have been more coordinated with the rebels years ago. Again.. I also don't see how we benefit by what has taken place. The region is destabilized and our most dangerous adversary has amassed military forces in the area AND helped stabilize their own economy by selling arms to Syria. How does America benefit from this? Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand what we have gained or stand to gain. They account for 0.5% of the world's oil production and their reserves are drastically depleted. So why are we behind inciting a civil war if we are behind it. Again, not saying you're wrong. Just trying to logically understand why we would be.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I hear ya. But most times when there are ulterior motives, the history of the facts line up.


Nothing lines up with BLT's theory. It's just bunk.


Just because some conspiracies occur does not mean you should believe everyone that you hear. There is nothing in the lybian revolution that points to the USA instigating it because quadaffi was planning a monetary alliance with other nations. That theory is only works if you ignore historical facts.

 

what lines up is that its about money, and it's always about the money

---

Well if you think it's CIA. Then President won't have any effect.


CIA is a career, President is temporary.

---

All wars are bankster wars.  Put the tinker toys away and learn how the world works. 

 

Oh the irony!

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I would think if the CIA was involved in Syria, we would have been more coordinated with the rebels years ago. Again.. I also don't see how we benefit by what has taken place. The region is destabilized and our most dangerous adversary has amassed military forces in the area AND helped stabilize their own economy by selling arms to Syria. How does America benefit from this? Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand what we have gained or stand to gain. They account for 0.5% of the world's oil production and their reserves are drastically depleted. So why are we behind inciting a civil war if we are behind it. Again, not saying you're wrong. Just trying to logically understand why we would be.

 

it doesn't make sense does it?  but that's what we're doing.

 

that's what leads to theories about their selfish motives.  one asks why they care so much about overthrowing Qaddafi or Assad, and it's not about "democracy" or "freedom".

---

I hear ya. But most times when there are ulterior motives, the history of the facts line up.


Nothing lines up with BLT's theory. It's just bunk.


Just because some conspiracies occur does not mean you should believe everyone that you hear. There is nothing in the lybian revolution that points to the USA instigating it because quadaffi was planning a monetary alliance with other nations. That theory is only works if you ignore historical facts.

 

we're only a few years after the fact. information always surfaces later that tells the true story.  history on this whole thing is not set in stone yet.

---

Well if you think it's CIA. Then President won't have any effect.


CIA is a career, President is temporary.

 

hasn't anybody ever told you that the president is a puppet?  not of the CIA, but they are both under the control of the invisible hand

 

also you're assuming the agenda from administration to administration changes.  overall, it looks damn similar, doesn't it?

---