Strange...is there a Nazi influence in the US military after all?
Thalia
infiltrating and influencing the US government after WWII. I didn't finish
reading it because I didn't find it particularly interesting, although it
appeared well researched. However, I came across a youtube video today,
which to be honest, I found astonishing. A miltary base built in America
in 1967 is in the shape of a swastica. How on on earth could this happen?
The designer and the builders would have been looking at the swastica
shaped design for months. Symbolism in a society is extremely important,
and this symbol is perhaps one of the most important ever.
The guy being interviewed is interesting.... he is a "truther" - watch how
he makes reference to the 9/11 attacks.
Anyway, I hope you find this interesting..... I did!! I have argued for a
while that a fascist element had taken over the shadow government in the
United States (ie the military), and it was an off shoot of that mindset
that got JFK assassinated.
Chuck Schuyler
Please tell me your not serious.
It only looks like a swastika IF you fill in the blank space between
the buildings.
How do you know the Navy wasn't paying homage to all of the other
cultures that have used this symbol before? It's an ancient Hindu
peace sign of some sort.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/139365724_a0b48ee38c.jpg
Here is an article on the ubiquitous swastika. It's been around for a
long time:
HistorianDetective
Old News!
It's an international conspiracy!
NAZI IN AFRICA! GOOGLE EARTH AND 4 SWASTIKAS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M8Dsw29AYU&feature=related
NEXT!
JM
Anthony Marsh
> I recently read a book by Jim Marrs called the Fouth Reich on Nazis
> infiltrating and influencing the US government after WWII. I didn't finish
> reading it because I didn't find it particularly interesting, although it
There is a lot to that story. Look up the ratline.
> appeared well researched. However, I came across a youtube video today,
> which to be honest, I found astonishing. A miltary base built in America
> in 1967 is in the shape of a swastica. How on on earth could this happen?
I seriously doubt that. But variations of the swastika have been used
for hundreds of years before the Nazis stole it.
> The designer and the builders would have been looking at the swastica
> shaped design for months. Symbolism in a society is extremely important,
> and this symbol is perhaps one of the most important ever.
>
Sure, but it is an easy mistake to see any symbol and assume it has to
be a swastika.
jas
Hmmmmmm---spooky. Maybe where the Kennedy assassins planned the
conspiracy? After all, it is a military base.
BTW, Coronado Island is a beautiful place to vacation, actually used
to live there eons ago for about 6 months.
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
AAMOF the swastika was used by the British Ambulance service during
WWI .
Native Amercan Indian tapestry abounds with the crooked cross going
back hundreds of years .
Germans used it as a good luck piece during WWI .
There are dozens of examples like this .
tl
Bud
> I recently read a book by Jim Marrs called the Fouth Reich on Nazis
> infiltrating and influencing the US government after WWII. I didn't finish
> reading it because I didn't find it particularly interesting, although it
> appeared well researched. However, I came across a youtube video today,
> which to be honest, I found astonishing. A miltary base built in America
> in 1967 is in the shape of a swastica. How on on earth could this happen?
> The designer and the builders would have been looking at the swastica
> shaped design for months. Symbolism in a society is extremely important,
> and this symbol is perhaps one of the most important ever.
You assume symbolism was on the the designers radar, perhaps he was
just looking to get the most efficient use of the space.
> The guy being interviewed is interesting.... he is a "truther" - watch how
> he makes reference to the 9/11 attacks.
>
> Anyway, I hope you find this interesting..... I did!! I have argued for a
> while that a fascist element had taken over the shadow government in the
> United States (ie the military), and it was an off shoot of that mindset
> that got JFK assassinated.
What does the shadow government achieve with a swatstika shaped
building other than having someone like you say "I knew it!"?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkls1v6vJE&feature=email
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 22, 11:45 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I recently read a book by Jim Marrs called the Fouth Reich on Nazis
>> infiltrating and influencing the US government after WWII. I didn't finish
>> reading it because I didn't find it particularly interesting, although it
>> appeared well researched. However, I came across a youtube video today,
>> which to be honest, I found astonishing. A miltary base built in America
>> in 1967 is in the shape of a swastica. How on on earth could this happen?
>> The designer and the builders would have been looking at the swastica
>> shaped design for months. Symbolism in a society is extremely important,
>> and this symbol is perhaps one of the most important ever.
>>
>> The guy being interviewed is interesting.... he is a "truther" - watch how
>> he makes reference to the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope you find this interesting..... I did!! I have argued for a
>> while that a fascist element had taken over the shadow government in the
>> United States (ie the military), and it was an off shoot of that mindset
>> that got JFK assassinated.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkls1v6vJE&feature=email
>
> Please tell me your not serious.
>
> It only looks like a swastika IF you fill in the blank space between
> the buildings.
>
> How do you know the Navy wasn't paying homage to all of the other
> cultures that have used this symbol before? It's an ancient Hindu
> peace sign of some sort.
>
Peace? More like good luck. And of course it was commonly used before
the Nazis adopted it. We had some punks up here who tried to deface some
properly and drew it backwards which is the Hindu symbol.
cdddraftsman
I don't know about any shadow government but our major scientific
breakthroughs over the last half century were based upon WWII Nazi
Scientific work done during the 30's and especially the last 3 years
of WWII :
JFK's 'Moon Shot' : Werner Von Braum ,
Shock and Awe : Hines Guderen's "Blitzkrieg" (Lightning Warfare)
Sinthentic Fibers : Heat from building material was a great
contributing factor in WTC collapse.
Jet Fighters and bombers : Me-262 etc.
Assault Rifle : Hitler coined the term.
Hundreds of others .....
Hitler like Oswald pulled a funny trick on everyone .... both will be
with us for a very long time .
tl
HistorianDetective
CCD
> Hitler like Oswald pulled a funny trick on everyone .... both will be
> with us for a very long time .
>
Difficult not to ditto that length of time.
JM
Thalia
>
> How do you know the Navy wasn't paying homage to all of the other
> cultures that have used this symbol before? It's an ancient Hindu
> peace sign of some sort.
I don't, but I don't think the Navy would think to pay homage to a
sign [that had nowt to do with the navy] 20 years after the Nazis had
usurped it as a sign of fascism, war and mass murder.
Thalia
>
> Hmmmmmm---spooky. Maybe where the Kennedy assassins planned the
> conspiracy? After all, it is a military base.
>
Yep we are starting to fill in some details, oops, no the swastica was
built in 1967, so the time line doesn't fit.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 22, 9:45 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I recently read a book by Jim Marrs called the Fouth Reich on Nazis
>> infiltrating and influencing the US government after WWII. I didn't finish
>> reading it because I didn't find it particularly interesting, although it
>> appeared well researched. However, I came across a youtube video today,
>> which to be honest, I found astonishing. A miltary base built in America
>> in 1967 is in the shape of a swastica. How on on earth could this happen?
>> The designer and the builders would have been looking at the swastica
>> shaped design for months. Symbolism in a society is extremely important,
>> and this symbol is perhaps one of the most important ever.
>>
>> The guy being interviewed is interesting.... he is a "truther" - watch how
>> he makes reference to the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope you find this interesting..... I did!! I have argued for a
>> while that a fascist element had taken over the shadow government in the
>> United States (ie the military), and it was an off shoot of that mindset
>> that got JFK assassinated.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkls1v6vJE&feature=email
>
> I don't know about any shadow government but our major scientific
> breakthroughs over the last half century were based upon WWII Nazi
> Scientific work done during the 30's and especially the last 3 years
> of WWII :
>
Operation Paperclip. Gehlen. More may be coming out about him soon.
The CIA is the shadow government, unelected and unregulated,
unrestrained and uncontrollable.
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, what about efficiency? Why do you think the Pentagon is designed
as a pentagon? Devil worship? It is symbolic and efficient.
j leyden
j leyden
Look at it this way, Thalia; If it hadn't been for the U.S. Military,
you and your Australian buddies might very well be speaking Japanese
right now. As Oscare Wilde said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
JGL
Bud
Yah, like most rockets being phallic shaped, symbolic and efficient.
In any case, heres a interesting site showing various historic
swastikas. Even Coca-cola used it...
http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/swastika-and-cross.html
Coondog
More typical crap from a self confessed “CIA hater”. The man that
appoints the head of the CIA and the man the CIA works for is most
certainly elected. Strike one Marsh. There exist regulations and
restraints on the CIA with oversight by Congress. Strike two Marsh.
If the CIA is “uncontrollable”, and I doubt it is, then it is up to
upper echelon to bring them under control. That is what we have a
director and a president for. Strike three Marsh. Looks like you are
out. Again.
Bill Clarke
Thalia
>
> Operation Paperclip. Gehlen. More may be coming out about him soon.
> The CIA is the shadow government, unelected and unregulated,
> unrestrained and uncontrollable.
Yep. I have to hand it to the CIA, they are exceptionally clever, they
have hoodwinked a lot of people for a long period of time.
Thalia
> On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Look at it this way, Thalia; If it hadn't been for the U.S. Military,
> you and your Australian buddies might very well be speaking Japanese
> right now. As Oscare Wilde said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
misunderstood - the pendulum swung fully from an isolationist policy to
full blown militarism and interventionism. Now you have to have an
'enemy' just to justify the money being spent on the military, and you we
can see this in practice with the War in Iraq - Saddam presented no more
of a threat to the United States than does Fiji, and yet look what
happened. Its the "unspeakable" at work, and you do yourself and your
country a great diservice by refusing to acknowledge this.
Chuck Schuyler
You're now agreeing with me that there isn't anything sinister
intended in the design of the buildings.
Coondog
Thalia, be advised that the CIA is in the business of “hoodwinking”
people. Or were you just making a funny here? I got a good laugh
anyway. Can you list intelligence organizations of other countries
that truly forbid “hoodwinking”? It would be like sending these folks
out to pick up a horse apple by its clean end.
The president plays his part in this “hoodwinking”, actively enjoying
the plausible denial that is a foundation of CIA policy. Once again,
you need to investigate the sins of the president before you can
understand the sins of the CIA. They are most often connected.
Bill Clarke
j leyden
> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
> misunderstood
Question: Have you ever been to the USA, Thalia? If so, how about a
few details.
JGL
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 26, 10:33 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
>> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
>> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
>> misunderstood
>
> Question: Have you ever been to the USA, Thalia? If so, how about a
> few details.
>
What kind of lame-ass argument is that? Have you ever been to the moon?
Then how do you know anything about it? Geesh!
Coondog
> On Dec 25, 5:23 am, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Look at it this way, Thalia; If it hadn't been for the U.S. Military,
> > you and your Australian buddies might very well be speaking Japanese
> > right now. As Oscare Wilde said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
> misunderstood - the pendulum swung fully from an isolationist policy to
> full blown militarism and interventionism. Now you have to have an
> 'enemy' just to justify the money being spent on the military,
We have never had a dearth of enemies. There has always been, is now and
always will be people who wish to kill you or enslave you and your allies
for your natural resources, for the color of your skin, for your religion
and for god knows what all. Dealing with these folks is not for the weak
of heart, they understand one thing and it comes out of the barrel of a
gun.
> and you we can see this in practice with the War in Iraq - Saddam
presented no more
> of a threat to the United States than does Fiji, and yet look what
> happened.
There is a group of folks that readily, and often with an air of
indignation and superior attitude, tell me that Vietnam was no threat to
the United States. Now while that is true they show their lack of
understanding and knowledge of the Cold War. They fail to see the big
picture.
Its the "unspeakable" at work, and you do yourself and your
> country a great diservice by refusing to acknowledge this.
Yeah, it’s a big old ugly world out there.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 25, 5:23 am, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Look at it this way, Thalia; If it hadn't been for the U.S. Military,
>> you and your Australian buddies might very well be speaking Japanese
>> right now. As Oscare Wilde said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
>>
>
> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
> misunderstood - the pendulum swung fully from an isolationist policy to
> full blown militarism and interventionism. Now you have to have an
It goes back farther than WWII. We had a thing in this country called the
Great Depression in the early 1930's where lots of ordinary people went
broke while the richest go richer. The only thing that brought us out of
the Great Depression was war production in the late 1930's. But after WWII
we had run out of enemies. We completely defeated Germany, Italy, and
Japan. So we had to invent a new enemy to maintain war production. So we
chose Russia, which had been our ally in WWII. That was the only country
large enough to be a plausible enemy to justify wasting billions of
dollars.
So to combat that enemy we allied with the Arab terrorists in Afghanistan.
Then after the Russians were gone we turned our backs on the Arab
terrorists. We used the Communists in Vietnam and China to fight the
Japanese and then after the war turned out backs on them as well. Now that
conventional warfare is obsolete we still need enemies to justify the
stealing of billions of dollars so we invent new enemies.
> 'enemy' just to justify the money being spent on the military, and you we
> can see this in practice with the War in Iraq - Saddam presented no more
> of a threat to the United States than does Fiji, and yet look what
Well, Fiji doesn't have oil. If Greenland's oil suddenly became drillable,
the US would create an excuse to invade Greenland. Those damn Greenland
terrorists!
cdddraftsman
Thalia apparently never learned the most important lesson that history has
to offer , that when one man or Nation's rights are threatened ALL men and
ALL Nation's rights are threatened !
"History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time"
And is it not a wonder ? When people distort the original meaning and
facts of current history they're bound to repeat them .
tl
Coondog
Steinbeck said it wasn’t history repeating itself so much as it was
human nature repeating itself. I’m afraid he has a point.
Bill Clarke
> And is it not a wonder ? When people distort the original meaning and
> facts of current history they're bound to repeat them .
>
> tl- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
My god Marsh, if it wasn’t for wasting a good man I’d recommend you
for Officer Training School. Your grasp of things military simply
boggles the mind. How did your, “conventional warfare is obsolete” go
over when you briefed the Pentagon? Chortle again!
Be advised General, when massed armor units of Corps and Army size are
on the move it is considered “conventional”!
> > 'enemy' just to justify the money being spent on the military, and you we
> > can see this in practice with the War in Iraq - Saddam presented no more
> > of a threat to the United States than does Fiji, and yet look what
>
> Well, Fiji doesn't have oil. If Greenland's oil suddenly became drillable,
> the US would create an excuse to invade Greenland. Those damn Greenland
> terrorists!
And if Vietnam had oil we would still be there. Right Marsh?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 26, 7:33 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 5:23 am, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at it this way, Thalia; If it hadn't been for the U.S. Military,
>>> you and your Australian buddies might very well be speaking Japanese
>>> right now. As Oscare Wilde said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
>>
>> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
>> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
>> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
>> misunderstood - the pendulum swung fully from an isolationist policy to
>> full blown militarism and interventionism. Now you have to have an
>> 'enemy' just to justify the money being spent on the military,
>
> We have never had a dearth of enemies. There has always been, is now and
> always will be people who wish to kill you or enslave you and your allies
> for your natural resources, for the color of your skin, for your religion
> and for god knows what all. Dealing with these folks is not for the weak
> of heart, they understand one thing and it comes out of the barrel of a
> gun.
>
Yeah, right. That's why we hear of so many wars in Iceland eh?
Ever hear of Switzerland which has a policy of neutrality?
We MAKE our enemies.
War mongering does not produce peace.
> > and you we can see this in practice with the War in Iraq - Saddam
> presented no more
>> of a threat to the United States than does Fiji, and yet look what
>> happened.
>
> There is a group of folks that readily, and often with an air of
> indignation and superior attitude, tell me that Vietnam was no threat to
> the United States. Now while that is true they show their lack of
> understanding and knowledge of the Cold War. They fail to see the big
> picture.
>
Aha, the big picture. Which only you can see. And which justifies any
atrocity you can dream up.
> Its the "unspeakable" at work, and you do yourself and your
>> country a great diservice by refusing to acknowledge this.
>
> Yeah, it�s a big old ugly world out there.
>
Some people go out of their way to make it uglier instead of working for
peace.
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
j leyden
> So we had to invent a new enemy to maintain war production. So we
> chose Russia, which had been our ally in WWII. That was the only country
> large enough to be a plausible enemy to justify wasting billions of
> dollars.
Given your distaste for the country you live in, Tony, I'm surprised
you're still here. Why not move to western Australia near Thalia. That's
about as far away as you can get from the USA and perhaps people there
will think you actually know something of American history. It's worth a
shot. I don't believe you're impressing anyone here.
JGL
> > country a great diservice by refusing to acknowledge this.- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
> On 12/27/2009 1:03 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 7:33 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 25, 5:23 am, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Look at it this way, Thalia; If it hadn't been for the U.S. Military,
> >>> you and your Australian buddies might very well be speaking Japanese
> >>> right now. As Oscare Wilde said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
> >> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
> >> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
> >> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
> >> misunderstood - the pendulum swung fully from an isolationist policy to
> >> full blown militarism and interventionism. Now you have to have an
> >> 'enemy' just to justify the money being spent on the military,
>
> > We have never had a dearth of enemies. There has always been, is now and
> > always will be people who wish to kill you or enslave you and your allies
> > for your natural resources, for the color of your skin, for your religion
> > and for god knows what all. Dealing with these folks is not for the weak
> > of heart, they understand one thing and it comes out of the barrel of a
> > gun.
>
> Yeah, right. That's why we hear of so many wars in Iceland eh?
> Ever hear of Switzerland which has a policy of neutrality?
Boy howdy, you named a couple of world powers there didn’t you? I
guess you got me Marsh! Heh!
> We MAKE our enemies.
> War mongering does not produce peace.
The war monger is to be avoided at all cost but I must point out to
you that running away like a rabbit doesn’t produce peace either.
Running just means you’re going to be tired when they kill you.
> > > and you we can see this in practice with the War in Iraq - Saddam
> > presented no more
> >> of a threat to the United States than does Fiji, and yet look what
> >> happened.
>
> > There is a group of folks that readily, and often with an air of
> > indignation and superior attitude, tell me that Vietnam was no threat to
> > the United States. Now while that is true they show their lack of
> > understanding and knowledge of the Cold War. They fail to see the big
> > picture.
>
> Aha, the big picture. Which only you can see. And which justifies any
> atrocity you can dream up.
No, I think most folks clearly see the big picture. Then you have
those that see only what they want to see.
Again with the atrocities, Marsh. What is it with you? I gave you a
list of atrocities just a few days ago, you already used those up?
You didn’t comment on them? Why?
> > Its the "unspeakable" at work, and you do yourself and your
> >> country a great diservice by refusing to acknowledge this.
>
> > Yeah, it’s a big old ugly world out there.
>
> Some people go out of their way to make it uglier instead of working for
> peace.
May I ask Marsh just what have you ever done for your country? Don’t
stutter, don’t stammer, don’t do your side step shuffle, don’t run
off. Just tell me what you have ever done for your country.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> On Dec 27, 1:05 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > So we had to invent a new enemy to maintain war production. So we
> > chose Russia, which had been our ally in WWII. That was the only country
> > large enough to be a plausible enemy to justify wasting billions of
> > dollars.
>
> Given your distaste for the country you live in, Tony, I'm surprised
> you're still here. Why not move to western Australia near Thalia. That's
> about as far away as you can get from the USA and perhaps people there
> will think you actually know something of American history. It's worth a
> shot. I don't believe you're impressing anyone here.
>
> JGL
I believe Mr. Marsh would be happier in a different type government.
Perhaps Vietnam or North Korea would make him happier. Perhaps he
would come running back home like Ozzie!
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 27, 1:05 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> So we had to invent a new enemy to maintain war production. So we
>> chose Russia, which had been our ally in WWII. That was the only country
>> large enough to be a plausible enemy to justify wasting billions of
>> dollars.
>
> Given your distaste for the country you live in, Tony, I'm surprised
Typical comment from an extreme right-winger who espouse the America,
love it or leave it. You have no respect for the founding principles of
our country. You see dissent as treason.
> you're still here. Why not move to western Australia near Thalia. That's
> about as far away as you can get from the USA and perhaps people there
> will think you actually know something of American history. It's worth a
> shot. I don't believe you're impressing anyone here.
>
You don't even understand what I am talking about.
Thalia
> On Dec 26, 10:33 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
> > stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
> > something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
> > misunderstood
>
> Question: Have you ever been to the USA, Thalia? If so, how about a
> few details.
Not sure why you are interested in the "details" of my trips. Maybe
you think I should be put on some type of "anti-American" list or
something. I have visted the States twice, and drove across the
country from East to West. I have been to the "knoll" twice. I met
Robert Groden on the knoll. I loved my visits there, it is the most
amazing country on the planet {next to Oz of course] and most people I
met were wonderful, and very friendly. I even thought about applying
for a greencard and one of me good friends lives in LA. However, my
interest is with American politics and government, which is a seperate
from the American people and landscape.
claviger
> I recently read a book by Jim Marrs called the Fouth Reich on Nazis
> infiltrating and influencing the US government after WWII. I didn't finish
> reading it because I didn't find it particularly interesting, although it
> appeared well researched. However, I came across a youtube video today,
> which to be honest, I found astonishing. A miltary base built in America
> in 1967 is in the shape of a swastica. How on on earth could this happen?
> The designer and the builders would have been looking at the swastica
> shaped design for months. Symbolism in a society is extremely important,
> and this symbol is perhaps one of the most important ever.
>
> The guy being interviewed is interesting.... he is a "truther" - watch how
> he makes reference to the 9/11 attacks.
>
> Anyway, I hope you find this interesting..... I did!! I have argued for a
> while that a fascist element had taken over the shadow government in the
> United States (ie the military), and it was an off shoot of that mindset
> that got JFK assassinated.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkls1v6vJE&feature=email
is a subtle hint where the Nazis-R-Us Headquarters is located. The
building is especially helpful to ex-Luftwaffe pilots, especially the
ones in charge of SAC. Evidently W was not in on the secret because he
had "too many Jews" in his administration. Since the Republican Party
is solid in support for Israel the secret Nazis in the US Government
must be Democrats. Thanks Thalia for letting us know who the real
Nazis are in the US politburo.
jas
Wow! You traveled all the way to America and saw Robert Groden?
I'm sorry...
Maybe next time you should look up Vince Bugliosi, you know, someone
who knows what he is talking about.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 27, 5:09 am, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 10:33 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that is true. Though the Aussies put up a very good fight - we were
>>> stretched fighting for the British Empire before Pearl Harbor. However,
>>> something happened in America after WWII that is perplexing and seems very
>>> misunderstood
>>
>> Question: Have you ever been to the USA, Thalia? If so, how about a
>> few details.
>
> Not sure why you are interested in the "details" of my trips. Maybe
He's not "interested" in anything. He's always in attack mode, trying to
discredit anyone who believes in conspiracy.
> you think I should be put on some type of "anti-American" list or
> something. I have visted the States twice, and drove across the
> country from East to West. I have been to the "knoll" twice. I met
> Robert Groden on the knoll. I loved my visits there, it is the most
> amazing country on the planet {next to Oz of course] and most people I
> met were wonderful, and very friendly. I even thought about applying
> for a greencard and one of me good friends lives in LA. However, my
> interest is with American politics and government, which is a seperate
> from the American people and landscape.
>
They will try every trick in the book rather than discuss the evidence.
j leyden
> Not sure why you are interested in the "details" of my trips. Maybe
> you think I should be put on some type of "anti-American" list or
> something. I have visted the States twice, and drove across the
> country from East to West. I have been to the "knoll" twice. I met
> Robert Groden on the knoll. I loved my visits there, it is the most
> amazing country on the planet {next to Oz of course] and most people I
> met were wonderful, and very friendly. I even thought about applying
> for a greencard and one of me good friends lives in LA. However, my
> interest is with American politics and government, which is a seperate
> from the American people and landscape.
Well, thanks for your answer. On your next trip to Dallas, however, try
to avoid Robt. Groden. He disgraced himself with his testimony at the OJ
Simpson trial. The fact that he's still hanging out on the Knoll decades
after the assassination should tell you something.
JGL
j leyden
> You don't even understand what I am talking about.
>
I rarely do, Tony. But now that you've rewrittten the history of the Cold
War, making Joe Stalin the victim, you might want to take a shot at
cleaning up Hitler's image. You know the Brits & French declared war on
him, so you can't really blame him for starting WWII.
JGL
jas
>We completely defeated Germany, Italy, and
> Japan. So we had to invent a new enemy to maintain war production. So we
> chose Russia, which had been our ally in WWII. That was the only country
> large enough to be a plausible enemy to justify wasting billions of
> dollars.
What??? Jeez! Read your history before opining, Marsh. You might learn
something.
Your personal interpretation of world history is fascinating -- and only a
minuscule fraction of a one-dimensional viewpoint.
Yes, the U.S. and Russia were allies in WWII, but there was "method to the
madness" in that the alliance was to defeat Hitler and the Third Reich.
When that was accomplished, power-hungry Stalin didn't know when to stop
advancing on the West, thus the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact with
their Soviet satellite countries. Simply put, Stalin wanted too much, and
the U.S. intervened.
jas
> Typical comment from an extreme right-winger who espouse the America,
> love it or leave it. You have no respect for the founding principles of
> our country. You see dissent as treason.
Man, do you see the contradiction in your statement? Of course you do. You
can read.
Your blanket generalization in calling those who defend U.S. policies
"extreme right-wingers" is, in itself, extremist and one-dimensional
thinking, and therefore not liberal at all.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 28, 12:10 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You don't even understand what I am talking about.
>>
>
> I rarely do, Tony. But now that you've rewrittten the history of the Cold
> War, making Joe Stalin the victim, you might want to take a shot at
Again, you confirm that you don't understand what I am talking about.
Allies change from day to day. Before Germany attacked Russia they were
allies, having signed a mutual non-aggression pact. While Germany
invaded Poland, Russia invaded Finland. Then after Germany attacked
Russia, Russia became our ally.
> cleaning up Hitler's image. You know the Brits& French declared war on
> him, so you can't really blame him for starting WWII.
>
And the US declared war on Japan. You got a point?
> JGL
Anthony Marsh
I met Vince in person and called him a liar to his face.
Coondog
You’ll be glad to know that Marsh has also sheep dipped his Uncle Ho,
another nice guy we used in WW II and then “turned our back on him”.
It is to laugh!
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Well said.
Bill Clarke
j leyden
> And the US declared war on Japan. You got a point?
>
Nah, I'm out of points. There simply is no point in debating someone (an
American, no less) who blames the US for starting and maintaining the Cold
War. Ever hear of the "Iron Curtain," Tony? Didn't think so.
JGL
HistorianDetective
TM
> I met Vince in person and called him a liar to his face.
Something you are obviously proud of. You have been posting references,
for quite some time now, of this disruption and outburst of yours at a
public forum. Screw the rest of the people who were there to listen and
decide for themselves, eh Tony?
Truly a Class Act!
JM
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 28, 3:51 pm, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 12:10 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't even understand what I am talking about.
>>
>> I rarely do, Tony. But now that you've rewrittten the history of the Cold
>> War, making Joe Stalin the victim, you might want to take a shot at
>> him, so you can't really blame him for starting WWII.
>>
>> JGL
>
> another nice guy we used in WW II and then ?turned our back on him?.
> It is to laugh!
> Bill Clarke
>
I like the way you try to use cute phrases to try to deny a simple fact
and then when I prove my point you claim that you never denied the simple
fact. The simple fact is that we saved Ho Chi Minh's life in WWII and used
him to fight the Japanese. We promised him a democracy in Vietnam after
the war then after the war we gave Vietnam back to the French.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Promised him a democracy!!!???
You think he wanted a democracy?
Stalinist really are your cup of tea, Tony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Coondog
I doubt you would get away with that kind of rude behavior in Texas.
Bill Clarke
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good for you, Bugliosi is not open to reason on that issue. Mind you
read Bugliosi's book on prosecuting Bush and pretty much agreed with
everything he said. Go figure.
Coondog
> On 12/29/2009 4:21 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 3:51 pm, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 28, 12:10 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> You don't even understand what I am talking about.
>
> >> I rarely do, Tony. But now that you've rewrittten the history of the Cold
> >> War, making Joe Stalin the victim, you might want to take a shot at
> >> cleaning up Hitler's image. You know the Brits& French declared war on
> >> him, so you can't really blame him for starting WWII.
>
> >> JGL
>
> > You?ll be glad to know that Marsh has also sheep dipped his Uncle Ho,
> > another nice guy we used in WW II and then ?turned our back on him?.
> > It is to laugh!
> > Bill Clarke
>
> I like the way you try to use cute phrases to try to deny a simple fact
> and then when I prove my point you claim that you never denied the simple
> fact.
If this was truly the case, and it is not, all you would have to do is
run a quick search and post my statement that you now claim I deny.
As Harris said, Headers would be nice to keep things on the up and
up. You have failed to do this where you claim I said My Lai never
happened. I notice you haven’t posted anything Harris said that you
claim he said. So Marsh, why don’t you put up or stand down. You’ve
yet to prove a point until you do.
>The simple fact is that we saved Ho Chi Minh's life in WWII and used
> him to fight the Japanese.
Now, the simple fact is that the medic with Ho said he wasn’t sure he
would have died but he was very sick. If he saved his life I wish to
hell that he hadn’t. If you knew what you were talking about you
would know that the neither the U.S. nor Ho had the force required to
damage the Japanese in Vietnam. We dropped the big ones in Japan and
Japan surrendered. Ho ran some operations against lightly defended
Japanese outpost and he did this mostly to gain weapons. The 5,000
weapons we gave him gave him the power to march into Hanoi in 1945.
The way I see it your Uncle Ho owes us.
> We promised him a democracy inVietnamafter
> the war then after the war we gaveVietnamback to the French.- Hide quoted text -
Whoa! A biggie! You got a reference for this bit of History
According to Marsh? I hope so.
Bill Clarke
Thalia
At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault. The United States
always puts its national interests, and the interests of its
corporations, ahead of people's rights. The reason America was so anti-
communist was because American business interests were put at risk. In
Cuba, a brutal dictator, Batista, was supported for so long by America
because American corporations controlled its sugar production (which
benefitted the corporations, not the Cuban people) and letting the
American Mafia operate casinos. Along came Castro, who nationalised
Cuban sugar and kicked the mafia out and closed the casino's. Whoops,
America is not happy. Similar stories are repeated throughout South
America where brutal dictators were supported as long as they allowed
American busines interests to operate as they wished. Fighting
Communism had nothing to do with the evils of communism enslaving
people as such, but not putting American businesses at risk. In a
sense, this is natural, humans are naturally selfish and put their own
needs first. A similar thing has happened with the Iraq War. No WMD's
were found, and there is high probability that the intelligence for
their existence was manufactured. The American people's anger and
fears over 9/11 was harnessed effectively to support an invasion. Once
the WMD excuse for invasion became obsolete, supporters of Bush and
the War started proclaiming that the war was to free the Iraqi people
from their evil dictator. (which in reality would force America to
invade countries all over the place) This was all done with a straight
face, because America must never be seen to be in the wrong, and the
image it has of istelf as defender and promoter of freedom and liberty
must not be tarnished. Ultimately, nothing will change for the better
while Americans insist on defending American foreign policy.
You lose credibilty by taking the "America is 100% right with
everything it does" line.
Coondog
> On Dec 30, 5:25 am, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 9:16 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > And the US declared war on Japan. You got a point?
>
> > Nah, I'm out of points. There simply is no point in debating someone (an
> > American, no less) who blames the US for starting and maintaining the Cold
> > War. Ever hear of the "Iron Curtain," Tony? Didn't think so.
>
> > JGL
>
> At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault. The United States
> always puts its national interests, and the interests of its
> corporations, ahead of people's rights.
I assume you admire the human rights records of the USSR, China, North
Korea and Vietnam?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
I didn't "get away with" it Cambridge either. I had a couple of kooks
ready to beat me up. Surprisingly I was sitting behind Priscilla and she
didn't say a peep.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
> On 29 Dec 2009 23:09:50 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2009 4:21 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 3:51 pm, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 28, 12:10 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> You?ll be glad to know that Marsh has also sheep dipped his Uncle Ho,
>>> another nice guy we used in WW II and then ?turned our back on him?.
>>> It is to laugh!
>>> Bill Clarke
>>>
>>
>>
>> I like the way you try to use cute phrases to try to deny a simple fact
>> and then when I prove my point you claim that you never denied the simple
>> fact. The simple fact is that we saved Ho Chi Minh's life in WWII and used
>> him to fight the Japanese. We promised him a democracy in Vietnam after
>> the war then after the war we gave Vietnam back to the French.
>>
>
> Promised him a democracy!!!???
>
> You think he wanted a democracy?
>
He based his constitution on ours.
You really need to read the book on the OSS.
> Stalinist really are your cup of tea, Tony.
>
The only ones which intrigued me were the Trotskyites.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HistorianDetective
Thalia,
>At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault......
>You lose credibilty by taking the "America is 100% right with
> everything it does" line.
Would it please you if we had a "Sorry Day" ?
You observe a "National Sorry Day" in Australia.
Now is that apology for:
The "Stolen Generation" (regarding the kids)?
Australia's history of Legislative Genocide?
Both?
More?
JM
PS...Just to make you aware...
We Americans aren't PERFCT! But, we're damn close!
We make mistakes. We aplogize for mistakes.
Not all mistakes require an apology. Sorry, if you think
they do.
claviger
> At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault.
What would at maximum be?
> The United States always puts its national interests, and the interests of its
> corporations, ahead of people's rights.
So other governments don't do that?
"People's rights" is a rather large category. For instance, the US
interfered with the rights of the Japanese people to conquer and
dominate the Western Pacific in the 1940s and in the very same decade
had the audacity to interfere with rights of the German people to
annex whatever they wanted in Europe. Were it not for US interference
in the 1950s there would be no South Korea today. The Dominican
Republic, Grenada, Panama, and Nicaragua are democracies because of US
interference. By the way, democracy is no guarantee the people will
elect good guys. Nicaragua just voted back in the Ortegas and Gaza
voted for the most radical political party on the ballot. However, in
a democracy at least people have a chance to vote and avoid bloodshed.
> The reason America was so anti-communist was because American
> business interests were put at risk. In Cuba, a brutal dictator, Batista,
> was supported for so long by America because American corporations
> controlled its sugar production (which benefitted the corporations, not
> the Cuban people) and letting the American Mafia operate casinos.
What benefited the Cuban people most was tourism. Cuba was the Number
One tourist destination in the Western Hemisphere. That all went away
when Castro took over. The Cuban people have been living in poverty
ever since.
> Along came Castro, who nationalised Cuban sugar and kicked the mafia
> out and closed the casino's. Whoops, America is not happy.
When he nationalized private property he became the biggest thief in
Cuba. If he had good intentions why did he not offer compensation for
the assets he expropriated for his pals in the Revolution? What about
his notorious human rights abuses? No problem for you, right? Castro
imprisoned more Cubans than Batista ever did.
> Similar stories are repeated throughout South America where brutal
> dictators were supported as long as they allowed American business
> interests to operate as they wished. Fighting Communism had nothing
> to do with the evils of communism enslaving people as such, but not
> putting American businesses at risk.
So what you seem to be saying is left-wing dictators like Castro, the
Ortega brothers, and Hugo Chavez are okay, it’s just right-wing
dictators you object to?
> In a sense, this is natural, humans are naturally selfish and put their
> own needs first.
Gosh, that sounds so irrational. Why would any government do something
like that?
> A similar thing has happened with the Iraq War. No WMD's
> were found, and there is high probability that the intelligence
> for their existence was manufactured.
No WMDs, and no WMDs found, are two different situations entirely.
Actually there is a high probability WMD stockpiles and hardware were
removed to Dayr as-Zawr, Syria. This would confirm what some Iraqi
witnesses told reporters about equipment being dismantled and sent to
Syria prior to Desert Storm. And you seem to have forgotten about the
1981 raid by the Israelis on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility to prevent
Sadaam Hussein from adding more weapons to his existing arsenal of
chemical WMDs, which he did not hesitate to use against the Kurds.
> The American people's anger and fears over 9/11 was harnessed
> effectively to support an invasion. Once the WMD excuse for invasion
> became obsolete, supporters of Bush and the War started proclaiming
> that the war was to free the Iraqi people from their evil dictator.
> (which in reality would force America to invade countries all over the
> place)
He was an evil dictator that many Iraqis hated and our US allies in
the region feared.
> This was all done with a straight face, because America must
> never be seen to be in the wrong, and the image it has of itself as
> defender and promoter of freedom and liberty must not be tarnished.
> Ultimately, nothing will change for the better while Americans insist
> on defending American foreign policy.
Well, change is on the way. Obama has let the Muslim nations know they
have nothing to fear from this administration. If they make a move on
Israel the US will remain neutral.
> You lose credibilty by taking the "America is 100% right with
> everything it does" line.
America is not always right with everything it does, going back to the
very beginning. However, we’ve had to be World Cop for so many years
now I’m getting tired of paying taxes to support that foreign policy.
The US always has to pay the bill in blood and treasure to defend
Western culture. Its about time NATO go it alone to protect European
interests, and give the US taxpayer a break. For all that expense we
get nothing but criticism from X-generation brats and Socialist tiddy
babies. Maybe its time all the Hollywood sluts, like the Kardashians,
etc. trade in their miniskirts for a burqa. You think it can’t happen
to you down under, right? You should read more WWII history of how
Australia almost became cut off and isolated in 1942. The reason you
aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
jas
Touche.
jas
Post snipped for space=>
> I met Vince in person and called him a liar to his face.
Good one Marsh. (Why am I not surprised)
Here's something for you to chew on for the next few months:
If you think Bugliosi is a liar, we must conclude you feel you are
telling the truth in some of your posts here.
Since you maintain there was damage to the left side of Kennedy's
brain, and we KNOW this is not a truthful statement, then what does
that say about some of your posts?
jas
Tell you what Thalia. Make a copy of this and put it in your pocket next
time you fly to the U.S. to visit Robert Groden on the GK, or anywhere
else in the world for that matter. You can read it after you've landed
safely after no terrorist bomb went off on your flight, see if there's
anything more you can add to your anti-U.S. rant.
Thalia
> aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
Rubbish. America joined the war effort because of Pearl Harbour.
Australia declared war against Japan because of Pearl Harbour. America
had an isolationist policy, and were standing by while Britian
practically fought Germany on its own. Thats fine, that was the
American people's choice [and who can blame you when WW1 was such a
momentous farce] Australia is a very good friend to you lot, we even
fight with you in crazy wars, such as Vietnam and Iraq, where NOTHING
is achieved except a whole pile of death and destruction. I was
speaking to an Aussie ex-politician about this situation about six
months ago: he was a stauch defender of the ANZUS treaty. He admitted
that Iraq was a giant stuff-up, and completely unecessary, however he
said the government had no reason not to believe Bush and Co at that
time regarding WMD's. Maybe next time, we will not be so trusting.
Unfortunately, I feel that while you occupy yourselves fighting
ridiculous made-up wars, if there are situations in the future where
an ally needs help, like us, you will be war-weary and bankrupt. You
have to restrict yourselves to fighting the good fights.
Just as an aside, after 9/11 and The War in Iraq began, I had
arguments with people who were aginst the war, I wasn't FOR the war as
such, but I trusted the Australian government at the time to do the
right thing. It was only when I was in London, and my room-mate lost
her brother in Iraq, that I started to realise the huge sacrifice
being made, and started having discussions with people about it, and I
started reading books about it, and I rekindled my interest in JFK's
assassination, that I thought: whoa!!
Coondog
> On 12/29/2009 11:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec 2009 23:09:50 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> On 12/29/2009 4:21 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>> On Dec 28, 3:51 pm, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 28, 12:10 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> You?ll be glad to know that Marsh has also sheep dipped his Uncle Ho,
> >>> another nice guy we used in WW II and then ?turned our back on him?.
> >>> It is to laugh!
> >>> Bill Clarke
>
> >> I like the way you try to use cute phrases to try to deny a simple fact
> >> and then when I prove my point you claim that you never denied the simple
> >> fact. The simple fact is that we saved Ho Chi Minh's life in WWII and used
> >> him to fight the Japanese. We promised him a democracy inVietnamafter
>
> > Promised him a democracy!!!???
>
> > You think he wanted a democracy?
>
> He based his constitution on ours.
> You really need to read the book on the OSS.
>
> > Stalinist really are your cup of tea, Tony.
>
> The only ones which intrigued me were the Trotskyites.
Why? They had more than a little blood on their hands too. Doesn’t
that disturb you?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> The reason you
>> aren?t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> Rubbish. America joined the war effort because of Pearl Harbour.
> Australia declared war against Japan because of Pearl Harbour. America
> had an isolationist policy, and were standing by while Britian
> practically fought Germany on its own. Thats fine, that was the
> American people's choice [and who can blame you when WW1 was such a
There is a little more background to the story than you may know. Ever
since 1938 the US was preparing for the war and supplying the British. We
were not yet ready to enter the fighting, but knew we would eventually
have to get into the war. But the US policy was to not declare war unless
we were attacked first, so the ONI devised a plan to force Japan to attack
and thus provide the pretext to declare war. Similar to the way Germany
created a phony "Polish" attack on one of their radio stations as a
pretext for invading Poland. Kennedy stated that US policy is that we will
never invade another country. The moment George Bush came into office, he
reversed that policy. The neocons who got him elected had being calling
for the invasion of Iraq for several years and used 9/11 as their "Pearl
Harbor" to justify invading Iraq. They had specifically said in their
position paper what they would need another "Pearl Harbor" to get the
public to support invading Iraq and they provoked al Qaeda into attacking
New York and Washington. This is also exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted
in order to lure the US into sending ground combat troops into Afghanistan
for him to kill by the thousands. No country had ever invaded and
conquered Afghanistan.
But of course the US thinks it can do anything anywhere.
Anthony Marsh
Since you know that is not true and that is NOT what I said, what does
that make you? I wish I could tell you in person.
jas
> The reason you
>
> > aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> Rubbish. America joined the war effort because of Pearl Harbour.
Jeez!!-- why don't ya'll get your arguments logically sorted out before
you blindly slam dunk U.S. policies.
As usual, you have majorly contradicted yourself.
The fact that the U.S. waited to join the war until Pearl Harbor shows its
desire to STAY OUT OF THE WAR -- contrary to your slamming the U.S. by
saying we go around starting wars.
> Australia declared war against Japan because of Pearl Harbour.
And Australia could have stayed out of the war. It chose not to in order
to help the allied effort.
>America
> had an isolationist policy, and were standing by while Britian
> practically fought Germany on its own.
Oh, so now the U.S. was bad to "stand by" and not jump into the
European war theatre earlier.
Damed if we do, damed if we don't, right?
>Thats fine, that was the
> American people's choice [and who can blame you when WW1 was such a
> momentous farce]
WWI was a "farce" in what way?
Back up your sweeping statements with at least your explanation
instead of willy-nilly throwing them out there.
>Australia is a very good friend to you lot, we even
> fight with you in crazy wars, such as Vietnam and Iraq, where NOTHING
> is achieved except a whole pile of death and destruction.
As I said, Australia had the choice to remain neutral and they didn't.
The U.S. doesn't force countries to fight.
>I was
> speaking to an Aussie ex-politician about this situation about six
> months ago: he was a stauch defender of the ANZUS treaty. He admitted
> that Iraq was a giant stuff-up, and completely unecessary, however he
> said the government had no reason not to believe Bush and Co at that
> time regarding WMD's. Maybe next time, we will not be so trusting.
.
Oh, so your Aussie politician is an expert in U.S. foreign policy?
Hheheheh! Great laughter here!!
The WMD issue regarding Iraq was the result of faulty information-
gathering. The U.S. did what they thought they needed to do at the time
before Hussein gassed more of his own people, or launch missiles with
bio-weapons against Israel.
In case you forgot, as it seems most of the world has, U.N. weapons
inspectors had continually been turned away from Iraq for MONTHS before
any decision to invade was made--
---an agreement Saddam Hussein SIGNED and AGREED TO after the Gulf
War.
> Unfortunately, I feel that while you occupy yourselves fighting
> ridiculous made-up wars, if there are situations in the future where
> an ally needs help, like us, you will be war-weary and bankrupt. You
> have to restrict yourselves to fighting the good fights.
Oh please, spare the patronizing and ridicule.
No one, especially the families and loved ones of the thousands of U.S.
soldiers killed in action -- as well as your own country's soldiers --
wants to hear your anti-war cow dung.
>
> Just as an aside, after 9/11 and The War in Iraq began, I had
> arguments with people who were aginst the war, I wasn't FOR the war as
> such, but I trusted the Australian government at the time to do the
> right thing.
Yeah--- TRUSTED THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. Exactly what we have to do
with our government here.
So, please enlighten us and the rest of the world -- What makes your
situation down in Australia so unique over other countries participating
in a coalition?
>It was only when I was in London, and my room-mate lost
> her brother in Iraq, that I started to realise the huge sacrifice
> being made, and started having discussions with people about it, and I
> started reading books about it, and I rekindled my interest in JFK's
> assassination, that I thought: whoa!!
I'm sorry for that loss, but---
WOW! You had to travel all the way to London to understand the huge
sacrifice being made by thousands of people in Iraq?
You don't have a television? A radio? Newspapers?
Amazing...
Coondog
> The reason you
>
> > aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> Rubbish. America joined the war effort because of Pearl Harbour.
> Australia declared war against Japan because of Pearl Harbour. America
> had an isolationist policy, and were standing by while Britian
> practically fought Germany on its own.
Your knowledge of American history runs shallow here. Yes, there was a
large isolation segment in the U.S., one of the more famous being the
rotten Joe Kennedy. This was not the policy of FDR who did everything he
could to help Britain and prepare the U.S. for a war he knew we had to
join. He began doing this long before Pearl Harbor. Are you familiar with
Lend/Lease which FDR pushed through before Pearl Harbor?
Bill Clarke
jas
Oh really? You say you don't maintain on this forum that there is
damage to the left side of the brain?
There are many other instances I could find if I had the time, but on
March 7, 1999 Anthony Marsh said:
"That is a common fallacy. A bullet wound to the right side of the
head
does not have to exit the left side of the head. Also, the newly
released depositions and drawings made by the autopsy doctors make it
clear that there was damage to the skull extending into the left side
of
the head. And there were scores of minute, dustlike bullet fragments
in
the left side of the head."
What? You have changed your opinion?
I just love to blast your arguments out of the water.
Next...
Anthony Marsh
> Thalia,
>
>> At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault.
> What would at maximum be?
>
>> The United States always puts its national interests, and the interests of its
>> corporations, ahead of people's rights.
> So other governments don't do that?
>
> "People's rights" is a rather large category. For instance, the US
> interfered with the rights of the Japanese people to conquer and
> dominate the Western Pacific in the 1940s and in the very same decade
> had the audacity to interfere with rights of the German people to
> annex whatever they wanted in Europe. Were it not for US interference
> in the 1950s there would be no South Korea today. The Dominican
Yeah, and tell us how things would be different. There is no South
Vietnam today because the US pulled out and allowed the North Vietnamese
to conquer the South. What impact has that had? Germany is united again?
What impact has that had? Did Germany suddenly become embolded to invade
every neighboring country?
> Republic, Grenada, Panama, and Nicaragua are democracies because of US
Democracies? What a joke.
> interference. By the way, democracy is no guarantee the people will
> elect good guys. Nicaragua just voted back in the Ortegas and Gaza
> voted for the most radical political party on the ballot. However, in
> a democracy at least people have a chance to vote and avoid bloodshed.
>
And the US voted in the war criminal George Bush.
>> The reason America was so anti-communist was because American
>> business interests were put at risk. In Cuba, a brutal dictator, Batista,
It doesn't seem no anti-Communist now that China is our largest trading
partner and part owner.
>> was supported for so long by America because American corporations
>> controlled its sugar production (which benefitted the corporations, not
>> the Cuban people) and letting the American Mafia operate casinos.
> What benefited the Cuban people most was tourism. Cuba was the Number
> One tourist destination in the Western Hemisphere. That all went away
> when Castro took over. The Cuban people have been living in poverty
> ever since.
>
And you don't think that millions of Cubans lived in poverty and virtual
slavery under Battista?
>> Along came Castro, who nationalised Cuban sugar and kicked the mafia
>> out and closed the casino's. Whoops, America is not happy.
> When he nationalized private property he became the biggest thief in
> Cuba. If he had good intentions why did he not offer compensation for
> the assets he expropriated for his pals in the Revolution? What about
> his notorious human rights abuses? No problem for you, right? Castro
> imprisoned more Cubans than Batista ever did.
>
>> Similar stories are repeated throughout South America where brutal
>> dictators were supported as long as they allowed American business
>> interests to operate as they wished. Fighting Communism had nothing
>> to do with the evils of communism enslaving people as such, but not
>> putting American businesses at risk.
> So what you seem to be saying is left-wing dictators like Castro, the
> Ortega brothers, and Hugo Chavez are okay, it?s just right-wing
> dictators you object to?
>
So, what you are saying is that dictators are ok as long as they are
right-wing.
>> In a sense, this is natural, humans are naturally selfish and put their
>> own needs first.
> Gosh, that sounds so irrational. Why would any government do something
> like that?
>
>> A similar thing has happened with the Iraq War. No WMD's
>> were found, and there is high probability that the intelligence
>> for their existence was manufactured.
> No WMDs, and no WMDs found, are two different situations entirely.
> Actually there is a high probability WMD stockpiles and hardware were
> removed to Dayr as-Zawr, Syria. This would confirm what some Iraqi
> witnesses told reporters about equipment being dismantled and sent to
> Syria prior to Desert Storm. And you seem to have forgotten about the
Fine, and you see that as justification for invading Iraq?
> 1981 raid by the Israelis on Iraq?s Osirak nuclear facility to prevent
> Sadaam Hussein from adding more weapons to his existing arsenal of
> chemical WMDs, which he did not hesitate to use against the Kurds.
>
Maybe the best way to get them to stop using WMD is for US not to give
those to them in the first place.
>> The American people's anger and fears over 9/11 was harnessed
>> effectively to support an invasion. Once the WMD excuse for invasion
>> became obsolete, supporters of Bush and the War started proclaiming
>> that the war was to free the Iraqi people from their evil dictator.
>> (which in reality would force America to invade countries all over the
>> place)
> He was an evil dictator that many Iraqis hated and our US allies in
> the region feared.
>
Exactly, which is why we supported him.
>> This was all done with a straight face, because America must
>> never be seen to be in the wrong, and the image it has of itself as
>> defender and promoter of freedom and liberty must not be tarnished.
>> Ultimately, nothing will change for the better while Americans insist
>> on defending American foreign policy.
> Well, change is on the way. Obama has let the Muslim nations know they
> have nothing to fear from this administration. If they make a move on
> Israel the US will remain neutral.
>
>> You lose credibilty by taking the "America is 100% right with
>> everything it does" line.
> America is not always right with everything it does, going back to the
> very beginning. However, we?ve had to be World Cop for so many years
> now I?m getting tired of paying taxes to support that foreign policy.
Bah humbug. You always support US Imperialism no matter what.
> The US always has to pay the bill in blood and treasure to defend
> Western culture. Its about time NATO go it alone to protect European
> interests, and give the US taxpayer a break. For all that expense we
European interests? Like they're really worried about Russia attacking
them?
> get nothing but criticism from X-generation brats and Socialist tiddy
> babies. Maybe its time all the Hollywood sluts, like the Kardashians,
> etc. trade in their miniskirts for a burqa. You think it can?t happen
> to you down under, right? You should read more WWII history of how
> Australia almost became cut off and isolated in 1942. The reason you
> aren?t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
>
If it were left to you we'd all be speaking German today.
claviger
Thalia,
> > The reason you aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> Rubbish.
OK, since you're a military expert on WWII answer this question. How
many RAN aircraft carriers fought in the Battle of the Coral Sea, what
some historians in your country call "The Battle for Australia"? Can
you name them?
Thalia
No, I don't admire them, and this is a common tactic of Americans, ok,
we're bad, but THEY'RE WORSE!! North Korea and Vietnam do not have any
impact or influence outside their own country. China I abhor for their
animal abuses and environmental abuses specifically, and the USSR no
longer exists.
Thalia
> On Dec 31, 8:22 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason you
>
> > > aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> > Rubbish. America joined the war effort because of Pearl Harbour.
>
> Jeez!!-- why don't ya'll get your arguments logically sorted out before
> you blindly slam dunk U.S. policies.
>
> As usual, you have majorly contradicted yourself.
>
> The fact that the U.S. waited to join the war until Pearl Harbor shows its
> desire to STAY OUT OF THE WAR -- contrary to your slamming the U.S. by
> saying we go around starting wars.
>
the US had an isolationist policy until Pearl Harbor, and since WW2
have decided they will be the world's "cop" and conveniently promote
American business interests at the same time.
Thalia
>
> Well, change is on the way. Obama has let the Muslim nations know they
> have nothing to fear from this administration. If they make a move on
> Israel the US will remain neutral.
>
Interestingly enough it was Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that had their
fingerprints all over 9/11, and Bush & Co did not give a damn.
Thalia
I would be interested to know your thoughts on 9/11 Tony. Did Bush & Co
have foreknowledge, or worse? As you say, there is an historical context
for politicians to make-up or let happen attacks from foreign enemies to
further their political agenda. This thinking about 9/11 is radical, but
boy, there is a lot of evidence that backs it up. Those towers collapsing
like that, at virtual free-fall speed, all their metal structure gone and
the concrete turned to dust is just not logical, and that WT7, which was
not hit by any airplanes, did not suffer extensive damage or fires, and
just collapsed in virtually the same way- mmmmm, it's very suspicious. I
don't know, maybe the neo- cons just got lucky, and had their "Pearl
Harbor" within the first year of their puppet President getting "elected."
I am sure the Lners will jump all over this, but they are in big-time
denial, not me.
Thalia
Are you familiar with Prescott Bush financing the Nazi's, even during
the war?
Thalia
> And Australia could have stayed out of the war. It chose not to in order
to help the allied effort.
Of course, and we would hope/expect that America would have helped us
if we had been attacked by Japan.
Thats fine, that was the American people's choice [and who can blame you
when WW1 was such a momentous farce]
> WWI was a "farce" in what way?
Have you ever read anything about WW1 and why it started? Nationalism
mixed with militarism, combined with a silly treaty system that meant
countrries were obliged to fight with their allies, even if their allies
were in the wrong. Ever heard of the horrors of trench warfare? And of
course, the end result was the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the
Germans ammunition to feel extremely hard done by [because they were] Yep,
it was a farce.
Australia is a very good friend to you lot, we evenfight with you in crazy
wars, such as Vietnam and Iraq, where NOTHING is achieved except a whole
pile of death and destruction.
>As I said, Australia had the choice to remain neutral and they didn't.
>The U.S. doesn't force countries to fight.
No, America says, "You are either for us, or against us." They make us
feel guilty, plus we have signed the ANZUS Treaty and I suspect Australia
has a little brother crush on America: we want your affection and
approval.
I was speaking to an Aussie ex-politician about this situation about six
months ago: he was a stauch defender of the ANZUS treaty. He admitted that
Iraq was a giant stuff-up, and completely unecessary, however he said
the government had no reason not to believe Bush and Co at that time
regarding WMD's. Maybe next time, we will not be so trusting.
> Oh, so your Aussie politician is an expert in U.S. foreign policy?
> Hheheheh! Great laughter here!!
How would you know? He is probably privy to far more information than
you.
> The WMD issue regarding Iraq was the result of faulty information-
> gathering. The U.S. did what they thought they needed to do at the time
> before Hussein gassed more of his own people, or launch missiles with
> bio-weapons against Israel.
The WMD issue was a result of cherry-picking information, and in some
repect, blatantly falsifying it. Read Bugliosi's 'Prosecution of George W
Bush for Murder" for a detailed analysis.
> In case you forgot, as it seems most of the world has, U.N. weapons
> inspectors had continually been turned away from Iraq for MONTHS before
> any decision to invade was made--
>
> ---an agreement Saddam Hussein SIGNED and AGREED TO after the Gulf
> War.
The UN weapon inspectors stated that there was no justification for
the invasion.
Unfortunately, I feel that while you occupy yourselves fighting ridiculous
made-up wars, if there are situations in the future where an ally needs
help, like us, you will be war-weary and bankrupt. You have to restrict
yourselves to fighting the good fights.
> Oh please, spare the patronizing and ridicule.
Oh please, spare us the "America right or wrong" drivel.
>No one, especially the families and loved ones of the thousands of U.S.
>soldiers killed in action -- as well as your own country's soldiers --
>wants to hear your anti-war cow dung.
So we should just keep bullshitting ourselves so we don't hurt anyone
feelings?
Just as an aside, after 9/11 and The War in Iraq began, I had arguments
with people who were aginst the war, I wasn't FOR the war as such, but I
trusted the Australian government at the time to do the right thing.
>Yeah--- TRUSTED THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. Exactly what we have to do with our government here.
We don't have to do anything. We must question everything we are told by
the government. Journalists are supposed to do that - except it's not
happening. We live in democracies and the government is accountable to the
people. Are you saying you trust Obama?
It was only when I was in London, and my room-mate lost her brother in
Iraq, that I started to realise the huge sacrifice being made, and started
having discussions with people about it, and I started reading books about
it, and I rekindled my interest in JFK's assassination, that I thought:
whoa!!
> I'm sorry for that loss, but---
>
> WOW! You had to travel all the way to London to understand the huge
> sacrifice being made by thousands of people in Iraq?
>
> You don't have a television? A radio? Newspapers?
>
> Amazing...
Yeah, I trusted the mass media to give me my information - that won't
happen again. Plus, I was out being an irresponsible early twenty-
something girl having fun. I'm over that now.
Coondog
> On Dec 31 2009, 8:17 am, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 8:28 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 5:25 am, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 29, 9:16 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > And the US declared war on Japan. You got a point?
>
> > > > Nah, I'm out of points. There simply is no point in debating someone (an
> > > > American, no less) who blames the US for starting and maintaining the Cold
> > > > War. Ever hear of the "Iron Curtain," Tony? Didn't think so.
>
> > > > JGL
>
> > > At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault. The United States
> > > always puts its national interests, and the interests of its
> > > corporations, ahead of people's rights.
>
> > I assume you admire the human rights records of the USSR, China, North
> > Korea andVietnam?
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> No, I don't admire them, and this is a common tactic of Americans, ok,
> impact or influence outside their own country.
Well now, when one of those rockets North Korea has been testing
“impacts outside their country” and nukes a foreign country I think
you will see the fallacy of your comment.
> China I abhor for their
> animal abuses and environmental abuses specifically,
For crying out loud, what about their PEOPLE abuse?
Bill Clarke
claviger
How so?
jas
> On Jan 1, 5:53 am, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 8:22 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The reason you
>
> > > > aren’t speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> > > Rubbish. America joined the war effort because of Pearl Harbour.
>
> > Jeez!!-- why don't ya'll get your arguments logically sorted out before
> > you blindly slam dunk U.S. policies.
>
> > As usual, you have majorly contradicted yourself.
>
> > The fact that the U.S. waited to join the war until Pearl Harbor shows its
> > desire to STAY OUT OF THE WAR -- contrary to your slamming the U.S. by
> > saying we go around starting wars.
>
> Yes, why don't you actually read my posts properly?
Why don't you explain what you mean in your posts properly, then there
will be more clarity.
I was saying that
> the US had an isolationist policy until Pearl Harbor, and since WW2
> have decided they will be the world's "cop" and conveniently promote
> American business interests at the same time.
The U.S. acted after we were surprise attacked on Dec. 7. What do you
expect a country who is attacked do -- sit around and drink coffee and eat
Danish?
Have you ever stopped to consider that since being attacked at Pearl
Harbor the U.S.'s role as "cop" or "peace keeper" in the world is
justified, not only for itself but for the overall safety of other
countries? Have you ever stopped to consider that 9/11 and the war on
terror has only reinforced that justification? Do you want your next
trans-Pacific flight to end up in tiny pieces over the ocean somewhere?
Didn't think so.
Aren't you one of the lucky ones to have an ally that takes the
initiative, and risks itself and its citizen's lives, to step up to the
plate to fight the terrorists.
And, the U.S. DOES NOT go around starting wars in order to promote
business interests. You only parrot that because of your hero Oliver
Stone's "Military-Industrial Complex offed Kennedy" BS as portrayed in
your hallowed and deeply-revered movie.
Yes, wars demand defense spending and manufacturing in the form of weapons
and ammunition, recruiting and supplying troops, bombs, fighter and bomber
aircraft, warships, etc.-- but this NEEDS to be done as a RESULT of war,
not war is created in order to force manufacturing to spur business and
profiteering, as you so shallowly maintain.
And, might I say, accusing a country like you do of sending thousands of
people to their deaths solely in order to promote business interests is
highly insulting to me as a citizen of the U.S., and I have a few words
for you on that.
Be glad this is a moderated forum...
jas
> Australia declared war against Japan because of Pearl Harbour.
>
> > And Australia could have stayed out of the war. It chose not to in order
>
> to help the allied effort.
>
> Of course, and we would hope/expect that America would have helped us
> if we had been attacked by Japan.
Then, what's your point in slamming U.S policy? The U.S. AND
Australia, as well as other countries together, need to fight
terrorism on a global scale.
>
> Thats fine, that was the American people's choice [and who can blame you
> when WW1 was such a momentous farce]
>
> > WWI was a "farce" in what way?
>
> Have you ever read anything about WW1 and why it started? Nationalism
> mixed with militarism, combined with a silly treaty system that meant
> countrries were obliged to fight with their allies, even if their allies
> were in the wrong. Ever heard of the horrors of trench warfare? And of
> course, the end result was the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the
> Germans ammunition to feel extremely hard done by [because they were] Yep,
> it was a farce.
I didn't mean what is your interpretation of the reasons for the war,
I was making the point that no war is a "farce." Poor choice of words
on your part.
Try telling a roomful of families of soldiers killed in action that
war is a "farce."
I'd like to be there to see the reaction.
>
> Australia is a very good friend to you lot, we evenfight with you in crazy
> wars, such as Vietnam and Iraq, where NOTHING is achieved except a whole
> pile of death and destruction.
>
> >As I said, Australia had the choice to remain neutral and they didn't.
> >The U.S. doesn't force countries to fight.
>
> No, America says, "You are either for us, or against us."
That's simply not true. That statement was intended for countries who
harbor terrorists, NOT potential coalition participants.
Try getting your facts straight before railing against a country.
>They make us
> feel guilty, plus we have signed the ANZUS Treaty and I suspect Australia
> has a little brother crush on America: we want your affection and
> approval.
Make you feel guilty?
Now I've heard everything.
>
> I was speaking to an Aussie ex-politician about this situation about six
> months ago: he was a stauch defender of the ANZUS treaty. He admitted that
> Iraq was a giant stuff-up, and completely unecessary, however he said
> the government had no reason not to believe Bush and Co at that time
> regarding WMD's. Maybe next time, we will not be so trusting.
>
> > Oh, so your Aussie politician is an expert in U.S. foreign policy?
> > Hheheheh! Great laughter here!!
>
> How would you know? He is probably privy to far more information than
> you.
I wasn't referring to myself, I was referring to people in our
government who deal with foreign policy.
>
> > The WMD issue regarding Iraq was the result of faulty information-
> > gathering. The U.S. did what they thought they needed to do at the time
> > before Hussein gassed more of his own people, or launch missiles with
> > bio-weapons against Israel.
>
> The WMD issue was a result of cherry-picking information, and in some
> repect, blatantly falsifying it. Read Bugliosi's 'Prosecution of George W
> Bush for Murder" for a detailed analysis.
I will. Thanks for the book suggestion.
However, I will need more evidence to convince me that Bush and his people
knowingly falsified intelligence information in order to invade Iraq. Bush
and Co. jumped to conclusions, or acted too quickly when they should have
checked, rechecked. and double rechecked their intelligence info before
acting. And, they DID have faulty information.
Look at it this way: Saddam Hussein as a murderous dictator and threat to
the world was ousted, and YOU didn't suffer a scratch, while thousands of
other people died. You are very privileged in this way.
BTW -- I need to point out here you recommend Bugliosi for his book on
Bush, but man do you slam the 'ol guy for "Reclaiming History's"
conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
Very interesting...and highly telling of your agenda.
>
> > In case you forgot, as it seems most of the world has, U.N. weapons
> > inspectors had continually been turned away from Iraq for MONTHS before
> > any decision to invade was made--
>
> > ---an agreement Saddam Hussein SIGNED and AGREED TO after the Gulf
> > War.
>
> The UN weapon inspectors stated that there was no justification for
> the invasion.
They weren't the ones with the responsibility to make the difficult
decisions.
>
> Unfortunately, I feel that while you occupy yourselves fighting ridiculous
> made-up wars, if there are situations in the future where an ally needs
> help, like us, you will be war-weary and bankrupt. You have to restrict
> yourselves to fighting the good fights.
>
> > Oh please, spare the patronizing and ridicule.
>
> Oh please, spare us the "America right or wrong" drivel.
I'm not saying "America right or wrong." I'm reacting to your political
slam in accusing the U.S. of "making up wars."
The U.S. DOES NOT make up war. We deal with the aggression, and the threat
of aggression, as it arises.
And, ok Ms. U.S. Department of State Thalia-- I'll put a bug in Obama's
and Clinton's ear to restrict themselves to "fighting the good fights."
"Fighting the good fights"--- wow. Now that's a contradiction in terms if
I've ever heard one.
>
> >No one, especially the families and loved ones of the thousands of U.S.
> >soldiers killed in action -- as well as your own country's soldiers --
> >wants to hear your anti-war cow dung.
>
> So we should just keep bullshitting ourselves so we don't hurt anyone
> feelings?
No, you should keep your mouth shut, or at the very least be more tactful,
when it comes to slamming a country's involvement in such a horrible and
destructive thing as war.
>
> Just as an aside, after 9/11 and The War in Iraq began, I had arguments
> with people who were aginst the war, I wasn't FOR the war as such, but I
> trusted the Australian government at the time to do the right thing.
>
> >Yeah--- TRUSTED THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. Exactly what we have to do with our government here.
>
> We don't have to do anything. We must question everything we are told by
> the government. Journalists are supposed to do that - except it's not
> happening. We live in democracies and the government is accountable to the
> people. Are you saying you trust Obama?
As far as understanding that he has a tough job to do, and that NO
decision he has to make is an easy one, yes, I trust him to do the best he
can to protect America's and our allies' people in wartime.
If that bothers you, tough.
>
> It was only when I was in London, and my room-mate lost her brother in
> Iraq, that I started to realise the huge sacrifice being made, and started
> having discussions with people about it, and I started reading books about
> it, and I rekindled my interest in JFK's assassination, that I thought:
> whoa!!
>
> > I'm sorry for that loss, but---
>
> > WOW! You had to travel all the way to London to understand the huge
> > sacrifice being made by thousands of people in Iraq?
>
> > You don't have a television? A radio? Newspapers?
>
> > Amazing...
>
> Yeah, I trusted the mass media to give me my information - that won't
> happen again. Plus, I was out being an irresponsible early twenty-
> something girl having fun. I'm over that now.
Glad to hear it.
As far as the media and its bias goes with international affairs, it's
best to get the news from every source you can -- including the many
different satellite/cable news channels from different countries, as well
as the web -- then decide for yourself after weighing ALL sides of the
argument.
claviger
> Thalia,
>
> > > The reason you aren't speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>
> > Rubbish.
>
> OK, since you're a military expert on WWII answer this question. How
> many RAN aircraft carriers fought in the Battle of the Coral Sea, what
> some historians in your country call "The Battle for Australia"? Can
> you name them?
I asked you a simple question. If you really are an Australian citizen and
school teacher you should know the answer to this question or ask one of
your elders to answer it for you.
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
That doesn’t answer my question about Lend/Lease but no, I’m not
familiar with Bush financing Germany during the war. Are you?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 1, 2:41 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Australia declared war against Japan because of Pearl Harbour.
>>
>>> And Australia could have stayed out of the war. It chose not to in order
>>
>> to help the allied effort.
>>
>> Of course, and we would hope/expect that America would have helped us
>> if we had been attacked by Japan.
>
> Then, what's your point in slamming U.S policy? The U.S. AND
> Australia, as well as other countries together, need to fight
> terrorism on a global scale.
>
The point is to fight evil no matter what the source. What the US needs to
do is stop sponsoring terrorism. 9/11 could have been stopped by two
simple words. When Osama bin Laden offered his services to the CIA, they
should have said, "Go home."
>>
>> Thats fine, that was the American people's choice [and who can blame you
>> when WW1 was such a momentous farce]
>>
>>> WWI was a "farce" in what way?
>>
>> Have you ever read anything about WW1 and why it started? Nationalism
>> mixed with militarism, combined with a silly treaty system that meant
>> countrries were obliged to fight with their allies, even if their allies
>> were in the wrong. Ever heard of the horrors of trench warfare? And of
>> course, the end result was the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the
>> Germans ammunition to feel extremely hard done by [because they were] Yep,
>> it was a farce.
>
> I didn't mean what is your interpretation of the reasons for the war,
> I was making the point that no war is a "farce." Poor choice of words
> on your part.
>
Why do you always try to make war sound noble? Is it because you love war?
> Try telling a roomful of families of soldiers killed in action that
> war is a "farce."
>
Someone needs to tell them. Somebody needed to tell them before we lost
58,000 men in a senseless war in Vietnam. It accomplished nothing but
waste lives and money.
> I'd like to be there to see the reaction.
>
More tough guy talk, trying to intimidate anyone who wants peace.
You're tough behind a keyboard and anonymity.
>>
>> Australia is a very good friend to you lot, we evenfight with you in crazy
>> wars, such as Vietnam and Iraq, where NOTHING is achieved except a whole
>> pile of death and destruction.
>>
>>> As I said, Australia had the choice to remain neutral and they didn't.
>>> The U.S. doesn't force countries to fight.
>>
>> No, America says, "You are either for us, or against us."
>
> That's simply not true. That statement was intended for countries who
> harbor terrorists, NOT potential coalition participants.
>
Oh, you mean like the US?
> Try getting your facts straight before railing against a country.
>
Try to learn the REAL history, not just the government propaganda.
No, you won't because you refuse to read and look at that evidence.
> and Co. jumped to conclusions, or acted too quickly when they should have
> checked, rechecked. and double rechecked their intelligence info before
> acting. And, they DID have faulty information.
>
They didn't jump. The neocons had that agenda for 12 years.
> Look at it this way: Saddam Hussein as a murderous dictator and threat to
> the world was ousted, and YOU didn't suffer a scratch, while thousands of
> other people died. You are very privileged in this way.
>
> BTW -- I need to point out here you recommend Bugliosi for his book on
> Bush, but man do you slam the 'ol guy for "Reclaiming History's"
> conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
>
> Very interesting...and highly telling of your agenda.
>
>
>>
>>> In case you forgot, as it seems most of the world has, U.N. weapons
>>> inspectors had continually been turned away from Iraq for MONTHS before
>>> any decision to invade was made--
>>
>>> ---an agreement Saddam Hussein SIGNED and AGREED TO after the Gulf
>>> War.
>>
>> The UN weapon inspectors stated that there was no justification for
>> the invasion.
>
> They weren't the ones with the responsibility to make the difficult
> decisions.
>
They were the ones assigned to determine the facts. Bush/Cheney and the
CIA simply made up lies instead of using facts to justify their long
sought after war.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I feel that while you occupy yourselves fighting ridiculous
>> made-up wars, if there are situations in the future where an ally needs
>> help, like us, you will be war-weary and bankrupt. You have to restrict
>> yourselves to fighting the good fights.
>>
>>> Oh please, spare the patronizing and ridicule.
>>
>> Oh please, spare us the "America right or wrong" drivel.
>
> I'm not saying "America right or wrong." I'm reacting to your political
> slam in accusing the U.S. of "making up wars."
>
> The U.S. DOES NOT make up war. We deal with the aggression, and the threat
> of aggression, as it arises.
>
No, Kennedy said that the US would never invade another country. Bush
reversed that with his doctrine of attack first, ask questions later.
> And, ok Ms. U.S. Department of State Thalia-- I'll put a bug in Obama's
> and Clinton's ear to restrict themselves to "fighting the good fights."
>
> "Fighting the good fights"--- wow. Now that's a contradiction in terms if
> I've ever heard one.
>
>>
>>> No one, especially the families and loved ones of the thousands of U.S.
>>> soldiers killed in action -- as well as your own country's soldiers --
>>> wants to hear your anti-war cow dung.
>>
>> So we should just keep bullshitting ourselves so we don't hurt anyone
>> feelings?
>
> No, you should keep your mouth shut, or at the very least be more tactful,
> when it comes to slamming a country's involvement in such a horrible and
> destructive thing as war.
>
More tough guy talk to try to silence any dissent.
>>
>> Just as an aside, after 9/11 and The War in Iraq began, I had arguments
>> with people who were aginst the war, I wasn't FOR the war as such, but I
>> trusted the Australian government at the time to do the right thing.
>>
>>> Yeah--- TRUSTED THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. Exactly what we have to do with our government here.
>>
>> We don't have to do anything. We must question everything we are told by
>> the government. Journalists are supposed to do that - except it's not
>> happening. We live in democracies and the government is accountable to the
>> people. Are you saying you trust Obama?
>
> As far as understanding that he has a tough job to do, and that NO
> decision he has to make is an easy one, yes, I trust him to do the best he
> can to protect America's and our allies' people in wartime.
>
> If that bothers you, tough.
>
Bush did not take us to war to proect America and our allies people. He
put them in harm's way to make a buck.
>
>>
>> It was only when I was in London, and my room-mate lost her brother in
>> Iraq, that I started to realise the huge sacrifice being made, and started
>> having discussions with people about it, and I started reading books about
>> it, and I rekindled my interest in JFK's assassination, that I thought:
>> whoa!!
>>
>>> I'm sorry for that loss, but---
>>
>>> WOW! You had to travel all the way to London to understand the huge
>>> sacrifice being made by thousands of people in Iraq?
>>
>>> You don't have a television? A radio? Newspapers?
>>
>>> Amazing...
>>
>> Yeah, I trusted the mass media to give me my information - that won't
>> happen again. Plus, I was out being an irresponsible early twenty-
>> something girl having fun. I'm over that now.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> As far as the media and its bias goes with international affairs, it's
> best to get the news from every source you can -- including the many
> different satellite/cable news channels from different countries, as well
> as the web -- then decide for yourself after weighing ALL sides of the
> argument.
>
>
Better than you just watching Fox all day.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 1, 11:47 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31 2009, 8:17 am, Coondog<billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 8:28 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 30, 5:25 am, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 29, 9:16 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And the US declared war on Japan. You got a point?
>>
>>>>> Nah, I'm out of points. There simply is no point in debating someone (an
>>>>> American, no less) who blames the US for starting and maintaining the Cold
>>>>> War. Ever hear of the "Iron Curtain," Tony? Didn't think so.
>>
>>>>> JGL
>>
>>>> At minimum, the Cold War was 50% America's fault. The United States
>>>> always puts its national interests, and the interests of its
>>>> corporations, ahead of people's rights.
>>
>>> I assume you admire the human rights records of the USSR, China, North
>>> Korea andVietnam?
>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> No, I don't admire them, and this is a common tactic of Americans, ok,
>> we're bad, but THEY'RE WORSE!! North Korea andVietnamdo not have any
>> impact or influence outside their own country.
>
> Well now, when one of those rockets North Korea has been testing
> you will see the fallacy of your comment.
>
And will you say the same thing about Israel when it does the same thing?
Of course not. You have never complained about Israel attacking its
neighbors, not even their attack on the USS Liberty.
Anthony Marsh
> have foreknowledge, or worse? As you say, there is an historical context
Well, I happen to know some of the leaders of the so-called 9/11 Truth
movement and get into heated arguments. They sometimes use a catch phrase
with the acronym LIHOP, meaning Let It Happen on Purpose, or MIHOP,
meaning Made it Happen on Purpose. I don't agree with any of their
theories and I reject the government's propaganda. The way I see it is
that certain people provoked the terrorists into attacking the US just as
ONI suggested that the US provoke Japan into attacking us as a pretext to
declare war. I do not accept the wacky claims that ignore the real fact
that there really were 25 Arab hijackers who planned for many years to
hijack 5 planes and fly them into buildings in the US. Al Qaeda had tried
to bring down the World Trade Center and failed for technical reasons,
just as the latest bombing attempt on the plane failed. So al Qaeda came
up with a different plan and it took 7 years to bring it to fruition. It
was perhaps the most successful terrorist attack ever. When the first
plane hit, I said that it might be an accident just like the plane that
hit the Empire State Building at the end of WWII. 5 seconds after the
second plane hit I said that it was al Qaeda and that there would be 3
more. No one in the room had ever heard of al Qaeda.
> for politicians to make-up or let happen attacks from foreign enemies to
> further their political agenda. This thinking about 9/11 is radical, but
> boy, there is a lot of evidence that backs it up. Those towers collapsing
> like that, at virtual free-fall speed, all their metal structure gone and
> the concrete turned to dust is just not logical, and that WT7, which was
It is perfectly logical and the collapse looks nothing like the many
controlled demolitions you can see in documentaries about the controlled
demolition business.
> not hit by any airplanes, did not suffer extensive damage or fires, and
> just collapsed in virtually the same way- mmmmm, it's very suspicious. I
Most of the 9/11 Truthers lie and say that the claim of the government
stooges is that the fires melted the steel. That is not true. The claim is
just that the fires were so intense that they WEAKENED the steel and began
the collapse like pulling out one crucial card brings down a house of
cards. Various TV shows have demonstrated that jet fuel burns at 2100
degrees, which is hot enough to weaken steel to the point where it loses
its strength.
> don't know, maybe the neo- cons just got lucky, and had their "Pearl
> Harbor" within the first year of their puppet President getting "elected."
OTOH you might ask why it took them so long if they did it. There were
technical reasons why the hijackers were not in place until 9/11.
> I am sure the Lners will jump all over this, but they are in big-time
> denial, not me.
>
They'll accuse you of being an al Qaeda terrorist for daring to question
the government story.
Coondog
I have never been foolish enough to claim that Israel didn’t have any
“impact or influence outside their own country”.
I long ago decided that both sides were led and made up of hardcore
murderers that target civilians. I don’t particularly have a dog in
this fight, both sides being very rotten at times.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Why am I not surprised!
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Many of the JFK conspiracy crowd immediately moved on to the 9/11
conspiracy because they love all conspiracies.
Coondog
>
Yeah, you get that sort of thing a lot when two recessive genes match
up.
Bill Clarke
Thalia
>
> And, might I say, accusing a country like you do of sending thousands of
> people to their deaths solely in order to promote business interests is
> highly insulting to me as a citizen of the U.S., and I have a few words
> for you on that.
>
Well, feel free to emial me personally if you want to be abusive, I
can take it.
Thalia
I like animals better than people. Whoops. Plus, China doesn't skin
humans alive, like they do dogs. I also think China has about 800
million too many people. Harsh, aren't I? Next thing you know, I be
will be a neo-con.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
The US plays the good cop/bad cop role. Sometimes the US does good things
for the world (it did stop bloodshed in Bosnia, tick for you - and it
didn't get much in return come to think of it, so you are capable of good)
but you also TORTURE people, an official policy, even though the
super-lovely Dick Cheney tries to spin it to "enhanced interrogation
technique" so I don't think you should act too high and mighty. I would be
interested to hear just how and what the US government has done in the
interests of people in a certain country (and no giving 'freedom' to
Iraqis doesn't count)
John McAdams
>On Jan 2, 10:38=A0am, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 12:51=A0pm, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Be glad this is a moderated forum...
>
>The US plays the good cop/bad cop role. Sometimes the US does good things
>for the world (it did stop bloodshed in Bosnia, tick for you - and it
>didn't get much in return come to think of it, so you are capable of good)
>but you also TORTURE people, an official policy, even though the
>super-lovely Dick Cheney tries to spin it to "enhanced interrogation
>technique" so I don't think you should act too high and mighty. I would be
>interested to hear just how and what the US government has done in the
>interests of people in a certain country (and no giving 'freedom' to
>Iraqis doesn't count)
>
Why do you put "freedom" in quotes?
Is it somehow that you don't think that Arabs are deserving of/can
handle democracy, unlike Americans and Aussies?
That is what it usually comes down to among leftists: whatever they
may say about "diversity" and "equality," they think people different
from them are lesser breeds without the law.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thalia
You were fighting the Japanese because THEY ATTACKED YOU. You didn't help
out England or France or anyone else who had been attacked before that, it
was only when you got attacked that you swung into action. Losing
Australia to the Japanese, with all of our natural resources, would be a
big tactical blow to the United States war effort, so please, spare me the
"we are your saviour" lecture. You didn't help out anyone until you got
attacked. Totally your perogorative, but don't kid yourself.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
make of it what you will. The 'trading with the enemy act" was
invoked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 2, 12:02 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thalia,
>>
>>>>> The reason you aren't speaking Japanese today is because of US Foreign policy.
>>
>>>> Rubbish.
>>
>>> OK, since you're a military expert on WWII answer this question. How
>>> many RAN aircraft carriers fought in the Battle of the Coral Sea, what
>>> some historians in your country call "The Battle for Australia"? Can
>>> you name them?
>>
>> I asked you a simple question. If you really are an Australian citizen and
>> school teacher you should know the answer to this question or ask one of
>> your elders to answer it for you.
>
> You were fighting the Japanese because THEY ATTACKED YOU. You didn't help
> out England or France or anyone else who had been attacked before that, it
The US covertly helped China and England before Pearl Harbor. We were
not yet ready to enter the fighting and the public was against getting
into the war, so they had to provoke Japan into attacking the US to
justify going to war.
Thalia
I think it is insane to enforce democracy onto people through war. Where
do you stop? Why does no-one in the American government give two hoots
about Africans and their "democracy?" Is it because there is no oil there?
The current Afghanistan "democracy" is such a success isn't it? Rigged
elections + massive corruption = many Afghans prefer the Taliban!!
Unfortunately, an organised, non-corrput and educated population is
required for successful democracy, not all countries have that yet.
BTW, I know you don't believe me, but I am NOT a leftist.
John McAdams
>On Jan 5, 4:40�am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2010 15:33:12 -0500, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That is what it usually comes down to among leftists: �whatever they
>> may say about "diversity" and "equality," they think people different
>> from them are lesser breeds without the law.
>>
>
>I think it is insane to enforce democracy onto people through war.
You mean like we did to Japan and Germany after WWII?
And what do you mean "enforce" democracy?
Are you saying people don't want democracy? They don't want to decide
who their rulers are?
>Where
>do you stop? Why does no-one in the American government give two hoots
>about Africans and their "democracy?" Is it because there is no oil there?
Back to that, eh?
The oil was flowing from Saddam's Iraq. Remember the "oil for food"
program -- really the "oil for palaces, and bribed for Russian, French
and U.N. Officials" program.
>The current Afghanistan "democracy" is such a success isn't it? Rigged
>elections + massive corruption = many Afghans prefer the Taliban!!
Would you like the Taliban to rule Afganistan?
>Unfortunately, an organised, non-corrput and educated population is
>required for successful democracy, not all countries have that yet.
>
>BTW, I know you don't believe me, but I am NOT a leftist.
OK, you *would* like the Taliban to rule Iraq!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Coondog
Animals can certainly be more loyal and better companions than people but
I think people abuse is a bit more serious than animal abuse.
> Plus, China doesn't skin humans alive, like they do dogs.
How do you know?
> I also think China has about 800 million too many people.
Mao used to brag that he could lose 10 million people with ease. You
outdo the old communist.
> Harsh, aren't I? Next thing you know, I be will be a neo-con.
You seem to pick your countries to be harsh with. Nothing I haven't seen
before.
Bill Clarke