I often bring up in holocaust discussions one of the driving forces of Hitler's war effort. Little is said about Churchill's attempt to provoke Hitler, and recent papers released of Hitler warning Churchill that if he did not stop bombing civilians he would have to react. Going from memory of things I have read recently on that.
(https://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy62/the_troglodyte/dresden_dees.jpg)
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.rense.com/general92/dres.htm
Yes, there was a recent documentary on the targeting of civilian targets. The more atrocious ones were not Dresden. They were small mountain towns with a few thousand residents. The theory was to destroy the means of production of the German war effort. Dresden would have been one of the central targets because it was one of the industrial backbones of Germany. Both the Americans and British were fairly open about this. Half a million is an extreme exaggeration. That would have put the death toll above both atomic weapons combined and would have been almost 1% of the entire population of Germany in one bombing. February 13, 1945 was the end of WWII, I don't know how this was provoking Hitler, he had already declared war on the British and U.S. years earlier and taken over most of Europe.
How does this relate to Hitler's holocaust?
I see this is from the extreme anti-semitic website rense.com. I have seen the articles that come out of there. There are many that are very pro Nazi, anti-semetic, and holocaust denial.
I'm not sure I understand the point of the post.
Churchill, Roosevelt, et al, were reacting to Hitlers Nazi party steamrollering over Europe.
Hitler was not exactly a model citizen.
I think the fire bombing of Tokyo killed even more, somewhere around 500,000 souls perished. I talked with a aircrew member who was on the firebombing mission over Tokyo. He told that the heat from the fires pushed the bombers a few thousand feet higher than they wanted to go. He said it was like a hurricane of fire down below, hell on earth.
In some ways the allies were just as bad as the axis powers. Remember the winners of war write the history books so they decide what society collectively remembers or doesn't. Look at the humanity that was destroyed, 100 million dead possibly.
I'm not necessarily defending Dresden as a good thing. There is no doubt it was bad.
The statement about maybe half a million perishing is a sensationalist exaggeration, though.
In war everybody makes mistakes and errors of judgement. It is very easy to look back and say "this was terrible; should never have happened". It is a lot harder to make the right decisions, the decisions that history will decide were good or bad, when one is there on the ground that had been bombed by Hitler's armed forces.
All things considered, it probably would have been better is the Dresden bombings had not happened. How would that have changed the course of the war though, we can not say. There are lots of "what if's..." when looking back at history.
How would the war have worked out if Dresden or Hamburg had never been bombed? Would the war have been longer? I don't know.
How would events have unfolded if several off-course German bombers had not accidentally bombed residential areas of London? That caused the RAF to be instructed to bomb Berlin the very next night. That in turn prompted Hilter to command the Luftwaffe to bomb British cities. More than likely a great number of us alive today would have made similar decisions under those circumstances.
Rather than point fingers and say look at the bad $hit Churchill or Roosevelt did we should be looking to see how can we prevent history from repeating itself.
Churchill was not infallible, he was not a god, nor was he all knowing and without his own prejudices and faults. He did have fewer faults though than Hilter, Mussolini and Stalin. He also had a better overall grasp of current affairs than others in the British government at the time.
I think Dresden illustrates how war is a ugly, brutal, and ruthless business- even if you are on the "good" side. :(
There is no way of avoiding repeating history if it is allowed to be systematically written out of the history books.
My point of the post is that our governments do many evil things in our names then whitewash, cover them up and write them out of history. Yes - what Hitler did was bad, but things we allow to be done because of the manufacturing of consent of the US propaganda machine are not any better. Keeping quiet about them will not raise awareness of them, so an uneducated populace in the US will not even think of voicing opposition to murderous foreign policies that maim and kill humans in distant lands but also kill our own soldiers... (sons and daughters) and especially now on a vague undeclared war with an intangible enemy that can be moved as desired to anyplace that will suffice to serve the interests of big industry, big money and the war machine.
We are feeding the military industrial complex Ike warned about, and the profit making interests of the big money who owns our government and sees to it that more money than we can ever pay in tax is transferred to the pockets of investors and corporate America now.... not later... our kids future is being spent right now.
Rense is not antisemitic, but does allow many including other Israeli's who don't agree with their own home country's policies to have a voice. That does get him labeled as antisemitic. I prefer to view it as being open minded. He has publicly stated and shown that he is not antisemitic.
So many massacres by government and religion all covered up to try to make us always look like angels. Disgusting I say, no matter who does it. I know people from many of these countries and have Jewish ancestors. I have been invited to stay with them in their homes. Nearly none of the civilians are guilty of anything except wanting to live a peaceful life. Power, greed, politics and religion cause "collateral damage"... a term that should be substituted with the words.... Cold Blooded Murder.
War is Hell...
By definition a total war, none since WW2 thankfully, means you do anything within your power to destroy your enemy. ANYTHING now includes a lot of nasty stuff.
And when it's over the winner does what Shawn B noted - writes up the history book to show how the good guys won.
Governments have outdone themselves in ways of making the public think that one country or another is the enemy. Manufacturing consent has been honed to a fine art, to the point that most of the people do not even realize the extent to which they are being manipulated.
They then think it is their will that we go get the bad guys and annihilate them, when in reality, it was actually our foreign policy that created more bad guys than we can ever deal with.
This insures that the manufacturers and investors in the war machines continue to profit, many times from both sides of the game.
If we look at the circumstances that cause "major" wars it is almost always the result of nations entering into defense packs with other nations. Entangling alliances is one of the greatest concerns the u.S. Founding Fathers had for the Republic too survive. Another example is governments methods of demonizing entire populations, just because they don't trust, like, condone the gov't of said nation. As a child in the 1980's I could never understand why everyone seemed to hate the peoples of Russia ? Even today there is still a trade embargo and some travel restrictions on Cuba. Americans can not bring back a simple box of Cuban cigars, simply because of gov't madness. It is gov'ts and complicit and complacent citizens that allow wars to happen.
In my opinion WWII was the last "necessary" American war. Even it could have been prevented had the post WWI Allies treated the German citizens a little better; and if the moneyed interests of Europe and America been held in check.
Human history, even in recent times, is incredibly difficult to nail down----our perceptions about events and persons constantly change----like mirages in the desert, their shapes change before our eyes and in our minds. Simplistic theories purporting to assign blame or identify motives driving decisions made by persons long gone, facing situations and pressures we can only dimly appreciate will likely prove to be as illusive as those desert fantasies are. All of us would change many of our decisions and actions if we could only look back at ourselves a few years or decades later along with information we did not have then. Revisionist history invariably makes villains out of all of our ancestors and will eventually be applied to all of us too-----by our descendants.
You got it Glenn
Ike was right
So was Kennedy
http://www.livevideo.com/video/DE0F6D8F85BF4BC9857BACF67F732E74/hegel-media-conspiracy.aspx
I would like to think that the USA would be a different place had JFK served 2 full terms
Can't have the puppets doing things the puppet masters don't approve of.
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments ... I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known ... The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) ... the American Branch of a society which originated in England (by diamond king, Cecil Rhodes) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established."
Professor Carroll Quigley, CFR member, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Professor Carroll Quigley, CFR member, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)
I think my grandfather would agree that war is hell. He died two days before WWII ended while patrolling in Czechoslavakia. He was involved in liberating concentration camp victims and would most certainly have told us that the German war machine could not have been stopped but for Dresden and other actions. Yes, civilians die in war and that is regrettable, but inevitable. Remember, we tried to stay out of WWII, but could do so for only so long. Regardless of what we may wish, want or hope for, war will always be with us in some way, shape or form. Many of us here served in the military and trained for war, but hoped for peace. Our side was right during WWII and no amount of looking back will change that.
Re: Dresden Holocaust - ordered by Churchill
« Reply #13 on: Today at 04:26:15 AM »
Quote
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments ... I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known ... The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) ... the American Branch of a society which originated in England (by diamond king, Cecil Rhodes) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established."
Professor Carroll Quigley, CFR member, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Professor Carroll Quigley, CFR member, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)
Windpower-----I notice you do not quote Quigly in his later years when he repudiates the conspiracy theories you attempt to link him to. It must be discouraging to live with a world view wherein we all are merely mindless puppets controlled by mysterious cabals of evil geniuses. How lucky we are to have you to alert the rest of us sheep before it is too late. No doubt the Round Table is in cahoots with the Masons; the Illuminati; the Templars; Knights of Columbus; the Rosicrucians; the International Zionist Conspiracy; the Tri-Lateral Commission; the Bilderburgs and certainly the Rothschilds with overall control by Adolf Hitler clones hiding in their lair below the Vatican
Over 2000 years ago James stated it pretty clearly in the Bible...
1 "Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." James 4:1-3
How can Quigley repudiate what he wrote in "Tragedy and Hope" ? So, what he is admitting to false statements, errors, or out right lying ? Who can he blame these statements on, other than himself ?
If Quigley did repudiate his statements it was probably forced on him because he revealed too much. He was a professor of Bill Clinton's... the publishers of Tragedy & Hope took it off the market fairly fast IIRC - it's pretty hard to get a copy & they are very expensive.
One of the reasons history repeats itself is those people who close their eyes to the movers & shakers behind the scenes...
Attempting to address conspiracy theory fallacies always proves to be useless----bebunking a theorist's assertions (they are rarely factual) always just results in another assertion that the contrary information is just another part of the "conspiracy" or the other person is a dupe of the mysterious evil geniuses. A favorite tact is to quote other conspiracy theorists assertions to support their own assertions---a kind of circular BS firing squad-----round and round it goes but, it never actually arrives anywhere. These folks will never run out of navel lint to pick at, though it does provide the occasional moment of mirth.
Again, how is it a conspiracy theory on what Quigley wrote ? He, himself wrote the book and documented his actions, interactions, observations of various people and organizations. This is not a conspiracy that Quigley wrote the book.
So many good posts it's hard to jump in now...so perhaps I shouldn't. My take:
Hitler was a bad dude who with the help of the socialists (National Socialist Party of Germany, later known as the Nazi's) managed to convince an entire population that it was ok to kill 6 million jews -- because of eugenics I guess. But he got the idea to gas them (actually his people did) from the Fabian Socialists in England -- namely George Barnard Shaw (whom you studied in school I'm sure, but I'm qually sure they never mentioned that) and then of course his buddy Maynard Keynes came up with the way we conduct our economy to this day, as well as the idea that created the World Bank and the IMF and perhaps some day one world currency -- Look it up, it's easy if you just do a little research....but I digress.
After WW1 the world powers (banks involved here) put too many demands on Germany which lead to the mess of WWII really...again, look it up.
As for war, and I repeat Hitler was a bad dude no doubt, it is hell and once in it you'd better be in it to win. Come 'hell or high water'.
However, why did we enter WWI or WWII really? If Chase isn't mentioned then you're probably missing something...or other bankers. It is often sold as one thing but in reality something else.
I think the founding fathers had it right and we need to reconsider our foreign policy -- but that does not mean we don't help those in need if such a need really does arise (killing 6 million Jews was certainly a need) but the crux of the problem is both "what need is great enough" and "how much is too much"?
In the end I'd personally be happy if we pulled our troops OUT OF EVERY COUNTRY around the world and went neutral.
"In the end I'd personally be happy if we pulled our troops OUT OF EVERY COUNTRY around the world and went neutral." Quote from OlJarhead
An occasional thought by all of us, I'm sure. Didn't we try that before WWI (except for the Phillipines and a few banana republics) and again before WWII? How did that work out for us?
quote
"Windpower-----I notice you do not quote Quigly in his later years when he repudiates the conspiracy theories you attempt to link him to."
unquote
You need to back up this BS, Rwanders
I listened to an Interview with Quigley by Dr Monteif shortly before Quigley passed
He complaine bitterly abbout the publisher destroying the printing plates for his book so that he could not do a second printing
so if he really repudiated his work in Tragedy and Hope why would he want to reprint it
doesn't make sense does it
your 'arguments' are very lame Rwanders
Let's see some back up of your assertions about Quigley repudiating his book.
I agree with OlJarhead.
Partial Quote From What Really Happened.com
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the downfall of the US Puppet Ruler the Shah, Iran has been an Islamic state. In that interval of time, 1979 to the present, Iran has not invaded anyone. Not once. People of all religions live in peace in Iran, even Jews, who find life so comfortable in Iran they refused an offer by the government of Israel to emigrate!
In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Haiti (2010), etc. etc. etc. etc.
So, who is the danger to world peace?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/iran-danger-world-peace-i-dont-think-so-1
If you knew the truth of world war II and most of the history of the last few hundred years you'd puke your guts out knowing the heros of history are horrible monsters beyond any horror you've ever imagined. Better not to know the truth.
QuoteColombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989)
My wife is from Peru, and was living there in 1989. I have former coworkers who are native Colombians who lived there in 1989. They are asking me what the **** this quote is talking about.
I am the first to be critical of US policy as aggressive and heavy-handed over the last 30 years, but calling the Iranian regime a peace-loving nation and using some of these as examples as "US aggression" are really reaching. If the website wants to make an argument, they should do it based on full information and not hyperbole.
I also have some questions about exactly what he is referring to but he (Michael Rivero) has been a pretty reliable source over the years.
I think he is including covert ops, as the Georgia attacking So. Ossetia was our puppet educated here in the US and coerced into attacking So. Ossetia by us (the US). I followed that pretty close.
Quote1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50–100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2–12 persons to train troops in the three countries.[RL30172]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
The above is of course not a war on drugs but our war to traffic drugs. Like our military currently guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan to be sure nothing interferes with our crop. The Taliban had pretty well stopped drug production in Afghanistan and that was not to be allowed. Shutting down our CIA operations.... naughty...naughty....
Interesting that Panama is right there too... A covert ops friend was there to take Noriega out.... said Noriega decided he was not getting enough of our CIA drug action and started cutting into our piece of the pie, so we took him out.
Later we had a friendly fire accident that tried to take him and his team out... got his team but not him. I have seen the pix and x-rays that seem to prove his stories as true. He is no longer so fond of our policies either and he as well as another covert ops friend feel the same as Scott mentioned above.
Maybe the 1980-1990's actions listed in South and Central America are Drug War, C.I.A. "Air America" type actions.
Besides the Iraq-Iran War, which was another U.S. intelligence war, what other country has Iran attacked ? Keep in mind Iraq attacked first. It's real clear to me that the U.S. uses Iran as a bogeyman to keep its citizens worried about people who are different than them. I always ask people that are pro-Iraq war, How many Americans did Iraq kill before the first Gulf War ? The answer none.
Windpower; The quotes below are Quigley's own words-----perhaps I was not completely clear--he did not repudiate his own words but did repudiate those who tried to use them to support world domination conspiracy theories.
Sorry I upset you so----you are welcome to your theories. Your posts are always interesting.
Rwanders
Quigley was later dismissive of some of the authors who used his writings to support theories of a world domination conspiracy. Of W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist he stated:
Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. I'm not an "insider" of these rich persons, although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940.[12]
On Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy he said:
They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything. For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that. Further, None Dare Call It Conspiracy insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940, when they became less influential than monopolized industry.[13]
[edit] Bibliography
It's seeing things like this that make me puke.
A War Criminal presents another War Criminal with Defending the Constitution award :o >:(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dOmFtBpg5s&feature=related
Why bother to post that if you yourself had problems with some of the references?
Bolivia in 1986, 1989... etc is absolutely false and innaccurate; there were specific, coordinated US-Bolivian interventions against out-of-control drug trafficking. Whether or not it made any lasting difference to the problem of illegal drug smuggling is another matter. But that was not a case of the us attacking any of those countries. Similarly on some of those other countries listed, it is a lie or a stretch to say they were attacks.
QuoteMaybe the 1980-1990's actions listed in South and Central America are Drug War, C.I.A. "Air America" type actions.
Those don't necessarily count as "aggression against another nation" unless you are convinced, as Glenn seems to be, that practically every US intervention has nefarious motives behind the scenes. And that those motives were against the interests of the country where they take place and the situation was wholly fabricated to generate that outcome.
Generally, the world isn't that simple. Usually when "powers" get involved, the reason they are able to do is because there are existing rifts in the local society and one or another side invites them in. This doesn't make the inviters "puppets" but it is typically a BIG MISTAKE. Ask the South American natives or Mexican tribes who tried to leverage the Spanish against the Inca or Aztec rulers. Oops!
The question of Iran being evil is based on a few things, none of which are cut and dried.
#1 They hated our guts in 1979 with very good cause. At the behest of the British government, to protect their oil interests there, we sent in the CIA to destabilize and overthrow the duly elected democratic government and put in an autocratic monarchy who would do Britain's bidding and who had the most bloodthirsty and feared secret police in the Middle East (SAVAK). This infuriated the leftists, the nationalist, and the religious right in Iran. The only way the Shah could stay in power was through repression and brute force.
#2 Iran vented that anger against the West immediately after. While they did not ATTACK anyone, they made it clear that they felt they would be justified in bombing us and our "Zionist allies" out of existence. The reason they did not is either because it was all bluster or because (our engineered and supported) Iraq immediately invaded them. There is a good case here that had Iraq not attacked them, Iran WOULD have turned its attention to the Sunni states, the US, or Britain. That doesn't excuse our behavior, but it explains the fear. Of course, there is another factor here, that Iraq invading Iran was the death-knell for any opposition to the Ayatollahs. It allowed them to consolidate power further in the face of a common enemy (Iraq and behind them, the US and Europe).
#3 Iran has been funding and supporting Shia and anti-Western partisans. They don't invade other countries, but they do support Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. We do the same thing supporting smaller states and partisans against them. They are not any more peaceful internationally than we are, they just don't have the military power to do what our government has done. INTENT + POWER = ACTION. Iran has not had the ability to project power like the US, but if it did, who is to say it would not be militarily intervening directly across the globe.
The reality is this is a continuation and tit for tat for a situation that started when the British and Russians invaded and colonized Persia and negotiated usurious concessions from the original monarchy. Persia seethed over it until the 50s when they got a backbone and a parliament, tried to throw off the British 'yoke', and the British got us involved. It's been whack-a-mole ever since.
Don,
Even if you cut that list by 1/3-1/2 it is still a strong indictment of U.S. interventionism, warmongering, nation-building, etc.
Since the exposure of Air America, Iran Contra, and current day Afghanistan it is not a stretch to question what the real motives of these operations are.
In Afghanistan the Taliban had cut poppy production way down, A 2006 report shows poppy production over 10,000 tons....one would assume it is only worse in 2011.
Most of our interventions do have ulterior motives, not by the servicemen offering their lives for the protection of our country, but by the higher ups who steal those good intentions for their own profit.
To people on the receiving end in those other countries listed, they would be viewed as attacks.
I guess we could call them interventions, but actually they were in many cases interventions to assure the CIA funding source.
Possibly we could say that these were places the USA stuck their nose in and sacrificed their soldiers and innocent civilians many times, when there was no real reason except to insure that the drugs kept moving for the elite and CIA ops.
The problem is Shawn, if they include everything including the kitchen sink, they ruin the credibility of the entire argument. It makes the reader suspicious of ALL of their alleged facts and conclusions. This is why it is important not to stretch definitions and justifications too far.
Sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber. ;D
The number 2 point on Iran was a deliberate mis-translation of Ahmadinejad's words and in reality he said he wanted the current Israeli leadership out of existence. Western news media of course blew the mis-translation up out of proportion as it was what they wanted it to say and the point they wanted to put across to poison the minds of the sheeple.
I don't think Iran is better than us... leadership of nearly all countries is twisted - maybe as bad as ours.
Iran pulls a lot of strings in the middle east, BUT, keep in mind this is their back yard. They have a vested interest in what happens in countries around them. When Iran occupies Canada and Mexico, and has huge Navy task forces in the Caribbean, the North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico let me know. This is what the U.S. is doing to Iran.
Take away the governments of the U.S. and Iran, and let the average citizens from each nation interact and I bet it would be peaceful.
It is gov'ts that start war and kill people. In fact the last hundred years alone gov'ts have killed an estimated 250 Million people.
Glenn, you really need to find more credible sources to quote and cut & paste from-----really, Michael Rivero? Really?? He is definitely a charter member of the circular BS firing squads. A radio talk show geek who feeds conspiracy theorists. The wilder the better for his audience who are willing to believe any assertion he makes as long as it fits their world image.
I don't believe everything any government tells me but, I can't believe anything Michael Rivero says.
I agree with you, Shawn. I have met people from many of these countries and none of them display the rabid greed of the leadership of any of the countries or the US. We create our own terrorist enemies with our foreign policies nearly always for illegitimate reasons.
Quote from: Shawn B on February 16, 2011, 11:12:26 PM
Take away the governments of the U.S. and Iran, and let the average citizens from each nation interact and I bet it would be peaceful.
For a while. How long? I can't say, but you can be guaranteed that someone will come along and start the whole thing all over again.
That's all I have to say. MD Out.
Glenn, you are a man of many talents-----are you really a Farsi speaker and you also have truly incredible sources who uncovered the huge conspiracy that ensured that all the Farsi speakers in the world would conceal what that peace-loving President of Iran really said about Israel-----in it's self a prodigious feat of organization.
Only a few words of Farsi RW, but there were lots of internet discussions at the time and the translators saying it was misinterpreted made a stronger case than the ones who twisted it the way they wanted it to come out...
Dang it.... got caught in another Argentina/Bolivia one...going on right now...
Just had Argentinians in my house a few weeks ago and I really doubt they want this stuff going on.
http://deadlinelive.info/2011/02/16/confiscated-u-s-military-cargo-in-argentina-was-for-a-south-american-black-op-cia-operatives-under-investigation/
I guess it's not considered an attack if it's a black op..... [waiting]
QuoteThe number 2 point on Iran was a deliberate mis-translation of Ahmadinejad's words and in reality he said he wanted the current Israeli leadership out of existence.
I was not quoting Achmadinejad's statements, I was referring to the 1979-1980s governments. So I was not mistranslating anything.
Achmadinejad is a political chameleon, 90% of what he says is not what he believes but is designed to sell to the masses. His primary motivation is to build a power base among the RevGuard and the rural poor to emancipate himself from the power of the conservative Ayatollahs. He uses any rhetoric he can get for that. He is much more concerned about staying in power than about anything the US, Israel, or the West are doing.
Oh _ I guess I mistook it for the recent claims by some here that they said he wanted to get rid of Israel, when he meant he wanted to get to see the current Israel administration removed. Sorry about that.
I agree with you on Amadinejad and in fact he does seem to try to provoke others much of the time. At times he even makes signs like he is in the same club as the rest who appear to be in GHW Bush and the elites NWO group, but none of them have the interests of the middle and lower class at heart. I have Iranian friends who do not agree with their leadership either. It is sometimes like a jousting match just to make things stay stirred up as if the different leaders draw straws to see who will be elected as enemies. It does manage to keep the war machine running and give the leadership an enemy they can use to control the people. Scared people will give up their rights easily and freely to get the state to protect them from the bogey man.
Part of my point in this whole topic is that our and world leadership does not so much have the interests of the citizens at heart, but rather war for oil, greed, corporate profit, and power at the expense of the citizens. Citizens are nearly all considered expendable to the leadership of nearly all countries.
Rwanders
you do not upset me at all
There is also no link or back up to the supposed Quigley quotes
but even if Quigley said those things about a couple authors that misinterpreted his book -- his original work and study of 20 years and his study of their "secret papers" (his words not mine) for two years stands as documented proof that wealthy people and powerful banks work together in secret to control economies and increase their wealth and power.
I have not completely read my copy of Tragedy and Hope (it is 1348 pages long) however I know it is a well dociumented and well indexed reference book from what I have read.
John Perkins corroborates much of Quigley's work as it functions in the modern empire in Confessions of an Economic Hitman
a 2 minute summary is here with a voice over by Perkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ
if we do not stand up to this we are complicit in these criminal actions
the BIS is now getting its pound of flesh from the US
we are now being turned into a third world country -- it is not accidental
That is what so many fail to notice. These failures are planned,
Soros has been working overtime on engineering regime changes and is even involved in our latest one.
Short video of Bush Sr on 9/11/91 & other dates, also Gary Hart talking about a "New World Order"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&feature=player_embedded