Does this sound familiar reason to take our money?
-
Originally posted by hloc:
If you are the prosecutor, will you not begin to build a case around all the evidence available, and come to some conclusion with your mind already clear about the issues on hand ?
And yet you have already come to the conclusion the Temasak ''MUST'' be the villain..... As long as the deal is with Temasek.... or PAP.... nothing could be 'Right'...... please be more open minded......
Can the prosecutor be open minded, or should he be single minded and go for the full conviction with all the evidence in hand ?
The matter is simply awaiting for a date in Court, but meanwhile - in typical Thai fashion - it seems that this may not happen, those in politics with concern for the long term consequences to everyone involved (as well as in their image) - a face-saving way is being made to allow Temasek to extricate itself from its 100 per cent holdings (legally and illegally).
It looks like whichever way that Temasek extricate itself from its own greed is to make a loss, and it will sheer luck if any White Knight will come along to reascue the incorrigible maid making a habit of creating damages. -
I'm sorry, but I don't care one way or the other if you consider me a PAP lover or groupies...... That does not change the fact that you and I will not get 'our' money back...... And how many times have you 'paid' for your mistake in life... We are not japanese...... resigning is just a way of pushing the responsibility away..... I made a mistake, i quit. Another mistake, i quit again.... again, how many times have you 'quit' because you made a mistake Or are you ''Holier Than Thou'', and can't make mistake Look into a mirror..... are you perfect
wake up. we are not talking a bout mistake that cost few hundred dollars. but billions of dollars? does it still sound peanuts to you?
the very reason the japanese responsibility mentality keep them the top of economy seconded to americans told us something we should learn.
be responsible and honest. i hope you will teach your children the same mentality. not run away from responsibility and point finger and " not me" mentality -
Like you I only kpkb here... the diff being, I am fully awake and aware and you seem to be "mindless" and blinded with you groupie mentality.Originally posted by hloc:So.... how much $$$ do you 'think' they 'own' you Question Question What are you going to do if they don't give you back..... cry, protest, set fire to yourself Question Question Or like me and most people..... just accept and carry on with my life....... you can accept or refuse to accept that life is unfair and not everything goes as one expected....... but the world DON'T CARE........ I'm sorry, but I don't care one way or the other if you consider me a PAP lover or groupies...... That does not change the fact that you and I will not get 'our' money back...... And how many times have you 'paid' for your mistake in life... Question Question We are not japanese...... resigning is just a way of pushing the responsibility away..... I made a mistake, i quit. Another mistake, i quit again.... again, how many times have you 'quit' because you made a mistake Question Question
I prefer to be mindful and aware of what is going on around me, thank you.
Difference between you and me is not ''Holier Than Thou''; just mindful and mindless.Originally posted by hloc:Or are you ''Holier Than Thou'', and can't make mistake Question Question Look into a mirror..... are you perfect Question Question
HEAR HEAR!Originally posted by reyes:wake up. we are not talking a bout mistake that cost few hundred dollars. but billions of dollars? does it still sound peanuts to you?
the very reason the japanese responsibility mentality keep them the top of economy seconded to americans told us something we should learn.
be responsible and honest. i hope you will teach your children the same mentality. not run away from responsibility and point finger and " not me" mentality -
The matter is simply awaiting for a date in Court, but meanwhile - in typical Thai fashion - it seems that this may not happen, those in politics with concern for the long term consequences to everyone involved (as well as in their image) - a face-saving way is being made to allow Temasek to extricate itself from its 100 per cent holdings (legally and illegally).
I agree that it could be so...... but would you also agree that there is a possibility that there could be no case
I remember most law states that '' Innocent until proven guilty''..... but S'porean it seems perfer ''Guilty until proven Innocent", whenever the Govt or Temasek is invol......If you are the prosecutor, will you not begin to build a case around all the evidence available, and come to some conclusion with your mind already clear about the issues on hand ?
I'm not a "proseutor''.... not trying to be one. Just saying my own point of view.... which isn't the same as yours its seems..... thats why we are having a 'debate'
Can the prosecutor be open minded, or should he be single minded and go for the full conviction with all the evidence in hand ?
Since I'm not trying to be a ''proseutor'' or take side.... althought you have already made up your mind on which side YOU think I belong..... I can afford to be OPEN MINDED. unlike you, who have already found 'them' Guilty. -
Like you I only kpkb here... the diff being, I am fully awake and aware and you seem to be "mindless" and blinded with you groupie mentality.
I prefer to be mindful and aware of what is going on around me, thank you.
No... i don't think you are just kpkb. Everyone here can have his/her own point of view. I could be wrong..... just as you must agree that you could be wrong too.. Not sure about you.... but I believed as adult, we could Agree on Disagreeing....... no harm done, nothing wrong. But to judge that you are 'awake' and me 'mindless' just because i disagree with you.... seems childish. You may think that you are awake & mindful....... are you so sure Thinking that you are awake & mindful doesn't make you all knowing and infallible..... -
wake up. we are not talking a bout mistake that cost few hundred dollars. but billions of dollars? does it still sound peanuts to you?
1) In S'pore i can't afford to get marry, let alone have children.....
the very reason the japanese responsibility mentality keep them the top of economy seconded to americans told us something we should learn.
be responsible and honest. i hope you will teach your children the same mentality. not run away from responsibility and point finger and " not me" mentality
2) Again I ask...... ''If there was no coup & ShinCorp MADE MONEY" would you then now Praise Temasek You and I know the anwser is NO...... because it is just 'not' S'porean to praise Govt or Temasek..... can only dislike them.... or you are a groupie....... -
OK I agree to disagree with you because you and I are talking about different things... I say that they have no right and no good reasons to take Singaporean's money and you keep on arguing what if they make money? what if they made money?
that is not the point. They point is, don't take people's money... period. -
When I reply to this thread,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:OK I agree to disagree with you because you and I are talking about different things... I say that they have no right and no good reasons to take Singaporean's money and you keep on arguing what if they make money? what if they made money?
that is not the point. They point is, don't take people's money... period.At the time of the sale...... ShinCorp Was a good buy. The 'Govt' of thailand agree to the deal..... the PM agree to the deal..... the CEO (also the PM) agree to the deal. As for Thai laws.....everything is OK as long as the Thai Govt saids it is OK.
I'm just saying that I disagree in people blaming Temasek or the Govt for the 'New' Thai Govt decision to stop the sale of ShinCorp. Like I said.....if they (govt or temasek) can read the future, or anyone else here could...... why the hell we even need to work. Might as well sit at home and buy 4D or TOTO for a living......
Did Temasek made a mistake now...... Hell yeah 
Did they made a mistake then...... my view is No.
To answer my/your question - What if they make money?
If $$$ was made....... then it would make temasek 'richer'.... of course, then you will complaint that it is useless, since we will not get any money... etc.
My point is that almost everyone in this Forums have a fight to pick with the Govt. Even if the ShinCorp deal is super successful...... people here will still find something to attack S'pore Govt & Temasek for no better reason than it is S'pore Govt & Temasek..... which is why my question -''If there was no coup & ShinCorp MADE MONEY" would you then now Praise Temasek
I believe most of the answer will be NEVER..... no matter how good they've done. Lets face it..... we are all bias.... proven by the fact that you Named me a groupie because i disagree with you. The fact is I neither Like or Dislike the Govt....... but of course, being NEUTRAL in this Forums will instantly made me a ''GROUPIE''...... -
Which brings us back to a couple of old points which are:
1. if they have no foresight, they should just take responsibility and take a pay cut or even better, give back the money they took like Durai
2. they are not gods and if you agree, they should just return Singaporeans their money instead of behaving like gods and take the people's money or at the very least stop taking, recent GST increase for example... -
I don't think TT Durai returned any $$$ yet...... and didn't Durai say he is not guilty of the chargesOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:Which brings us back to a couple of old points which are:
1. if they have no foresight, they should just take responsibility and take a pay cut or even better, give back the money they took like Durai
2. they are not gods and if you agree, they should just return Singaporeans their money instead of behaving like gods and take the people's money or at the very least stop taking, recent GST increase for example... Now again you are saying that Temasek has 'God' like power...... Foresight means - Forseeing the future. Only 'God' like beings could actuality foretold the future. Which prove my point that if you could know the future..... then you no longer need to work and can buy 4D or TOTO for a living. So could you see the future If you can't...... then why do you expect Temasek could Even if I paid you millions...... could you suddenly see the Future
I told you many times that they are not Gods..... so mistake is made..... are they at fault, YES....... can the fault be solve by 'giving Singaporean back their $$$$'.... NO How much do you think they 'Own' you.... please give me a sum..... 10K..... 100K.... and how did you come out of this figure And about the GST...... For sooo long S'porean complaint that there isn't any 'Welfare' in S'pore. At last there will be 'Workfare'...... is 'Workfare' perfect...... Of course NOT. But it is still a beginning........ do i mindlessly believe that the 7%GST will go to the workfare..... Sorry.... I can't tell till some time in the future.... Me also don't have Foresight like you have....... but your 'foresight' seems to work only after the result is out..... -
Why do you believe that there is a possibility that there could be no case - when there are evidence that showed Temasek has already contravened Thai Law on 100 per cent ownership of a Thai Public Company, by financing proxies to help them achieve the 100 per cent ownership ?Originally posted by hloc:
Original post by Atobe:
The matter is simply awaiting for a date in Court, but meanwhile - in typical Thai fashion - it seems that this may not happen, those in politics with concern for the long term consequences to everyone involved (as well as in their image) - a face-saving way is being made to allow Temasek to extricate itself from its 100 per cent holdings (legally and illegally).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I agree that it could be so...... but would you also agree that there is a possibility that there could be no case I remember most law states that '' Innocent until proven guilty''..... but S'porean it seems perfer ''Guilty until proven Innocent", whenever the Govt or Temasek is invol......
How did you come to your conclusion that it is Singaporeans who believe in the concept of "Guilty until proven Innocent" ?
Will it not be more correct that it is the Singapore Legal System (the Government, the Judiciary, the Police) that operate on the philosophy that the Accused is "Guilty until the ACCUSED can prove his own innocence" ?
The State has abdicated its role of protecting the Citizens, by placing the onus on the Citizens to prove an accusation to be wrong.
Is it ironical that you will want Temasek to be treated in a manner that the Singapore State does not even offer its own Citizen that privilege ?If you are the prosecutor, will you not begin to build a case around all the evidence available, and come to some conclusion with your mind already clear about the issues on hand ?
Have you not taken side by insisting on their innocence ?
Can the prosecutor be open minded, or should he be single minded and go for the full conviction with all the evidence in hand ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a "proseutor''.... not trying to be one. Just saying my own point of view.... which isn't the same as yours its seems..... thats why we are having a 'debate'
Since I'm not trying to be a ''proseutor'' or take side.... althought you have already made up your mind on which side YOU think I belong..... I can afford to be OPEN MINDED. unlike you, who have already found 'them' Guilty.
Or - if you prefer to be neutral, you are still already taking sides - by playing it safe, and taking the middle site of both equation; and where does it lead you ?
In the face of all the evidence, you still cannot make or form any decision of your own, it shows that either you have the inability to discern anything before you; or that you prefer to be circumspect to the point of even being dishonest to your own conscience.
It is never safe to take a middle path, it shows your own uncertainty, self-doubt, haplessness, and may even lead you to sell your own values to satisfy the other side of Light. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Bliderberg Group, the defacto shadow world government???
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether [b]real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderberg meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting [/b] -
Bilderberg... fact or fiction.. are they running the world?Originally posted by orwell76:Bliderberg Group, the defacto shadow world government???
chosen01Â…
Member since: 09 April 2006
Total points: 277 (Level 2)
Points earned this week:
--%Best answer
Best Answer - Chosen By Voters
well as i see it with the current members of the " Bliderberg Group " being top officials of goverments and highly influential people within media and banking and such, i would say they are a real group who do have meetings but only once a year . the group that meet is around 135 strong . and attendance is by invitation only.
there is a public record of the agenda for each meeting.
but no public account of the disscusions (minutes of meeting).
some do believe that the Bilderberg Group is the iluminati or a branch of it.
ken clark of the conservative party is said to be a member along with several of the current members of american gornmemnt.
are they running the world ... well with the members all being involved in world events i would say that they could influence events but run them possibly.
no one can say they do as the group themselves are NOT allowed to speak on what is disscussed.
Source(s):
just what i have read and seen on many tv docs.
5 months ago - Report Abuse
from Yahoo! Answers -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You want the BIG picture. Give the money Temasek has taken from Singaporeans back to Singaporeans and lower the GST back to 2%.
Give the Temasek money back to Singaporeans and lower the HDB 5 room prices back to $50K Public Housing - whose land is it anyway?
Give the Temasek money back to the people and lower the health costs.
At the very least, sack the incompetent idiots running the place and try to take back the (by now could be hundreds of) millions they took in peanut salaries, like NKF took back from Mr TT Durai.[/b]
U study modeling of economy via differential eqns b4??? If too much of the profits went back to the civilians, how to have further development and investment for the country?
Asking for better transparency from govt is GOOD, but to give a big share of money back to civilians does not make sense in any mathematical nor economical way. U may not understand this if u do not study mathematics.
BTW, stop claiming urself to be "fully awake" cos I dun think any human deserve that title and if what u say is NOT accepted by the others, criticizing them using sacarsm doesnt do u any good for they will be back rebutting u, making any further meaningful discussion impossible.
PS: I have nothing personal against u....just that I feel u need to be a little more humble. -
Bilderberg: The ultimate conspiracy theory
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online Magazine
The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.
Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world, the Bilderberg group doesn't go a bundle on its switchboard operations.
Telephone inquiries are met with an impersonal female voice - the Dutch equivalent of the BT Callminder woman - reciting back the number and inviting callers to "leave a message after the tone".
Anyone who accidentally dialled the number would probably think they had stumbled on just another residential answer machine.
But behind this ultra-modest façade lies one of the most controversial and hotly-debated alliances of our times.
On Thursday the Bilderberg group marks its 50th anniversary with the start of its yearly meeting.
For four days some of the West's chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.
What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.
Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.
The shadowy aura extends further - the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.
DISCREET AND ELITE
This year Bilderberg has announced a list of attendees
They include BP chief John Browne, US Senator John Edwards, World Bank president James Wolfensohn and Mrs Bill Gates
In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
In Yugoslavia, leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.
And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.
A former journalist, Mr Gosling runs a campaign against the group from his home in Bristol, UK.
"My main problem is the secrecy. When so many people with so much power get together in one place I think we are owed an explanation of what is going on.
Mr Gosling seizes on a quote from Will Hutton, the British economist and a former Bilderberg delegate, who likened it to the annual WEF gathering where "the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide".
"One of the first places I heard about the determination of US forces to attack Iraq was from leaks that came out of the 2002 Bilderberg meeting," says Mr Gosling.
But "privacy, rather than secrecy", is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role.
"The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian," he says. "It's not an executive body; no decisions are taken there."
As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis Healey, who went on to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four founding members of Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954).
His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a shadowy hand on the global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness. "Crap!"
"There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion," says Lord Healey.
Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes.
"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.
"In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published."
That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.
"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.
"Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful organise things in their own interests. It's called capitalism."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm
Published: 2004/06/03 11:34:47 GMT
© BBC MMVII -
Part 1
THE ROVING EYE
Bilderberg strikes again
By Pepe Escobar
"It would have been quite impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries ..."
- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg club permanent member, 1991
This conversation never happened. Well, it actually did. Date: March 5 to 8, 2005. Location: the isolated, fully-booked Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Ueberfahrt in Rottach-Egern, 60 kilometers east of Munich, Germany. Essential amenities: luxury rooms, a lake, a golf course, no suits - and no wives. Participants: 120-odd Western movers and shakers - politicians, tycoons, bankers, captains of industry, so-called strategic thinkers - invited for the 2005 meeting of the ultra-secretive Bilderberg club. Security: absolutely draconian. Global media coverage: non-existent.
Talk about white man's burden: Bilderberg is strictly "Western" elite, ie American-European. Bilderberg resolutely excludes Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. Bilderberg operates in strictly master of the universe territory: what we say goes. Only when events happen will corporate media report them, even though selected media people would have been aware of what has been decided weeks or even months in advance. The New York Times, the Big Three American networks, the Financial Times have all been represented at many Bilderbergs. But they are constrained by the silence of the lambs (see Asia Times Online's report on Bilderberg 2003 in Versailles The masters of the universe May 22, 2003)
Bilderberg has an address - in Leiden, Holland - and even a phone number - always on female answering-machine mode. No website though. In an annual ritual, Bilderberg meeting places and agendas have to be painstakingly uncovered by a small group of independent sleuths like Briton Tony Gosling or American James Tucker - who has been following Bilderberg for 30 years. Tucker is publishing a book on Bilderberg later this year. Historian Pierre de Villemarest and journalist William Wolf have already published Facts and Chronicles Denied to the Public, volumes 1 and 2, which include a secret history of Bilderberg. Belgian sociologist Geoffrey Geuens from the University of Liege has also included a full chapter on Bilderberg in one of his books. Although Geuens condemns Bilderberg's obsessive secrecy, he does not subscribe to conspiracy theories: he prefers to study how Bilderberg unmasks the way power works and the incestuous relations between politics, economics and the media.
Whenever corporate media approaches Bilderberg it mirrors the silence of the lambs. In 2005, the Financial Times released a classic pre-emptive story downplaying what it qualifies as conspiracy theories. In fact, anyone who questions the most powerful club in the world is derided as a conspiracy theorist. Bilderbergers like British lords or American policy-makers meekly justify it as "just a place to discuss ideas", an innocent "forum" where anyone can "speak frankly", and other assorted cliches.
Bilderberger Etienne Davignon, a former vice president of the European Commission, adamantly stresses "this is not a capitalist plot to run the world". Thierry de Montbrial, director of the French Institute of International Relations and a Bilderberg member for almost 30 years, says this is only "a club". The official Bilderberg 2002 press release, for instance, said that "Bilderberg's only activity is its annual conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken and no policy statements issued." Bilderberg is just "a small flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced". This is, in fact, what the much-lauded "trans-Atlantic relationship" is all about.
Members only
The Bilderberg group - which took its name from a Dutch hotel - was founded in 1954 by Prince Bernhard from the Netherlands. German-born Bernhard was a card-carrying Nazi and member of the SS. As it is well-known, Prescott Bush was an officer of W A Harriman & Co, which financed Adolf Hitler and the Nazis with the help of Averell Harriman and German tycoon Fritz Thyssen. Alden Hatch wrote a biography of Prince Bernhard where he insists that Bilderberg was the cradle of the European Community - later rebranded European Union. He describes Bilderberg's ultimate goal as a one-world government.
. -
Part II
Bilderberg's membership is heavily crossed with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pilgrims Society, the Trilateral Commission and the famous "Round Table" - a British, Oxford-Cambridge elite group crystallized in the homonymous journal of empire founded in 1910. The Round Table - which also denied its existence as a formal group - called for a more efficient form of global empire so that Anglo-American hegemony could be extended throughout the 20th century.
Bilderberg regulars include Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller (of JP Morgan's International Council), Nelson Rockefeller, Prince Philip of Great Britain, Robert McNamara (J F Kennedy's secretary of defense and former president of the World Bank), Margaret Thatcher, former French president (and main redactor of the EU constitution) Valery Giscard D'Estaing, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan. The Rothschild family has hosted many Bilderbergs. In 1962 and 1973, on the island resort of Saltsjobaden, Sweden, the hosts were the Wallenberg banking family.
Some of these masters control more of the universe than others. They are the members of the steering committee, which includes Josef Ackermann (Deutsche Bank), Jorma Ollila (Nokia), Jeurgen Schrempp (DaimlerChrysler), Peter Sutherland (former North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO - general and now with Goldman Sachs), James Wolfensohn (the outgoing World Bank president) and the "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle. Iraq war conceptualist and incoming World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz is a also a Bilderberg permanent member. George W Bush happened to be in the neighborhood - the Netherlands, for the World War II commemorations - during Bilderberg 2005. He may have dropped in. Bush did meet Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, who must be present at every Bilderberg.
To whose advantage?
Bilderberg certainly is not an executive council. British economist Will Hutton may have gotten closer to the truth when he said that the consensus reached at each Bilderberg meeting "is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide". What Bilderberg decides can be expected to be later implemented by a G-8 meeting, and International Monetary Fund and World Bank decisions.
No matter what, for innumerable, serious critics in Europe as well as the US, Bilderberg is everything from a Zionist plot to a megalomaniac secret cult. Serbs, not without some reason, blamed Bilderberg for the 1999 Balkan war and the fall of Slobodan Milosevic: after all, the US needed to control vital, Balkan pipeline routes. Bilderberg 2002 - although not without controversy - is thought to have cemented the invasion and conquest of Iraq. In his seminal A Century of War: Anglo-American oil politics and the New World War, F William Engdahl details what happened at Bilderberg 1973 in Sweden. An American outlined a scenario for an imminent 400% hike in the oil prices of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Bilderberg did not prevent the oil shock; instead it planned how to manage with mega-profits - what Kissinger described as "recycling the petrodollar flows". Everyone that mattered was present at this Bilderberg: oil majors and major banks.
Engdahl's conclusion:
What the powerful men grouped around Bilderberg had evidently decided that May was to launch a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world, in order to tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests and the dollar. In order to do this, they determined to use their most prized weapon - control of the world's oil flows. Bilderberg policy was to trigger a global oil embargo, in order to force a dramatic increase in world oil prices. Since 1945, world oil had by international custom been priced in dollars, since American oil companies dominated the post-war market. A sudden sharp increase in the world price of oil, therefore, meant an equally dramatic increase in world demand for US dollars to pay for that necessary oil.
Saudi petrodollars then moved to the "right" banks in London in New York to finance US government deficits. Game, set, match to Bilderberg - where the mandarins of global finance always win.
Plutocracy international
Although not a single word uttered inside the Bilderberg vaults is allowed to reach public opinion, it's possible to take an educated guess as to what they're talking about. Last week, the ubiquitous Kissinger started the proceedings by illuminating the meaning of "freedom" - the Bush version. Natan Sharansky, Bush's democratic guru, was a participant.
Issues that would logically have interested Bilderberg 2005 include the role of NATO and the necessary approval in 2005 of the European constitution by all 25 members of the EU - the consequences of a French "no" in the upcoming May 29 referendum to approve the constitution need to be considered. Widespread job outsourcing in Europe to the Ukraine, China and India may sound the death knell to the constitution: French protesters - who have awakened the German and the Dutch - are insisting that what is good for big corporations may not be necessarily good for Western European workers. Critics say that chapter III of the constitution in fact details the way free trade may effectively kill the European welfare state.
They have their reasons to be concerned. In his book The Great Chessboard, Bilderberger Zbigniew Brzezinski hails "a Western Europe ... staying in a large measure an American protectorate". Brzezinski also insists that "Europe has to solve the problem caused by its social redistribution system", which "prevents European initiative". The father of the European constitution is none other than Bilderberger Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who happens to be very close to Kissinger.
From a geopolitical perspective, the heart of the whole matter is that the constitution legally confirms that Europe cannot have a defense force apart from NATO, ie outside the control of the US. Bilderberg beliefs would point to only one direction: an ever-expanding, US-controlled NATO, an ever-eastward-expanding EU, mass delocalization, mass corporate profits and unchallenged US military supremacy. No wonder this is the focus of a bitter debate inside EU corridors in Brussels, where scores of diplomats and commission officials openly complain of Washington's bullying and accuse their governments of selling out. Gunther Verheugen, the European commissioner in charge of expanding the EU, happens to be a Bilderberger. When members of the European Commission go to a Bilderberg, their travel expenses and their daily allowance is provided by the commission. This certainly disqualifies Bilderberg's self-presentation as a "private club".
Bilderberg 2005 has - coincidentally? - merged with Bush's tour among his Baltic friends and the tense meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The containment of Russia was likely top of the agenda for Bilderberg. Russia is very much worried about its "near abroad" and sees no reason to remove its army from bases in Georgia or its navy from Sebastopol, in Ukrainian Crimea - no matter how many color-coded revolutions happen at its doorstep.
European Commission sources assure that Brzezinski remains an extremely influential figure. The Bilderberg discussion on the control of Eurasia still refers to The Grand Chessboard. Washington is such an avid cheerleader of Turkey's accession to the EU because this means increased American influence near the Caspian and over the eastern Mediterranean. And it also works towards the containment of Iran, Russia and China - which, according to Brzezinski, may not be allowed to emerge as rival powers to the US in Eurasia.
Another contentious issue that must have occupied the minds of those at Bilderberg 2005 is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - this is just a detail: the point is how to prevent Iran from becoming a first-rate Eurasian power. Some in Brussels do not discount the possibility of a scenario of massive propaganda buildup to try to convince American and European public opinion of the necessity of a strike against Iran. How to force Beijing to appreciate the yuan must also have been a topic.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GE10Aa02.html -
Originally posted by Hamiltonian1125:
He claim he - Agree to Disagree...... but at the same time call anyone a Govt groupie if your view is against his...... so much for meaningful discussion.
[b]
U study modeling of economy via differential eqns b4??? If too much of the profits went back to the civilians, how to have further development and investment for the country?
Asking for better transparency from govt is GOOD, but to give a big share of money back to civilians does not make sense in any mathematical nor economical way. U may not understand this if u do not study mathematics.
BTW, stop claiming urself to be "fully awake" cos I dun think any human deserve that title and if what u say is NOT accepted by the others, criticizing them using sacarsm doesnt do u any good for they will be back rebutting u, making any further meaningful discussion impossible.PS: I have nothing personal against u....just that I feel u need to be a little more humble.
[/b]
-
U see some ppl just think that anything/any ideas that do not conform with theirs are wrong....even to the extent of labeling ppl with names like "Govt groupie" and claim themselves to be "fully awake"....such narcissism should not be condone....Originally posted by hloc:He claim he - Agree to Disagree...... but at the same time call anyone a Govt groupie if your view is against his...... so much for meaningful discussion.
Btw I am NOT in FAVOUR of PAP nor am I against them. -
Hahaha..... that also wrong...... here, middle ground can also kena condamn. You are either with them or against them....... like jedi or sithOriginally posted by Hamiltonian1125:U see some ppl just think that anything/any ideas that do not conform with theirs are wrong....even to the extent of labeling ppl with names like "Govt groupie" and claim themselves to be "fully awake"....such narcissism should not be condone....
Btw I am NOT in FAVOUR of PAP nor am I against them.
-
Haizz both sides are desperate...seems that we would better go back home and train how to use our "force" better to protect ourselves....may the force be with uOriginally posted by hloc:Hahaha..... that also wrong...... here, middle ground can also kena condamn. You are either with them or against them....... like jedi or sith -
Originally posted by Hamiltonian1125:
[b]U study modeling of economy via differential eqns b4??? If too much of the profits went back to the civilians, how to have further development and investment for the country?
Asking for better transparency from govt is GOOD, but to give a big share of money back to civilians does not make sense in any mathematical nor economical way. U may not understand this if u do not study mathematics.
BTW, stop claiming urself to be "fully awake" cos I dun think any human deserve that title and if what u say is NOT accepted by the others, criticizing them using sacarsm doesnt do u any good for they will be back rebutting u, making any further meaningful discussion impossible.
PS: I have nothing personal against u....just that I feel u need to be a little more humble.
[/b]
take people's money is good and give people back their money is not economically sound? mee siam mai hum sounds even more sane then this -
I really wonder if u knows how economy works....Of course, I must STRESS that asking for greater transparency is GOOD. But if too much money were to flow back into citizens, U cant MAXIMIZE future profits to be earned. If u have a chance, pls read up a bit on differential equations and how it can be applied accurately into area of economy. Applied mathematicians and economists dun throw decades of their lives for nothing....they come out with realistic models to fit the real economy world. Instead of making fun of ur own PM mistake, pls come out with a more apt analogy if u want to re butt my previous statement. Sarcasm of this level does not work for me and it gets u nowhere.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: take people's money is good and give people back their money is not economically sound? mee siam mai hum sounds even more sane then this -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
What to do, they are on top so they do whatever they want!! Sigh!! Now with already well paid salary not enough and claimed that for don't know how many years, no salary increment now reviewing to adjust/increase pay. What crap !!!! Aiyo, want to increase increase lah just say all these to try to ease their conscience!! Taxpayers money they use!!!! "no eyes to see"!!
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether [b]real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderberg meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting
In the Singapore context, excuses to take our money that in the end was for buying Shin Corps and paying themselves million dollars salaries. [/b] 
-
Please lah..... he even can't answer how much he think the Govt own him.... and how the hell he came out with the figure.Originally posted by Hamiltonian1125:I really wonder if u knows how economy works....Of course, I must STRESS that asking for greater transparency is GOOD. But if too much money were to flow back into citizens, U cant MAXIMIZE future profits to be earned. If u have a chance, pls read up a bit on differential equations and how it can be applied accurately into area of economy. Applied mathematicians and economists dun throw decades of their lives for nothing....they come out with realistic models to fit the real economy world. Instead of making fun of ur own PM mistake, pls come out with a more apt analogy if u want to re butt my previous statement. Sarcasm of this level does not work for me and it gets u nowhere.
Would also like to ask AndrewPKYap....... you kept repeating & repeating these words - "The people's money" - could you this time give an example, what people's money are you talkin about. Pls "Enlighten" me..... is it
a) Money from Income/company tax, GST...... etc
b) The money you put in as CPF
c) I don't know..... aka Dr Chee
d) example are...... (ur example)
It is hard to have a meaningful discussion when you can't even give example for your own point........ try again Ok....