A Time for War

How many people after WW2 have said, If we would have only went to war with Hittler when he was weaker. Before he had taken so much ground, before he had built up his army.

But the peoples of America and Europe did not want war. They had enough of war after WW1. They tried to put there head in the sand and hope Hittler would go away. They figured how bad can he be.

And now we are doing the same thing. And so is the rest of the world. Someday soon our solders will pay with huge loss of life to stop what should be stoped now.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-Jorge Santayana

 

We don't wage wars anymore we're a nation of nation builders now and being the sole remaining superpower we reserve the right to (re) build any nation on the face of the earth under false and unreliable pretenses and democratize them to our liking!


Woo Hoo...Woo Hoo!!

We rule we rule!

Pax Americana all the way!



Along with all our dictator friends and subservient vassals in the international community we're the kings of the earth and if you Islamofascists don't get in line we'll rebuild your nation too, cuz we're tough guys and got all the super cool weapons of mass destruction that your puny minds can only dream about.

We're great we're great!

Yeah buddy I'm gonna git one a them islamofascist's scalps and hang it on my wall right next to the picture of our glorious leader George Bush so the whole family can burn insense next to them and pray that big brother will protect us all for ever and ever amen. Why I might even get me some extry islamofascist scalps to send to all my buddies on G. Dubya's birthday! Yee Haw!

We will now all stand and face the flags of the North American Union and sing Onward Christian Soldiers. (first in english en español et Français)

Viva Nueva orden del mundo! Nouvel ordre du monde! Viva the new world order! Long may it stand!

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-Jorge Santayana


The same things were said about FDR who wanted to go to war with Hittler. Although people had more class in those days and expressed their opinions in a more inteligent manner.

 

Oh c'mon lighten up I was just trying to get in the spirit of this thread. Yeah the past is the key...all the past not just the parts that makes "our side" look like everyone involved were heros.

Prescot Bush supported Hitler and our own intell agencies employed Nazi and Japanese war criminals after the war that's part of the past some would like us to forget or better yet to never have known in the first place. If you really remember the past then tell me who financed Hitler and how did he come to be Der Furher? Give up? Brown Brothers Harriman and with the help of a 9/11 type false flag event.

Here's more neat stuff from the past I'm sure you'll want to remember. Click Here.

 

Alot of Americans and other people supported Hittler. They did not want to believe that he was as bad as he was. That is my point. America was anti war at any cost. Even if that cost was letting Hittler slide. See how that corilates to the situation with Iran.

So if we are to learn from the past, we should not support Iran. And we should use force while they are weak. Before they get the nuke, because then the cost to live will be huge.

As for employing the Nazis after the war. Well it sure leaves a bad taste. But the goverment had to take into consideration the what was better for the country. Punishing individual people who deserved punishment. Or over look the punishment and use their knowlege to our benifit. If we would have chosen punishment it could have tipped the balance in the cold war toward the USSR. Every American could have suffered to get justice for a few persons. Not an easy choice to make. But the war was over, the Nazis gone and alot of valuable knowlege.

Every day the police in this country over look justice for small time drug dealers and other criminals. In return they get help busting big time dealers and criminals. I would not condem them for this practice.

As for the link. I am interested in history. But I would rather read from credable sources. Got any.

 

Actually it's my understanding that alot of people took the founding fathers words to heart and they were avoiding foreign entanglements that are the cause of most wars. America was not anti war by any stretch of the imagination. A quick look into the history of early America will tell you that Americans were never against defending themselves and their country to the fullest degree when attacked or invaded.

You need to go back and study WW1 to see how the effects of foreign entanglements (which our founders warned us against) played into making a regional war into a world war. Then fast forward to the Treaty Of Versailles to see how once again foreign entanglements gave Hitler the emphasis to persuade Germany into rearming.

Okay no problem. Once again foreign entanglements. The British were afraid of Mossadegh nationalizing Iran's oil which would in turn cut them off from the control of anothers natural resources. So, under the guise of national security their allies at the CIA used a false flag terror campaign to overthrow the government of Iran and replace it with a hated puppet regime. In 1979 that puppet regime was overthrown by a revolt by the Iranians and the Ayatollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Who did we side with after that in 1980? Our old buddy Saddam. Another foreign entanglement? You guessed it. I don't even want to get into the whole Iran Contra thing again so I won't. Let's just say that was another fine example of foreign entanglements that went south on us.

But we never learn from the past...if we did we would have taken our founders word for their past experiences with foreign entanglements and not gotten involved with trying to make Iran into a vassal state in the first place.

Saddam tried that already his tanks and armor were turned back by wave after wave of unarmed children who the Iraqi's bravely mowed down until they ran out of ammo...and the Iranians just kept coming.

Pakistan has nukes already shouldn't we be getting them too? What about all the other countries that have nukes shouldn't we be going after them too? Why single out Iran that doesn't have any? Because they threatened "to wipe Israel off the map"? C'mon that quote has already been proven to be bogus. The only reason we keep hearing it is because it's good propaganda in making the neocons case for widening the war so they can start phase two of their plan to remake the middle east closer to their hearts content. This isn't about security or safety it's about nation building on a grand scale. So far every other attempt at nation building we've been involved is has gone sour and come back to bite us. You think the neocons got some kind of magic spell to make it work this time around? Get real.

Clean that up alittle and it would make a great sales pitch the next time we are asked to give up our morals, conscience and liberty for the good of the collective.:applause:

Back then there were people that had a conscience and opposed Paperclip. They were called communist sympathizers, traitors, and generally ridiculed in the most ruthless ways. Sounds alot like what people are called today that oppose the neocons constant warmongering doesn't it. Some things never go out of style I guess.

Well, not to fear the police just got new powers now that the fourth amedment and habeas corpus is gone. Anything goes so long as they stick the terrorism label on it.

Have you read the essay and checked the refs yet?

 

The British oil companies had developed and operated the oil wells in Persia, and naturally expected to turn a profit from them. They eventually offered to share ½ of all oil profits, but Mosaddeq refused. Mosaddeq was intransigent, he had dissolved the Senate. He demanded control over the military, which the Shah refused. The U.S. did not install a puppet regime, the Pahlavi dynasty had ruled Persia since 1925. The Shah was a moderate leader who attempted to bring Iran into the 20th century. It is no wonder if the US supported the Shah at the time of Mosaddeq’s power grab.

No it hasn't. Ahmadinejad has repeated it several times. The Europeans seem to be pretty worried about allowing Iran to develop nukes also, as well as the U.N., which has issued sanctions.

 

Yes it has.

Has Iran violated the NPT that they are signatories too? Did removing the seals violate the NPT? Is there any proof Iran is building nukes? No. We only have the Bush administrations word for it. Just as we only had Rumsfeld's word that the U.S.S.R had secret sonar in their subs that couldn't be heard and that Saddam was busy making tons of WMDs.

These neocons have been using the same exact ploys over and over for about thirty years now. Remember the past, remember?

 

That is an outstanding article.

 

I am talking about post WW1 America, and they were anti war. Because of what they seen in WW1.

I dont disagree with you here.

Ok, that does not mean we should never go to war.

So you are saying if Sadam could not do it, then we can not. I disagree, we have proven ourselfs far better at war then Saddam, twice. It is ocupation we need to work on.

Because they already have nukes for one. That is my point. And most countries have had them and are not bent of destruction of another country. There are dozens of quotes just like that and they have not been proven bogus by anybody but extream left wing web sights.

[/quote]

 

What did they see in WW1?

Who is saying we should never go to war?

No that isn't what I am saying at all. We're better at making war, what's that mean? We don't go to war anymore DeeJay, we became a nation of nation builders after WW2 and our record of success in our numerous adventures in such isn't exactly all that great, is it?

Post some of these quotes.

Left wing websites? Maybe you'd prefer to use um, more credible sources like the (oops we lost all our video from 9/11) BBC and CNN that reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it even happened, or how about the right wing Fox news who's owner has publically admitted to propagandizing for the Bush (neocon) administration and supports Hillary Clinton. Do you ever read any of these articles and try and check the references that these "left wing websites" use and see if indeed they are all leftists? Do you check all the documents they reference? Or do you ignore them alltogether because you've heard that all "leftists" are wrong all the time about everything?

Are you for or against the use of terrorism DeeJay? Before you answer though remember the past, remember what G. W. Bush said about those who fund support or harbor terrorists. Then ask yourself why we have such a long history of funding supporting and harboring terrorists (and war criminals), remember the past now because it has repeated itself in this area alone for the last 50 years in what we call "our" foreign policy.

 

Well how about that um, extreme rightwing neocon newsource Al Jazeera?

"Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map" "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map....His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies."

LINK

 

The source for the fact that Iran is building nukes is not the president. The idea that somehow he is the sole source for this fact is evidence of pure hatred and blind anger toward the President. The UN has voted for sanctions against Iran because they refuse to drop their nuke plans. The facts are the facts. trying to rewrite history in the middle of its occurence is a little premature.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17255330/

 

Your right the sources Poncho posted are about as reliable as Al Jazeera. And they both motivated by the same thing. Hate for America. I think I will avoid both.

 

Has Iran violated the NPT? Were the seals they "broke" mandatory or voluntary? Is there any solid proof they are building nukes? Was there any solid proof Saddam was making tons of wmds? Was there any solid proof the U.S.S.R had silent sonar on their subs? Who was the source for all these allegations...do you know?

What are the facts? Claiming that history is being rewritten here suggests to me somebody doesn't know that much about said history in the first place.

 

I think you'll avoid them because you're afraid there's a chance I may be right and you may have to start using your brain for something besides memorizing propagandistic slogans. :laugh:

Why is it you guys never answer simple questions like "are you for or against the use of terrorism" anyway? Are you afraid you may have to admit to yourselves that you also support a regime that uses terrorism to further it's agenda if you answer honestly?

 

Because you are the one defining terrorism.

 

So then it comes down to what the definition of is, is. Where have I heard that arguement before?

Okay whatever, then let's use your definition instead. That's fair enough isn't it? How do you define terrorism?