You know, fake news has been around for a long, long time. The only thing that's new is that the establishment has competition now, thanks to the interwebz, so they have to work harder to manage the flow of information. Which is a turrible, turrible shame, innit?

So fakenews rights hit-pieces on their rivals, and blackmails their platform to silence their rivals and also give them preferential treatment.

It used to be a lot more subtle. To give an example, the New York Times would do hit-pieces on dictators that had fallen out of Washington's good graces. 3-4 paragraphs and a photo juxtaposed with a story about a pedophile ring, or some such thing.

If you're thinking that isn't very subtle, you're right, but it is compared to how it's done today. Today everything is blatantly partisan and doesn't even bother to maintain the pretense of objectivity.

MSNBC might as well be owned by Rupert Murdoch at this point. Hardcore warmongers. o.O

Everyone's a warmonger when you don't like the target. Ever notice how Fox is suddenly calling for peace? It's like the translation thread, the right is ok with censorship of titties, while the left is OK with censorship of racism. Everyone called trump a warmonger, saying he would send us all to war, meanwhile those same people were praising Hillary who was already poising us to go to war with either Syria or Russia. Meanwhile, potential WMDs in Iraq but Saddam can keep them. Funny thing, that, in that we actually do have evidence/proof that he was working on nukes, we just don't know what happened to all the uranium and other materials he bought. People have their theories, but, you know, everyone's looking for a finished product.

Here's another curious find, especially if you check the date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJI-UeF6HDc

Inside the Beltway, yes, because the Pentagon is a gigantic welfare program for privileged corporations that want grossly inflated profit margins.

As for Iraq, the only reason we knew it had WMD was because it was the US that had provided it with most of the material, technology and expertise required. We know this because Rep. Dana Rohrabacher found the authorizations during his investigation of Gulf War syndrome. Bush Sr. has profited handsomely from the aforementioned welfare program -- very handsomely.

25 Hilarious Memes Showing The Love-Hate Relationship Between Dogs And The Mailman

Smart Boy

Life Is a Hell of a Thing

Reality Is a Harsh Mistress

The Plot Is as Thin as Latex

COURAGE

COMPETITIVE

CUTTING EDGE

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS

It's a Blight on These Streets

SEEMS LEGIT

Just Try to Blend In

DEMOTIVATIONAL

I keep hearing how the Bushes profited from it, but have yet to see any evidence.

That said, i'm pretty sure the evidence was in everyone's hands outside of the US support, but no one really cared enough to take responsibility for it. The evidence didn't come from Iraq, but rather outside of Iraq. The evidence, which is now available today, has quite a bit of basis in fact: the guy was known to be buying materials for making the weapons. I think he even openly stated that he wanted them. At the end of the day, it wouldn't surprise me if he set everything up so it turned out the way it did (aside from his demise) because he, himself, held a grudge (i mean, people really don't like to loose wars), and the stuff he bought went somewhere else. What else is known is that he had failed attempts at making nuclear weapons. It's also no secret that pretty much everyone wants nuclear weapons, because, and this is where you might be right, no one ever invades a country that is believed to have nuclear weapons, aside from Iraq.

As you yourself noted, Washington "ethics" are situational, and this is the case for *all* of the permanent members of the UN Security Council -- which entirely defeats the purpose of having it, as far as the world at large is concerned.

Re Bush Sr., you need look no further than The Carlyle Group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqb7Wf_KCG8
(skip to 1:45 for start)

Does this come in a readable form for us autistic people?

Not that I'm aware of, but I do have something readable that you should find enlightening: War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, the most highly decorated marine at the time of his passing.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Ya'll like polito-spam eh?

Here you go..

[img]https://i.redditmedia.com/3N6tD4JtoXZLs3s-Kj0YSdcrY7PlEwhAT_zClTXQ84g.jpg?w=612&s=9abe87b44de91895f220ed8e871d7420[/img]

War may make alot of money for certain individuals (not something that i think has ever really been disputed), but that doesn't mean that the individuals in charge of causing war are necessarily benefactors. The claim you're making, which correct me if i'm wrong, is that, rather than Saddam Hussein's known attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, it was Bush senior's potential profits that were the motive for the Iraq war. Given the lead-up to the war, which I've noticed seemingly everyone has forgotten, I can think of some far more likely scenarios, including a trap to cause the very situation the US is in right now: constant war in the middle-east, draining the US military power and economy. We've been tied up in the middle-east ever since that war started, and we seem to be having a very hard time getting out of it. And, in case no one has been noticing, the benefactors aren't necessarily exclusively to the US. I heard France in particular is gaining alot in arms sales, for example, which is believed to be one of the major motives for the Paris shooting, iirc.

Based on all the information we have on fiat currency and how we all essentially use it, along with the race for Russia-tied countries to gain nuclear power, all this talk about Russia trading with other countries in a gold-backed currency with nuclear power being the primary deterrent against US invasion (since fiat currency is backed by the US dollar instead of something more tangible) seems to be the most likely explanation for what's going on. Get this...

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/15/russia-may-soon-issue-its-own-official-blockchain-based-currency-the-cryptoruble/

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/15/russia-hopes-to-launch-its-own-cryptocurrency/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-the-western-fiat-monetary-system-may-have-begun-china-russia-and-the-reemergence-of-gold-backed-currencies/5521107

These are new articles for a very old topic: Russia and China are trying to get their hands on Gold, which was the original basis for printed currencies. The issue is simple: if Russia and all other countries tied to these potential currencies refuse trade via fiat currency, and if businesses around the world get sick enough of this roller-coaster ride of fiat currency, they'll find ways to convert to this new currency, and it will absolutely destroy the US dollar, and all other currencies built on it. People will find more monetary value in burning the dollar and euro for heat in the winter than spending it on food.

Which explanation seems more reasonable to you?

EDIT: Oh, and the UN's Agenda 21 (which you can read yourself, getting it for free from the UN itself, so this isn't conspiracy BS) would become impossible under this. So, all this talk about chemical weapons in Syria, with Russian backed Assad saying they hit a sarin gas factory in an air strike vs Turkey (who has their own agenda, especially when it comes to getting in good with the US and UN) who says the rebels don't have chemical weapons, gets a little more interesting, doesn't it?