2
   

What this Summer's Gas Prices Should Tell Us

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 04:30 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
You get irate about the rule of law being unfairly used against males and you believe that the rule of law is being abused wrt rape laws/child abuse laws/divorce law, but you can't seem to muster even a tiny bit of anger over your country raping and pillaging the world's poor.


wrong...I use how our "justice" system abuses men accused of sex crimes as a prism to examine our broken "justice" system as well as the impure motives of the American people (our puritanism driven drive to met out retribution far in excess of what reason calls for). There is a world of difference in my mind between the American government abusing its own people with an unjust justice system and what I see as our historic record of doing what it takes to be competitive on the global scene even though some of these practices are unsavory. Not only do my sympathy and charity begin with those closest to home but also the American government is supposed to belong to the American People, abuse of American citizens by the American government is orders of magnitude more egregious then it abuse of other peoples, people whom presumably have their own government and civic leaders to protect them. That the American government abuses its power there can be no doubt, but all abuses are not equal.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 04:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
... what I see as our historic record of doing what it takes to be competitive on the global scene even though some of these practices are unsavory.


Hawk, again, so lame. There are many countries that do what it takes to be competitive without committing war crimes and engaging in ongoing, relentless terrorism. Without stealing from the poor, without training and paying proxies to rape, torture and murder innocents [hat tip to FailuresArt].

As I mentioned to Frank, there are also many countries that actually give foreign aid, instead of tying their aid to the purchase of home country products. There are many countries that give aid that doesn't harm third world local markets.

You've hit the wall and your personal measure of honesty is taking a major hit. Stop denying the obvious. You still haven't read that article, have you?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 05:56 pm
@JTT,
Quote:

Hawk, again, so lame. There are many countries that do what it takes to be competitive without committing war crimes and engaging in ongoing, relentless terrorism. Without stealing from the poor, without training and paying proxies to rape, torture and murder innocents [hat tip to FailuresArt].


Please name one single empire or global superpower in history that handled the responsibilities with more respect for individual rights and/or with less violence than America did while we held the position....

And will China do better than us assuming most of the prognosticators are correct that they are the next one? What a hilarity expecting THAT!

I have a lot of grievances against America, but most of them relate to the rot that has taken hold here, especially related to the American governments abuse of power and abuse of the American people and the peoples unwillingness to make a stand for themselves and for freedom. I dont have a lot of complaints about how we handled our super power status around the globe though.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 06:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Please name one single empire or global superpower in history that handled the responsibilities with more respect for individual rights and/or with less violence than America did while we held the position....


You really don't have a clue about the history of the US abroad, do you, Hawkeye?

"while we held the position", jesus, you think that it's a thing of the past. What universe do you inhabit? IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN.

The US committed genocide against Native Americans and continued on in the Philippines, Hawaii, numerous Central and South American countries. Six to eight million people don't die when a country has respect for human rights, when a country eschews violence.

The propaganda truly has been relentless.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 06:23 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Please name one single empire or global superpower in history that handled the responsibilities with more respect for individual rights and/or with less violence than America did while we held the position....


You really don't have a clue about the history of the US abroad, do you, Hawkeye?

"while we held the position", jesus, you think that it's a thing of the past. What universe do you inhabit? IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN.

The US committed genocide against Native Americans and continued on in the Philippines, Hawaii, numerous Central and South American countries. Six to eight million people don't die when a country has respect for human rights, when a country eschews violence.

The propaganda truly has been relentless.


Evasion.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 06:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Evasion, not at all, Hawk, that's the province that you and a lot of others here love to occupy.

Read it all, Hawkeye.

Speaking of evasion, why haven't you answered my direct question, posed at least twice, I believe;

Would you like to do the US vis a vis WWII? You had expressed some interest in that.

Quote:
The CIA and the Gulf War
by John Stockwell
A speech delivered on 1991-02-20 at the
Louden Nelson Community Center, Santa Cruz, California

...

But first, how many people have read ..... The last time I was here, I asked you to ..... How many people actually read Howard Zinn's bookA People's History of the United States? ..... That's better! Everybody else: Tomorrow, call in sick. Don't go to class. Read this book! Quite simply, you will never understand the U.S. System as completely until you read it. And once you read it, you will be able to understand what's happening, broadly, for the rest of your life. It's extremely well-written, extremely well- documented, tremendously moving, with quotes on every page: every phase of our history, as viewed, not from the interests of the country and big business — as our high school textbooks are and as our college textbooks are — but from the viewpoint of the people who died in the wars, who fought in the wars, who paid for the wars, and who profited from the wars, of course.

This war we're going to talk about tonight is called the "Persian Gulf War" — the "SuperBowl War" — the "Made-for-Television War" — the "Pentagon-Edited War" — the "Women-Have-a-Right-to-Kill,-Die- and-Be-Captured-Too War" — "the Censored War" — the "Saddam Hussein-is-So-Evil-We-Have-to-Do-It War" — and the "I've-Got-to-Support-Our-Troops-Right-or-Wrong War".

Now this thing was thoroughly prepared for six months, overtly, by the United States Government, the Pentagon, and the Media — CNN [Cable News Network] getting into it many weeks ago with heavy coverage. We covered it so thoroughly that on January 14th ..... and I've been writing screenplays and things, trying to make a living, with CNN on ..... On the 14th, waiting for the kick-off, they had an Emory University professor on who gave us advice on how to play Wall Street to profit from the war before it happened. His advice is very simple — in case you're sitting on a bundle of money and you don't want to give it to the Christic Institute or to me — He said: "Jump now." That was on the 14th. He said: "Don't wait a few days because then, other people will be jumping. Go in right now!" And then, he said: "The U.S. dollar will go up temporarily, so buy Japanese yen. Wait `til it goes up, then buy Japanese yen because by the end of the year the dollar will be back down and the yen will have doubled in value again and you can make a bundle on that.

Every obscene coverage that we could possibly do!

And then the whole world waited, on the 15th and 16th, for the kickoff of this great modern war. Now, some people waited, or had been waiting, longer than others. I found myself in the position (albeit a country boy from Texas who grew up in Africa; but you know) reading books and having seen a little bit of this stuff from the National Security Council level, I had been able to predict, nine months ahead of time, that the U.S. would invade Panama. And this was not a shot in the dark. This was an analysis of the United States and George Bush — for whom I worked, at the end of the "Angola Secret War", where I was the task force commander for a subcommittee of the National Security Council, and he was the CIA Director responsible for fending off the Congress.

...

Now at the same time, through these years, people like Harry Summers, a colonel, teaching at the War College, writing his book on strategy, analyzing the Vietnam War for the failures of the Vietnam War, not apologetic, not that it was a wrong war. Not at all! He was saying that what we'd done wrong was we had failed to orchestrate the war and to organize and motivate the American People to support it; and that it went on too long, and we didn't win, and we didn't go in decisively enough with a major military strike. The Military has always maintained that if they could have gone in, all out, they would have won in Vietnam very efficiently, and that they were hamstrung by the politicians, and were prevented from fighting a good war. Dean Rusk, when he came out of office and retired, he said that the next war cannot be fought in the eye of the television camera with the Public second-guessing the generals as they're making decisions on the battlefields.

Now, you'll notice the interesting thing about that is, One: that he was wrong. He didn't understand that they could so captivate the nation that they could fight the war in the eye of the television camera. But it was a censored television camera, with the media playing along in the censorship. But perhaps the most significant thing about his statement was the fact that he was absolutely, blithely confident that there would BE another war.

Most of us were presuming that, because of the trauma of the Vietnam War, we had learned that these things are not cool, that they don't work, that we should never do them again. They maintained — the Military — that if the United States had gone in massively in Vietnam, with nukes, if they had to, and won in a few months time, the American People would have supported it, and there would have been no trauma. General Gavlett[sp], in the South Command in Panama, when they were trying to invade Nicaragua, he was saying: "The American People love a good bash, but you've got to get it over with in about six weeks time or it'll go sour on you. You can't afford to have the war still going on while the body bags start coming home."

Now since then, as part of this preparation for this war, this enormously successful preparation for this war — leading the nation into war and restoring the Military Complex — they've been preparing for greater control of our society. Now this is where it gets a little creepy:

They've been laying down a series of laws. I don't have time in the lecture to go through them, but as a matter of fact, I do list all of them that I was aware of in one chapter of this book that's coming out now [The Praetorian Guard: The U.S. Role in the New World Order.] — the National Security laws, which work to give them control of the Press, control of passports; they can stop Jane Fondas and Seymour Hershes from traveling and reporting from places like Hanoi, or My Lai scandals, and such.

You've got to understand that the United States is and has always been a war-loving nation, a warring nation. But one with a smile. We've learned how to put a twist on it so we can feel good about doing what other nations have done that we consider to be evil.

This is part of my analysis. And the CIA, in our training ..... when we were novices, people from the analytical side came to talk to us and they said:

"If you're trying to figure out what a nation is going to do, you don't take the circumstances on the table in front of you and say, the logical thing is that they'll do this. What you do is you look at the history of the country, its cycles of war or whatever. If it's a country that's gone to war frequently in its past, you expect it to go to war again. If it's a country that never goes to war, you expect it to find a peaceful solution."
And with that analysis, about ten years ago (although most of my growth, intellectually, has been since then) I began to just sit down and doodle how many wars the United States has been into. And I noticed there are a whole bunch of them. We've done a lot of this thing. A very warring nation! [War is] very deep in our history. Fifteen wars, as I count them. And this gets semantical. They didn't call Korea a war. They tried not to call Vietnam a war. But [the United States'] major military actions: I count about fifteen, give or take two, if you want to call them minor, but nevertheless, let's say fifteen wars. We've spent fifty years or so at war. We've had two hundred-plus military actions, about once a year, in which we put our troops into other countries to force them to our will. The longest period between wars was between World War I and World War II. The second longest period was between the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War.

Now, during the first period, the longest period, we put 12,000 troops with an Allied Force to invade Russia and we put our Marines repeatedly into Latin and Central American countries, again, to force them to our will. And then, of course, we've had low-intensity conflicts, almost uncountable — hundreds and hundreds of them, in between, for example, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War.

As you begin to read these things (and Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is extremely good on following this kind of detail to really give you the punch lines of how the leadership orchestrated the nation into other wars) in each war there was a trigger. If you look at page 290 of that book, [Pres.] Harry Truman wrote a friend, quote:

"In strict confidence, I should welcome almost any war, for I think the country needs one."

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock2.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2020 at 08:04:43