Let's Cut to the Chase - Iran Must Be Stopped

Now more pressure against Obama from the sort of like methods that this thread wanted to support. So, the issue for Israel support, when Israel's supporters were behind the JFK assassination is a huge issue. And the issues of the USS Liberty in killing American causes everyone to question why Israel should get any American support in view of such treason linked events of Israel against the US:

=====

www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama aiding Tehran by pursuing diplomatic solution, Republicans claimCongressional Republicans say the president has not been supportive enough of Israel over any possible threat from Iran

---

"Although your administration has stated that 'all options are on the table', you have offered little evidence to back up this statement. Your administration has consistently downplayed and even potentially frustrated Israel's understandable consideration of the use of force to protect itself," it reads.

-----

"The president's concern regarding the consequences of a military strike against Iran is shared by many in the American and Israeli security establishments," it said. "Sanctions are beginning to have an impact, and they should be given further time to take effect. A precipitous rush to military action against Iran does not serve the best interests of the United States, or of Israel."

==========



It would appear the Zionists are trying to make it clear that if Obama wants re-election he is going to have to buy a war against Iran for Israel.

Perhaps, if Obama doesn't get elected he needs to consider what foreign element had a US President killed over Israel's nuclear bomb proliferation and square up the deal. Israel is a threat to the National Security of the US via Spying, being connected to the JFK hit, killing USS Liberty Sailors, and now putting the screws to a sitting US President in attempts to force him to OK attacking Iran to get re-elected.

I wonder how long Obama is going to wait to connect these dots, if his re-election doesn't work out?

Now more pressure against Obama from the sort of like methods that this thread wanted to support. So, the issue for Israel support, when Israel's supporters were behind the JFK assassination is a huge issue. And the issues of the USS Liberty in killing American causes everyone to question why Israel should get any American support in view of such treason linked events of Israel against the US:

=====

www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama aiding Tehran by pursuing diplomatic solution, Republicans claimCongressional Republicans say the president has not been supportive enough of Israel over any possible threat from Iran

---

"Although your administration has stated that 'all options are on the table', you have offered little evidence to back up this statement. Your administration has consistently downplayed and even potentially frustrated Israel's understandable consideration of the use of force to protect itself," it reads.

-----

"The president's concern regarding the consequences of a military strike against Iran is shared by many in the American and Israeli security establishments," it said. "Sanctions are beginning to have an impact, and they should be given further time to take effect. A precipitous rush to military action against Iran does not serve the best interests of the United States, or of Israel."

==========


It would appear the Zionists are trying to make it clear that if Obama wants re-election he is going to have to buy a war against Iran for Israel.

Perhaps, if Obama doesn't get elected he needs to consider what foreign element had a US President killed over Israel's nuclear bomb proliferation and square up the deal. Israel is a threat to the National Security of the US via Spying, being connected to the JFK hit, killing USS Liberty Sailors, and now putting the screws to a sitting US President in attempts to force him to OK attacking Iran to get re-elected.

I wonder how long Obama is going to wait to connect these dots, if his re-election doesn't work out?

Originally posted by MagnumOpus


More News on Iran and the Parchin site:

======

www.guardian.co.uk...

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran is rejecting allegations that it attempted to clean up radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger at a military site.

======

did you really expect them to hang their heads, grin, scuff their toes, and say "Aw shucks! Ya caught us!"?

BTW, that's the way external quotes are specified to be set apart. I fixed that for you. I think I got it right, but there is no way to be certain, the way you had it.

The rest of the post was ignored. It is irrelevant, off topic, and therefore merits no response, since nothing in it had anything at all to do with Iran.

It isn't very often one gets a ring side seat for the build up to WWIII, but via the Internet and good Intelligence Sources and following the dirt dealers, one gets a high level view as things progress.

Cutting to the chase a little:

One of the most interesting issues is that Oliver Stone's Son recently took up Islam in Tehran, and was very well received. He is now Ali.

What is more interesting is money Arnon Milchan, the Zionist Mossad Agent, and the Executive Producer for Oliver Stone's JFK movie, used that blood money off the JFK Movie to buy nuclear weapons parts for Israel and engaged in smuggling those nuclear weapons parts into Israel.


Some say what goes around in the methods of deceit and treachery comes around eventually. Iran's Intelligence likely knows all about Arnon Milchan by now, and Muslum Obama is to know.

What if Iran made a movie that completes the rest of the story on the JFK hit involving Israel's nuclear proliferation.

That would be far more profound that any atomic bomb against the Israelis. The truth on JFK would unravel all Congress attacks on the Muslum Obama and the traitorous connections of these Zionist treason factors against the US. imho


Perhaps, it isn't the nuclear issues the Israelis fear, it is the big screen cinema growth in Iran that can make: "JFK II, Treason is High Places, the Zionist story in the JFK assassination."


I do think The Ayatolla has six aces up his sleeve, a Muslum in the White House, and a Muslim Movie Producer and chip off the ole Stone block. They all know the Congressional and Hollywood Dirt Bags very well.

www.thedailybeast.com...



Smoke on the water and Firey Cinema on the Big Screen----beam the News out Ali Scotty.


Who needs a bomb when you got a megawatt movie projector. That will be a shot heard around the world.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
It isn't very often one gets a ring side seat for the build up to WWIII,

I've sat in that ringside seat for around 50 years, and nothing has happened yet.

One of the most interesting issues is that Oliver Stone's Son recently took up Islam in Tehran, and was very well received. He is now Ali.

Do you mean sort of like the way Jane Fonda took up communism in Hanoi? Some times, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The rest of the post was ignored. It is irrelevant, off topic, and therefore merits no response.

More like how Jane, Gloria, and Morristown are going to get Limbaugh fired. Big News.

www.cnn.com...

Poor Boy, you asked how JFK and the Israel Bomb were associated, now you are speechless, can't read, and showing your colors,

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
More like how Jane, Gloria, and Morristown are going to get Limbaugh fired. Big News.

www.cnn.com...

Irrelevant. Limbaugh is a douche, an idiot, unable to maintain two coherent thoughts in a row. Hell, he can't even maintain ONE coherent thought in a row. I'd be happy to trash Limbaugh right along side you, but he's just not the topic here.

Poor Boy, you asked how JFK and the Israel Bomb were associated, now you are speechless, can't read, and showing your colors,

Actually, I'm speechless because you have yet to demonstrate any relevance for it that would merit a response.

Your drill appears to be to trash Israel, since you apparently can't support Iran on it's own merit. Unfortunate that the topic is Iran, rather than Israel. Perhaps you might feel more at home in one of the hundreds of "Trash Israel" threads..

When the US Intelligence folks tell the Iran Progam ended years ago and they don't seem to be doing anything other than what the Nuclear NPT Rules allow, then one must look at just who is screaming for Iran to be Bombed and check if the US really would like to get involved with the group that is a well known US National Security problem.

Simple logic, but it appears way too complex for the Misleading type that you appear to be. imho

Guess you'll be calling Obama a Muslim and he is the Boggy Man because he wants progressive sanctions, and the Zionist aligned types, like yourself, went ballistic when the Ayatollah said a positive toward Muslim Obama recently.

We'ins all say Israel walks alone into their Armageddon.


So, what is the next treasonous false flag operation by the Zionists to get Obama to agree to Bomb Iran? The Zionists going to go after Obama like they did JFK? Does Obama need a pre-emptive attack to defend against the Zionists?

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
When the US Intelligence folks tell the Iran Progam ended years ago and they don't seem to be doing anything other than what the Nuclear NPT Rules allow, then one must look at just who is screaming for Iran to be Bombed and check if the US really would like to get involved with the group that is a well known US National Security problem.

That's not what the US Intel folks are saying, that's what some of you THINK they are saying, because that's what you want to hear. I read the same links your side of the argument posted, and they didn't say exactly what you claim here. That was already addressed probably 30 pages ago or so.

The issue is not whether they are doing "what the NPT allows", it is that they are NOT doing what the NPT REQUIRES, they are breaking the terms of the NPT, and there must be some reason for that.

National Security problems can be found everywhere, and Israel (which is exactly what you are getting at with this veiled reference) isn't much of a problem as national security issues go. We have groups and individuals living and working in the US this very instant that would make the Israelis look like rank amateurs as security issues as far as the US goes.

Israel is far more useful to the US as a buffer and a road bump than it is as either an "ally" or a "national security problem". look at the last 30 years or so, and you will find that Iran has engaged in more overt acts of war against the US and the rest of the world than they have against Israel. WE are their target - Israel is just a little snack. That may or may not hold true in the murky world of proxy wars - the Iranian surrogates have certainly fired up Israel often enough in those, but they are active in several other places as well.,

That's why the verbal attacks on Israel are spurious attempts at misdirection. In the grand scheme of things, Israel just isn't as important as those who continually preach against it think it is. Yeah, Israelis in general are a tough bunch, BUT there just aren't enough of them. They are, however, very useful as foils for those who would prefer to direct attention from the problems with Iran.

As far as the religious aspects of Israel go, if God himself wasn't overly worried about his "Holy Mountain" being taken over by foreign gods, there isn't any real reason I should be concerned about that, either. My God tends to fight his own battles, doesn't need me to do it. I don't bail HIM out of trouble, it works the other way around.

Guess you'll be calling Obama a Muslim and he is the Boggy Man because he wants progressive sanctions, and the Zionist aligned types, like yourself, went ballistic when the Ayatollah said a positive toward Muslim Obama recently.

I have never called Obama a Muslim - if he is one, he's not a very good one, but either way his religion isn't my concern. I AM, however, against anything that smacks of "progressivism", because progressivism is only progressing my nation towards the edge of a cliff. Progressivism is nothing but a code word for "make me a slave, please".

If you think I am "zionist aligned", you are not able to see the bigger picture - you are getting hung up on tiny details, like Israel and "zionists". I don't care what they do or what they think, as long as they're willing to keep the crosshairs on themselves, and off of my family. I'm content to stand here and hand them ammo - it keeps the big guys busy and off of my turf for the most part, because they seem to be focusing on details and roadblocks at the moment, too.

We'ins all say Israel walks alone into their Armageddon.

I'm a hillbilly, born and bred. It's spelled "We'uns", not "we'ins" Spellings like "we'ins" and "young'ins" emanate from pseudo hillbilly carpetbaggers trying to pass as natives.

So, what is the next treasonous false flag operation by the Zionists to get Obama to agree to Bomb Iran? The Zionists going to go after Obama like they did JFK? Does Obama need a pre-emptive attack to defend against the Zionists?

Don't know, don't care. Sometimes I think the "False Flag" is the official flower of ATS, because so many people see them here where there are none. Part of that seems to be a distinct lack of understanding of just exactly what a real "false flag" operation really is.

For example, a "false flag" can not be treasonous if executed by a foreign power, by definition.

Originally posted by nenothtu
In my opinion, that right there is the crux of the colonial problem. It's the importation - and perhaps more importantly the extension to native areas - of the colonial administrative and governing functions. Look at the Spanish model in Latin America, and contrast it to the French model in Canada. The French were more prone to "go native", and did a lot better in developing sustainable trade than the Spaniards did, with fewer revolts.

An interesting example is the Benevolent Dictatorship of the Jesuits in the Republic of Paraquay. It was their attempt, to an extent, to preserve the integrity of the region over the smash and grab tactics of the slave traders. It failed to do so, but as a model, it is fascinating.

Originally posted by nenothtu
If someone has to be told by another who "the bad guys" are, they're already doing it wrong. That's why I never went into the US military to begin with, and went the freelance route instead via Security Contracting. I don't need to have my enemies issued to me, and realize that the enemy of the moment may be the ally of tommorrow, and vice versa. That is much more pronounced when one allows an external organization - i.e. a government - to pick and choose his enemies for him.

I think that too many people join the military for the wrong reasons period. They are not defending their country, quite the opposite, they are at best, defending their countries economic interests. Those economic interests are not necessarily worthy of defence. I seriously considered joining the RAF, not because I wanted to fight for my country, but because I wanted to play with the toys, however it wasn’t an option due to a sight impairment. The regular army would never have had me or more importantly, let me choose which of it’s toys I could play with.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm not familiar with Buckley, but will check into it. The Iranian Embassy hostages were released en masse within an hour of the inauguration of Reagan in 1981 - I remember that very well. the general consensus at the time was that the Iranians had the distinct sense that they would be toasted in a matter of days if they didn't, which is an uneasy feeling they didn't get with Carter. Another school of thought at the time held that they just wanted to embarrass Carter, and so offered "insult" to him by not releasing the hostages until Reagan was in office, but as soon as possible after that event occurred. In that latter thought process, the notion of Iran getting toasted over the hostages doesn't really enter the equation.

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was referring to hostages taken as individuals by paramilitary or ‘terrorist’ groups, such as Hezbollah or PLO on orders from Iran. Buckley being one high profile example. I don’t have any links I am afraid, got it from a book...so depends how interested you are ?
But evidently, the US agreed to sell arms, in conjunction with Israel in exchange for the release of US hostages, including Buckley, the profits from selling those arms (at inflated prices) was to be channelled to the Contras. So I presume, that the CIA bought the arms from the US Military and then sold them on, rather than it being a direct deal, military to military. Same with Israel.

Originally posted by nenothtu
From my standpoint, ANY war is "aggressive war" - it's pretty useless otherwise. IMO, the Nuremburg line was crossed there when they were supplying arms to an enemy actor. We had and have enough enemies that we should be able to let the enemies supply each other, without the US having to help them out, too.

I suppose, ‘Aggressive War’, as a point of law, would denote there being such a thing as a ‘Just War’. Obviously in modern history, and most of history in fact, ‘Just’ is merely a matter of perspective. The only exception that I can perhaps think of, is the use of air strikes in Kosovo to prevent genocide...

Originally posted by nenothtu
State sponsored terrorism comes to the fore when weapons are supplied to terroristic organizations, regardless of the initial source of those weapons. In a more modern example, the US Justice Department supplying weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels qualifies as "state sponsored terrorism" as far as I'm concerned, and the US is in that case supporting terrorism against their own citizens.

I would agree entirely with that assessment.

Originally posted by nenothtu
With a friendly government of the caliber of ours, who needs enemies?

I caught a bit of news on TV today, with your President welcoming my Prime Minister. I try very hard not to swear in front of my son, so I told him to cover his ears while I aimed some choice expletives at the screen.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Carter didn't just "pressure" the Shah, he actively worked against him. he didn't just "pave the way" for Khomeini, he actively pushed for Khomeini's return to Iran in a leadership role. We see the thanks Carter got for that bone-headed miscalculation.

Interesting. It is funny how differently things can look from the outside in. I may be inclined to read a little more about Carter, I have taken him on face value, as perhaps a self-styled, peace seeker. I should dig a little deeper clearly.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Is there still a British Whig party? I think I'm probably more along the lines of the early American Whigs politically, but they are no more as a party. The two are not exactly the same, but there are enough points of congruence that parallels can be drawn.

One thing is sure - I'll never again be a Republican. they had their chance, and crapped the nest full.

I think the Whigs in the UK became the Liberals. Not entirely sure. I’m currently harking back to the pre-civil war days and wishing for a return of John Lilburne and the Levellers...they won the revolution for Cromwell...he locked them up and sold out to the Capitalists and what was left, ran off to make the US...so perhaps either way it’s better to look forward and to something altogether new. They all seem to turn into snakes given enough rope to dance up.

The issues of some false flag operations, and the sacrifice of America:

=======

www.opinion-maker.org...

Plans are in motion for a “false flag” attack on America. Iran will be blamed, everyone knows that and Iran will be totally innocent. This is the last thing Iran would ever want. The most likely scenario is a nuclear attack.

Two bombs are missing, bombs built by Israel in South Africa and lost long ago. These were supposedly Saddam’s bombs. Now we are told Iran has them. Israel has had them all along and the fear, they may be inside the United States already.

----

The purpose will be to push America into a 20 year war that will destroy Iran and Pakistan, take oil to over $300 per barrel and collapse the dollar and Euro. Iran isn’t Iraq of 2003, toothless and starving. This will be America’s last military adventure, and the end of America’s place in the world as we know it. We know the details of the proposed military campaign and the military and political leaders who support it are the worst imaginable incompetents and traitors.

----

This is how it is going to play out. The news media has gotten their orders, Wikileaks is part of it. From now on, key members of congress will, on cue, begin harping about the threat of Iran. Governments in the Middle East that are under the total control of Israel and the American military will aid in every way possible. Thus far, of all the Islamic nations in the world, only Syria and Afghanistan are not taking orders from Tel Aviv.

=======

Originally posted by Biliverdin
An interesting example is the Benevolent Dictatorship of the Jesuits in the Republic of Paraquay. It was their attempt, to an extent, to preserve the integrity of the region over the smash and grab tactics of the slave traders. It failed to do so, but as a model, it is fascinating.

Have you ever seen the film "The Mission"? It's a fairly interesting dramatic treatment of that very time and place, and shows the playoffs between the Jesuits and the Slavers.

Some colonial models work fairly well for a while, but eventually someone bites off more than they can chew, and it all falls down - in one direction or the other. I don't know of any case where equilibrium was reached and maintained. Even in Rhodesia, where the British did well enough to sue for independence, it eventually came crashing down. The natives - ZANU/ZANLA, ZAPU/ZIPRA, etc., took it back, renamed it Zimbabwe, and proceeded to terrorize the "colonials" (most of whom were nothing of the sort - they were born there), and wreck the country and economy.

The Boers in South Africa are another similar case, although the fall in the aftermath has not been to the extremes demonstrated in Rhodesia.

The downfall of them, in common with most colonial ventures, seems to have been the extension of colonial rule over wider areas than they were able to maintain. The US will see a similar situation in the not too distant future, as possibly will the UK. What used to be referred to as "colonials" are now called "immigrants", many of whom are remaining in growing ethnic enclaves (think "colonies") and are now trying to exert pressure beyond their means, rather than merge, integrate, and work within the already existent framework.

I think that too many people join the military for the wrong reasons period. They are not defending their country, quite the opposite, they are at best, defending their countries economic interests. Those economic interests are not necessarily worthy of defence. I seriously considered joining the RAF, not because I wanted to fight for my country, but because I wanted to play with the toys, however it wasn’t an option due to a sight impairment. The regular army would never have had me or more importantly, let me choose which of it’s toys I could play with.

I don't think many sign up with the intention of fighting for their country's economic interest, but it all too often works out that way. At the same time, few really sign up for "patriotic" reasons, either, but convince themselves that's the reason. Some are running away from something, some just want the educational benefits, some go because they think it's the only job they can get. There are probably as many reasons as their are inductees. I'm not sure there are any "right" reasons to join a standing military, but there are honest reasons, if they can bring themselves to face those reasons honestly.

I recall hearing kids boarding planes for the First Gulf War saying "Uh, nobody told us we were gonna have to fight! I just joined for the college benefits!" and I recall saying "well ya dumbass! What did you think a military was FOR?"

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was referring to hostages taken as individuals by paramilitary or ‘terrorist’ groups, such as Hezbollah or PLO on orders from Iran. Buckley being one high profile example. I don’t have any links I am afraid, got it from a book...so depends how interested you are ?

I can Google it, but that sounds about right. I think Hezbollah were more into taking orders from Syria than from Iran, because of religious differences, but associations between Syria and Iran may muddy those waters a bit. Other paramilitaries in that area, however, do seem to be squarely in Iran's pocket.

But evidently, the US agreed to sell arms, in conjunction with Israel in exchange for the release of US hostages, including Buckley, the profits from selling those arms (at inflated prices) was to be channelled to the Contras. So I presume, that the CIA bought the arms from the US Military and then sold them on, rather than it being a direct deal, military to military. Same with Israel.

Something like that. I don't think CIA got their arms directly from the US military, but some military folks had a hand in it. There was (and is) a thriving black market in arms, and the CIA often made good use of it, as well as several other intelligence agencies. I used to know a guy in Alexandria, VA who could get anything you wanted, in quantity if necessary, for the right price. He never asked about the politics of the situation. He's out of business now, but I have no doubt that others have taken over where he left off.

I suppose, ‘Aggressive War’, as a point of law, would denote there being such a thing as a ‘Just War’. Obviously in modern history, and most of history in fact, ‘Just’ is merely a matter of perspective. The only exception that I can perhaps think of, is the use of air strikes in Kosovo to prevent genocide...

I suppose there really isn't any good single-word descriptor for what constitutes a "good" war or a "bad" war except in the minds of propagandists, who do seem to love jingoistic phrases. There are wars I would fight, and wars I would not fight, but in the final analysis "good" or "bad" seem to be more linked to which side of the battlefield you are standing on than they are any objective criterion - for most wars. Well, that and which side wins, because as we know history is written by the victors.

I didn't involve myself in the Balkans Conflicts after the fall of the Soviet Union, although I had a chance to in Bosnia. I have an American friend who did. He had some adventures, but seems to be able to sleep at night, so for him, he picked the "right" side. He was freelance under the auspices of the UN, but doesn't have much good to say for the UN. In one scrape, it was the locals who came to his aid, when the UN left him hung out to dry. For myself, I don't think I could have picked out the "right" side in those conflicts. I have another friend who lives here now, and who fought throughout them as a Bosnian. I don't know that he was on the "right" side, but I don't judge him based upon my values - his were the ones that counted when the blood flew. He was there on the ground, and I wasn't.

I caught a bit of news on TV today, with your President welcoming my Prime Minister. I try very hard not to swear in front of my son, so I told him to cover his ears while I aimed some choice expletives at the screen.

I caught part of that, too. I flipped the channel.

Interesting. It is funny how differently things can look from the outside in. I may be inclined to read a little more about Carter, I have taken him on face value, as perhaps a self-styled, peace seeker. I should dig a little deeper clearly.

Carter WAS a "peace seeker", I just wasn't willing to pay the prices for peace that he was. Think Chamberlain in Munich, but with active assistance to the "enemy" rather than mere appeasement. It probably wasn't really his fault - his politics were more in line with the opposition than they were with American interests, and America should never have voted him into office to begin with.

As an example, Carter held meetings with Mexican President Lopez Portillo to try to figure out how to give Socialists a victory in Central America during the Sandinista wars in Nicaragua - before they did, in fact, achieve a victory and take the country over.

I think the Whigs in the UK became the Liberals. Not entirely sure. I’m currently harking back to the pre-civil war days and wishing for a return of John Lilburne and the Levellers...they won the revolution for Cromwell...he locked them up and sold out to the Capitalists and what was left, ran off to make the US...so perhaps either way it’s better to look forward and to something altogether new. They all seem to turn into snakes given enough rope to dance up.

They probably did become the Liberals. Whig philosophy seems to have revolved around vesting power in a ruling council - such as Congress or Parliament - rather than vesting it in a single ruler, such as a President, King, Premier, or Prime Minister. They seem to have had a zeal for personal liberty, and so eschewed any "sovereign" concentrating too much power in one individual, with a preference for keeping government small and spread out, to prevent accumulations of power in any one place. back then, "conservatives" were in support of the status quo, which at that point in most places was on the order of a monarchy.

Myself, I could go for the Whig philosophy, provided that whatever powers WERE vested in a ruling council were severely curtailed and sharply delimited. In America, our politicians are barely able to rule themselves, and don't have much business making themselves lords over the rest of us.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


People tell me I'm paranoid. they take great delight in pointing out my paranoia at every turn. I mention this so that you will understand that it's not a light thing when I say that the link you posted is probably the single most paranoid flight of fantasy I have ever had the misfortune to force myself to read through.

As paranoid as I am, THAT was REALLY paranoid!

Sounds like the Zionist's election blackmail begins against Obama..

======

www.telegraph.co.uk...


US 'tells Russia to warn Iran of last chance'
US-led military strikes against Iran are inevitable this year if Tehran does not give ground at multilateral talks next month over its nuclear programme, according to diplomatic sources in Moscow.

----

The source said there was a high likelihood of an attack "before the end of the year", adding: "The Israelis are, in essence, blackmailing [US president Barack] Obama. They are putting him in a difficult position: either he supports war or he himself will lose support.”

=======

Originally posted by nenothtu
Have you ever seen the film "The Mission"? It's a fairly interesting dramatic treatment of that very time and place, and shows the playoffs between the Jesuits and the Slavers.

I haven’t, is that the De Niro one? I might check it out.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Some colonial models work fairly well for a while, but eventually someone bites off more than they can chew, and it all falls down - in one direction or the other. I don't know of any case where equilibrium was reached and maintained. Even in Rhodesia, where the British did well enough to sue for independence, it eventually came crashing down. The natives - ZANU/ZANLA, ZAPU/ZIPRA, etc., took it back, renamed it Zimbabwe, and proceeded to terrorize the "colonials" (most of whom were nothing of the sort - they were born there), and wreck the country and economy.

I think the key problem is when it becomes a matter of a) possession, and b) co-dependency, such as in the case of British India. That is when the need for Imperialistic control mechanism comes into play. In Rhodesia, free trade would have been fatal to the fortunes invested in diamond extraction, therefore it was necessary to control mining rights to enable to artificially inflate pricing. That and general greed. Cecil Rhodes was not a particularly benevolent character.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The Boers in South Africa are another similar case, although the fall in the aftermath has not been to the extremes demonstrated in Rhodesia.

Again, there is much benefit to be gained by creating an atmosphere of instability, and for inciting old tribal rivalries, as well as encouraging (and arming) civil insurgency, as it maintains scarcity to keep prices inflated. There is no shortage of diamonds, or gold, or other tectonically and vulcanised minerals, extraction can be expensive in some cases, but the prices are kept high chiefly by limiting the ability of certain produces to trade. The West therefore continue to have vested interests in maintaining instability in Zimbabwe, but they do so with a long arm.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The downfall of them, in common with most colonial ventures, seems to have been the extension of colonial rule over wider areas than they were able to maintain. The US will see a similar situation in the not too distant future, as possibly will the UK. What used to be referred to as "colonials" are now called "immigrants", many of whom are remaining in growing ethnic enclaves (think "colonies") and are now trying to exert pressure beyond their means, rather than merge, integrate, and work within the already existent framework.

There is a difficult in the US, given it’s relative youth as a nation and it having mostly been formed by mass immigration in fairly recent times. In the UK we have quite a different make-up, and on those occasions in recent history where we have absorbed mass migrations, (the post-war Afro-Caribbeans to cope with labour shortages, and the Asians ejected from Uganda by Idi Amin), it has been without much choice, and it, on average, has taken two generations for assimilation to occur. Most immigration now is economically driven, which when jobs are of a premium has a negative impact on some of the more depressed areas, but often more due to the fact that those immigrants are more willing to work for low wages, hence undermining union efforts to improve those factors. Immigration therefore is not the problem, government policy is. Most understand this, and fortunately hostility is kept to a minimum, though elements still can be fired up using persuasion techniques designed to target the lowest common denominator.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I don't think many sign up with the intention of fighting for their country's economic interest, but it all too often works out that way. At the same time, few really sign up for "patriotic" reasons, either, but convince themselves that's the reason. Some are running away from something, some just want the educational benefits, some go because they think it's the only job they can get. There are probably as many reasons as their are inductees. I'm not sure there are any "right" reasons to join a standing military, but there are honest reasons, if they can bring themselves to face those reasons honestly.

I agree, and see the reasoning behind convincing oneself that you are doing it for ‘your country’. I am particularly concerned at present, that given the current economic climate combined with the constant heckling towards increasing aggression against some nations, that the psychological tools employed by recruiters will lead to far too many young people seeing it as their only option to ‘make themselves’, and of course, there is nothing new in that, but with pay and conditions such as they are, and less and less money being spent on equipment for new recruits, that many are merely signing up to be used as cannon fodder. This is particular of concern in the UK, who despite strenuous lobbying, are still recruiting under 18s.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I recall hearing kids boarding planes for the First Gulf War saying "Uh, nobody told us we were gonna have to fight! I just joined for the college benefits!" and I recall saying "well ya dumbass! What did you think a military was FOR?"

As my step-father said to me, the military is a great career - in peace time. Unfortunately, many are sold on the benefits, and seldom informed of the realities. I have been reading about child soldiers, of which there are about 250,000 currently engaged in conflicts in approximately 19 different countries, some as young as eight years old. There is nothing more likely to break the mind of a trained soldier, I should imagine, than to have no other choice but to kill an eight year old in a ‘them or me’ situation. I wonder what preparation our armed forces are given for those situations. I doubt any at all.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I can Google it, but that sounds about right. I think Hezbollah were more into taking orders from Syria than from Iran, because of religious differences, but associations between Syria and Iran may muddy those waters a bit. Other paramilitaries in that area, however, do seem to be squarely in Iran's pocket.

I’m currently reading ‘The Secret War with Iran’ by Ronen Bergman. According to the sources that he details, Hezbollah was at that time at least, very much under the direct orders of Iran via organisations within Lebanon. Most of the financing was certainly Iranian.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Something like that. I don't think CIA got their arms directly from the US military, but some military folks had a hand in it. There was (and is) a thriving black market in arms, and the CIA often made good use of it, as well as several other intelligence agencies. I used to know a guy in Alexandria, VA who could get anything you wanted, in quantity if necessary, for the right price. He never asked about the politics of the situation. He's out of business now, but I have no doubt that others have taken over where he left off.

This is very much the impression that I have gained, with well known figures like Khashoggi representing only the tip of the iceberg.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I suppose there really isn't any good single-word descriptor for what constitutes a "good" war or a "bad" war except in the minds of propagandists, who do seem to love jingoistic phrases. There are wars I would fight, and wars I would not fight, but in the final analysis "good" or "bad" seem to be more linked to which side of the battlefield you are standing on than they are any objective criterion - for most wars. Well, that and which side wins, because as we know history is written by the victors.

One of my favourite quotes on this subject, “I know history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it” – Winston Churchill.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I didn't involve myself in the Balkans Conflicts after the fall of the Soviet Union, although I had a chance to in Bosnia. I have an American friend who did. He had some adventures, but seems to be able to sleep at night, so for him, he picked the "right" side.

I think this is what it comes down to for anyone who is in military or even armed unit, you have to know yourself and where you draw the line. Often, especially if you are fighting in foreign territories it is not a matter of right side or wrong side, it is simply whatever side you are on. BUT, what you must know is what lines you can and can’t cross before you have a difficulty looking yourself in the eye...and that is really all. Some people don’t have such boundaries I am sure, but those that do, have to be sure of being true to themselves, not to someone shouting orders at them and telling them what is right or wrong. If you KNOW it is wrong, you have to decide whether you can live with both the external consequences, but more importantly, in the long run, the internal ones.

Originally posted by nenothtu
He was freelance under the auspices of the UN, but doesn't have much good to say for the UN. In one scrape, it was the locals who came to his aid, when the UN left him hung out to dry.

UN forces are as often as not, under orders not to engage, and equally as often, those countries, much like NATO forces, are only using their membership as a free training ground for their national forces. And another thing that I was recently reading, in areas where UN Peacekeepers are deployed there is a relational increase in prostitution. Not merely a matter of it being responsive, but according to War Child, is just as likely to be organised by UN personnel who seemingly have no moral difficulty in exploiting already victimised girls and women. A side note, but one worthy of note when we are discussing matters of integrity,

Originally posted by nenothtu
Carter WAS a "peace seeker", I just wasn't willing to pay the prices for peace that he was. Think Chamberlain in Munich, but with active assistance to the "enemy" rather than mere appeasement. It probably wasn't really his fault - his politics were more in line with the opposition than they were with American interests, and America should never have voted him into office to begin with.

Those that backed Chamberlain were willing to give ‘active assistance’ also, so I think I catch your drift.

Originally posted by nenothtu
They probably did become the Liberals. Whig philosophy seems to have revolved around vesting power in a ruling council - such as Congress or Parliament - rather than vesting it in a single ruler, such as a President, King, Premier, or Prime Minister. They seem to have had a zeal for personal liberty, and so eschewed any "sovereign" concentrating too much power in one individual, with a preference for keeping government small and spread out, to prevent accumulations of power in any one place. back then, "conservatives" were in support of the status quo, which at that point in most places was on the order of a monarchy.

Having traced my family tree back to the period of the British Whigs, I know exactly where ‘my kind’ were in the social scheme of things, and we wouldn’t have even had the vote...and that’s not just the women, most men in the UK didn’t get the vote until the 1800s...so you know...haha.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
I haven’t, is that the De Niro one? I might check it out.

Yup, that's the one. DeNiro is one of the slavers, and Jeremy Irons plays the Jesuit.

I think the key problem is when it becomes a matter of a) possession, and b) co-dependency, such as in the case of British India. That is when the need for Imperialistic control mechanism comes into play. In Rhodesia, free trade would have been fatal to the fortunes invested in diamond extraction, therefore it was necessary to control mining rights to enable to artificially inflate pricing. That and general greed. Cecil Rhodes was not a particularly benevolent character.

Yes, but it was under Mugabe when the economy really flew straight into hell, and it was taking something on the order of Z$ 5 million to buy a loaf of bread at times. I have a Zimbabwe 50 cent piece that I carry around in my pocket from 1980 - one of the first minted under Majority Rule. I look at it at times and try to imagine how much less than even the values of the metals in it that it eventually became worth. I carry it to remind me how fast and how far everything can go into the jaws of hell.
When first minted, that coin was worth about US 74 cents. It had fallen so far that in 2006 the ZD was "revalued" at 1 new dollar to 1000 old dollars, making it worth about 74 thousandths of one US cent. In 2008 it was "revalued" again, with 1 new dollar valued at 10 BILLION old (2nd) dollars, making it worth 0.0000000000074 of one US cent from the original value. In July 2008 the inflation rate was over 230 MILLION percent. Six months later in Jan 2009 it was revalued AGAIN, with 1 new dollar being worth 10 BILLION old (3rd) dollars. Just take the tiny figure above and add 10 more zeros to the right of the decimal to figure it's value now in US cents. I can't even shave a small enough sliver off of a US penny with a single fingernail file stroke to show how little it's worth. Yeah, Rhodes was a prick, but he never did that to his own people's money supply.

There is a difficult in the US, given it’s relative youth as a nation and it having mostly been formed by mass immigration in fairly recent times. In the UK we have quite a different make-up, and on those occasions in recent history where we have absorbed mass migrations, (the post-war Afro-Caribbeans to cope with labour shortages, and the Asians ejected from Uganda by Idi Amin), it has been without much choice, and it, on average, has taken two generations for assimilation to occur. Most immigration now is economically driven, which when jobs are of a premium has a negative impact on some of the more depressed areas, but often more due to the fact that those immigrants are more willing to work for low wages, hence undermining union efforts to improve those factors. Immigration therefore is not the problem, government policy is. Most understand this, and fortunately hostility is kept to a minimum, though elements still can be fired up using persuasion techniques designed to target the lowest common denominator.

I can agree that it's a government policy problem here, too, but probably for different reasons. It's not so much that it's a mass migration, but that it's a continuous mass migration, which isn't allowing any refractory time for assimilation between generations now. The last immigrant in my family came around 1760, and on my dad's side we've been here for well over 10.000 years. What is going on now is uncontrolled, and that IS a government policy problem. I'm not against immigration - even mass immigration - but there need to be some controls in place and enforced. The last time we saw this kind of uncontrolled immigration, they were coming in wooden sailing vessels from Europe. I don't expect this current wave will have a different outcome from what that one did. The old immigrants will be the new natives.

Unions came through here a few years ago and tried to organize the immigrant workers, with less than a sterling reception from them. As it turned out, the unions would have REDUCED their wages, but they are probably working in different industry here than they are there. At the time they were mostly working in tobacco fields here.

I agree, and see the reasoning behind convincing oneself that you are doing it for ‘your country’. I am particularly concerned at present, that given the current economic climate combined with the constant heckling towards increasing aggression against some nations, that the psychological tools employed by recruiters will lead to far too many young people seeing it as their only option to ‘make themselves’, and of course, there is nothing new in that, but with pay and conditions such as they are, and less and less money being spent on equipment for new recruits, that many are merely signing up to be used as cannon fodder. This is particular of concern in the UK, who despite strenuous lobbying, are still recruiting under 18s.

As far as I know, they still recruit under 18's here, too. recruiters have always been like that - pick people too young to know any better, and fill their heads with crap dreams of glory and honor. It's easier for them to mislead the young, so that's who they target. My son is in that age group, and is exploring that possibility, but he's not doing it with his eyes closed and his mind open for the filling. There ain't no glory in it - there's just mud, and blood, and smoke and dust that will choke you near to death, there's trying to dig a trench in the dirt with the buttons on your blouse because that guy over there is really trying to KILL you, like he means it! I've impressed all of that on him beyond words, and installed an advanced mistrust of recruiter's lies. He's got his own reasons for exploring the possibility, but they have nothing to do with Glory, King, Country, or God.

I'll U2U you with what I mean by "more than words". Too long a story to drop into this post.

As my step-father said to me, the military is a great career - in peace time. Unfortunately, many are sold on the benefits, and seldom informed of the realities. I have been reading about child soldiers, of which there are about 250,000 currently engaged in conflicts in approximately 19 different countries, some as young as eight years old. There is nothing more likely to break the mind of a trained soldier, I should imagine, than to have no other choice but to kill an eight year old in a ‘them or me’ situation. I wonder what preparation our armed forces are given for those situations. I doubt any at all.

They're given NO preparation for that possibility. NONE. If you think it'll mess up a kid's mind, you ought to see what it'll do to a grown man, old enough to already KNOW it's not supposed to be that way, but there it was. I've known people who were in both situations - as a child and as an adult. The guy who taught me Arabic was a 10 year old soldier in Syria at the Golan Heights, but I don't think he faced any kids on the other side of the lines. I've known other guys who faced kids in a kill-or-be-killed in Central America. You do what you have to do, and then try to live with it for the rest of your days OR you just let the kid pop you right there, and don't have any more days to worry about it. There's not much time to make that decision when it's right there on you, and there isn't anything they can do to prepare you for the raw reality of that beforehand.

In an Iran war, they can count on facing child soldiers if they're dumb enough to go in on the ground. Iran used unarmed kids as minesweepers and as human waves in the Iraq-iran war. gave them little plastic keys and told them if they died in battle that was the Key to Heaven for them.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

I’m currently reading ‘The Secret War with Iran’ by Ronen Bergman. According to the sources that he details, Hezbollah was at that time at least, very much under the direct orders of Iran via organisations within Lebanon. Most of the financing was certainly Iranian.

Well, when you pay the bills, you call the shots, even if those shot calls are relayed. And now, Hezbollah has a firm foothold in the Lebanese government...

This is very much the impression that I have gained, with well known figures like Khashoggi representing only the tip of the iceberg.

I recommend Russian small arms - You can still get AK-74's factory-direct for 230.00 USD, still in the cosmoline, and they're a damn sight better at killing and operating through just about any crap than the US small arms. I've carried both, and I'd trade any 5 M-16's for one AK-74. I understand Venezuela took delivery of around 500,000 of them not long ago, and I have to wonder what they have planned for that many of them...

Kashoggi dealt more in high volume and hi-tech, but seemed to have a finger in every pie there for a while. I'd have hated to be in Aitken's shoes when the DNA testing of Petrina Kashoggi was done - I bet he sweat bullets for a while. I don't know much about that situation, but Kashoggi isn't the sort of fellow I'd want to have pissed off at me.

I hear that Syria is running short on munitions to kill off it's civilains with, and that Iran is resupplying them. Someone needs to give Kashoggi a call and see about dropping some of those hi-tech anti-tank missiles in to the rebels to counter those shiny new Iranian-supplied tanks. Ignore the voice-overs on the smuggled footage of the Iranian smuggler planes in Syria, though - the civilians that the tanks are meant to kill aren't "UNarmed civilians", they're just severley UNDER armed. The "unarmed" bit is just a propagandistic sympathy play, as if the reality isn't bad enough.

I think this is what it comes down to for anyone who is in military or even armed unit, you have to know yourself and where you draw the line. Often, especially if you are fighting in foreign territories it is not a matter of right side or wrong side, it is simply whatever side you are on. BUT, what you must know is what lines you can and can’t cross before you have a difficulty looking yourself in the eye...and that is really all. Some people don’t have such boundaries I am sure, but those that do, have to be sure of being true to themselves, not to someone shouting orders at them and telling them what is right or wrong. If you KNOW it is wrong, you have to decide whether you can live with both the external consequences, but more importantly, in the long run, the internal ones.

That is PRECISELY why recruiters prey on the young - they haven't been far enough through the wringers yet to be able to make that distinction, and are more likely to do as they are told without thinking over much about it - until later. That's when problems arise, and some guys can't live with themselves - all because some dumbass pushed them beyond their boundaries before they even figured out what their boundaries were.

Boundaries can be pushed pretty far and horrendously distorted in a war situation, but a man who truly has none is nothing more than a psychopath. He's as dangerous to his own as he is to the enemy. They can be found in every war, and I won't say much more about that other than to say they sometimes get left where they lay - for the good of your own men.

UN forces are as often as not, under orders not to engage, and equally as often, those countries, much like NATO forces, are only using their membership as a free training ground for their national forces.

he was a trainer, but not in a national military - just working for the UN. Some of the "bad guys" decided to take him out, and the UN left him to that fate - one unit commander, a Turkish unit I believe - offered to give him some Turkish patches to disguise himself with, and that was about it. he refused the disguise (that's against the Geneva Conventions, and he could be shot as a spy) and it turned out that the local townsfolk turned out to defend him. The UN was "over the hill" and GONE. Their "training exercise" isn't going to do them much good if they never get close enough to even smell the smoke.

And another thing that I was recently reading, in areas where UN Peacekeepers are deployed there is a relational increase in prostitution. Not merely a matter of it being responsive, but according to War Child, is just as likely to be organised by UN personnel who seemingly have no moral difficulty in exploiting already victimised girls and women. A side note, but one worthy of note when we are discussing matters of integrity,

That seems a common problem. I've heard the charges against several outfits, public and private, but I've never actually seen it in action. I think in the Balkans both DynCorp and Wackenhut's "Armor Group" were accused of that, as well as the UN units. Wackenhut in particular has been the subject of a lot of bad press along those lines. In one case a guy with PTSD who shouldn't have been there to begin with went off in a drunken rage against his own, and had to be shot, and in another case there were accusations of Alcohol and worse in an Islamic country. I don't know how true that is, but tend to give some credence to it, if not full credence. I know some of their guys have been flown out of hot spots in a hell of a hurry, so there must have been something to it.

In the spirit of disclosure, I have to admit to working for Wackenhut for a few years. While I never saw anything like those situations, I did see things that were questionable as far as hiring practices went, which would make me wonder if some of those reports might not have a grain of truth in them. Some of the guys I ran across there had no damned business at all behind a set of sights - but they might have had a place in front of them.

It ain't pretty, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

Having traced my family tree back to the period of the British Whigs, I know exactly where ‘my kind’ were in the social scheme of things, and we wouldn’t have even had the vote...and that’s not just the women, most men in the UK didn’t get the vote until the 1800s...so you know...haha.

My British ancestors were all Scots and Irish, and it's my understanding that they came over here in the first place because they were already so low on the totem pole that they had to lie flat on their backs at high noon to even see the sun. I doubt they had much vote in any matters other than the vote of the sword, either, and eventually voted with their feet.

Abduction of the US by Foerign Power and US Election Corruption "Gas Tax":

=====

petras.lahaine.org...


Israel’s Willing Executioners: AIPAC Invades Washington
James Petras and Robin Eastman Abaya :: 03.15.2012 :: United States
When a country, like the United States, is in decline, it is not because of external competition: Declining competitiveness is only a symptom. It is because of internal rot. Decline results when a nation is betrayed by craven leaders, who crawl and humiliate themselves before a minority of thuggish mediocrities pledged to a foreign state without scruples or moral integrity

-----

From March 4th to March 9th, 2012, 13,000 militant Israel Firsters, took over “political Washington”[1] and imposed a foreign regime’s (Israel) political agenda to the rousing applause and appreciation of their captive vassal US legislators and executives who crowded the halls and platforms groveling for the imperious nods of their visiting Israeli overlords[2]

-----

The week of March 4 to 11, 2012 will go down in history as a week of national humiliation; a time when legions of fanatical American Zionists took over Washington; when the entire Cabinet, led by President Obama, groveled before the officials of a foreign state - in the heart of Washington DC. When the President and Prime Minister of Israel directed their foreign legionaires to march on the US Congress and shove their flimsy pretexts for war with Iran into the faces of cringing legislators, the simplistic and idiotic message was: Bomb Iran because it may soon have … a nuclear ‘capacity’. If asked what constitutes capacity, they quote their beloved leaders in Tel Aviv, including the semi-literate (former nightclub bouncer) Foreign Minister Avi Lieberman, the morally corrupt Bibi Netanyahu and the quietly diabolic Shimon Peres that Iranians can ‘enrich uranium’ – a capacity long held by 125 other countries.

========


Additional Insights:


www.opinion-maker.org...#


In my opinion there’s a better than evens chance that in the course of a second Obama term, America would put its own best interests first, which would mean an end to unconditional American support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong. (As is often the case, the Gentile me and Gideon Levy are on the same page. The headline over one of his recent articles in Ha-aretz was It’s only a matter of time before U.S. tires of Israel).

------

There are three main reasons why I have that opinion.

◦The first is my belief that Obama hates being a prisoner of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress. (I think that Max Hastings, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and a well respected military historian, was spot on when he wrote the following in a recent article for the Daily Mail. “Privately, Obama yearns to come down hard n Netanyahu, whom he dislikes intensely. But the U.S. President does not dare to do this when his own re-election may hinge on the three per cent of American voters who are Jewish.”)

========

Some really big alliances building:


==========

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Iran and Syria 'lay ambitious plans for road, rail, air and electricity links'
Iran has thrown Syria an economic lifeline by laying ambitious plans for road, rail, air and even electricity links between the two countries, according to official records of high level talks in Damascus.

-----

They provide further evidence of the immense effort Iran's regime is making to shore up Mr Assad, who serves as Tehran's only reliable ally in the Middle East. All the plans outlined in the documents require the cooperation of Iraq, which would have to allow its territory to be used as a corridor between Syria and Iran.

========

reply to post by seabag


Let us hope Israel yet again attacks another country, Iran. When it does, the US should not get involved and leave Israel's backside hanging in the wind.

Didn't Israel get stuck trying to fight 5000 Hisbullah fighters in the Lebanon and had to have the US and UK bail it out by giving it access to Nato munition stores?

What can Israel do to Iran besides kill its unarmed citizens?