U.S. Deserter tells of MORE Atrocities

Yahoo image search. Genesis with Gabriel and Hackett were masters of prog. The later stuff without those two in the group got to be too top 40 for me.

So much for deviating from the topic.  I'll give myself a warning next time.

Originally posted by Thegeneral   I'd beg to differ; if we had co-operated with the Germans in WWII, we would have had a problem.  Co-operation with the German people and the Nazis could ONLY be achieved through violence.  Sitting outside and looking and them does nothing at all.  And what peaceful actions could be taken?  Not many are very logical or useful.

"You" did cooperate with the Nazis till the last minute: you helped them in Spain, tolerated them in Austria and Czechoslovakia and only reacted when they threatened to become one like you: a big guy with colonies and a worldwide projection.

In fact that "you" is only UK and France. The USA remained neutral towards Germany until its own issues with Japan brought them to war.

...

Said that, I have always thought that Capital has all the tools to "corrupt" any people of the world: you just ahve to place some TV "dishes" and some fast internet conections and they all fall like mad to the frenzy of illusory aboundance and actual scarcity. There's no religion nor ideology that can resist "free TV" and "free Market".

Ideologically Capitalism only has to fear Socialism... because, unlike religions and old-fashioned ideologies, Socialism is about Capital, it talks the language of Capital and it is the unwanted bastard daughter of Capital - who knows well the  of her father.

Of course Socialism can only flourish in the poor neighborhoods of the Planetary City but Capital has a problem: it can't distribute wit justice, just with avarice - so these favelas of the world will necessarily exist and feed the Antithesys.

...

After this branching, I want to make clear that I never said about cooperation with this or that: but about cooperation. In fact I think that cooperation should be generated from the grassroots but also having real power... I seem no point in "cooperating" with Rumsfeld - I actually think that for a good cooperation elements like him must be removed - but of course we will have to build on what we actually have: Rumsfeld and bin Ladin (two sides of the same coin) included.

Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by Thegeneral I'd beg to differ; if we had co-operated with the Germans in WWII, we would have had a problem.  Co-operation with the German people and the Nazis could ONLY be achieved through violence.  Sitting outside and looking and them does nothing at all.  And what peaceful actions could be taken?  Not many are very logical or useful. Do you really think that today is anything like the 1930s? Nuclear weapons have changed things - you may as well be talking about the middle ages.

Nuclear weapons are not absolute weapons.  If you look at history, the only role they play pretty much is insurance against other people's nukes.

People like you have also claimed many times that some new weapon or the other has made war so terrible no one will start another one.  The latest two examples are gas and airplanes. 

Edited by Genghis

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Thegeneral   I'd beg to differ; if we had co-operated with the Germans in WWII, we would have had a problem.  Co-operation with the German people and the Nazis could ONLY be achieved through violence.  Sitting outside and looking and them does nothing at all.  And what peaceful actions could be taken?  Not many are very logical or useful. "You" did cooperate with the Nazis till the last minute: you helped them in Spain, tolerated them in Austria and Czechoslovakia and only reacted when they threatened to become one like you: a big guy with colonies and a worldwide projection. In fact that "you" is only UK and France. The USA remained neutral towards Germany until its own issues with Japan brought them to war. ... Said that, I have always thought that Capital has all the tools to "corrupt" any people of the world: you just ahve to place some TV "dishes" and some fast internet conections and they all fall like mad to the frenzy of illusory aboundance and actual scarcity. There's no religion nor ideology that can resist "free TV" and "free Market". Ideologically Capitalism only has to fear Socialism... because, unlike religions and old-fashioned ideologies, Socialism is about Capital, it talks the language of Capital and it is the unwanted bastard daughter of Capital - who knows well the  of her father. Of course Socialism can only flourish in the poor neighborhoods of the Planetary City but Capital has a problem: it can't distribute wit justice, just with avarice - so these favelas of the world will necessarily exist and feed the Antithesys. ... After this branching, I want to make clear that I never said about cooperation with this or that: but about cooperation. In fact I think that cooperation should be generated from the grassroots but also having real power... I seem no point in "cooperating" with Rumsfeld - I actually think that for a good cooperation elements like him must be removed - but of course we will have to build on what we actually have: Rumsfeld and bin Ladin (two sides of the same coin) included.

 

Like you said it is amazing how they 'allowed' Hitler to gobble up Czechoslvakia considering it had the world's largest ammunition factory at the moment which supplied Nazis throughout WWII.  Just another history's blunder or a bigger 'cooperation' at hand? 

With all the respect, I beg to differ on one point that US remained neutral towards Germany until Pearl Harbor.  Yes that was official stance from US government.  But the coporations who controlled the government funded Nazis right from the beginning.  From Henry Ford to Prescott Bush, Chase Manhattan Bank to J.P. Morgan, Standard Oil to IBM's Hollerith punchcard machine in Auschwitz to keep track of their victims, you can pretty much google up any powerful industrialist of the time and Nazis together and come up with thousands of articles and even government documents supporting this 'blunder'.

Well, I'll list a few for immediate gratification;

     On Bush family and Nazis

     www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00html  

     www.Rense.com/general42/bshnazi.htm

     www.911-strike.com/bush-nazi.htm

     On Rockefeller family and Nazis

     http://educate-yourself.org/cn/genociderockefellernazis2apr0 3.shtml

     www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/omegafile25.htm

     On Wall Street and Nazis in general

     http://reformed-theology.org/htm/books/wall_street/    

     www.stockmaven.com/picture.htm

         

 

I know that for some of you it doesn't matter what kind of evidences are presented in front of you.  If I said that they put up a wall in a place called New Amsterdam, bulit a platform and auctioned off slaves, now they built a street right along where the wall used to be, and the people with more wage slaves from the third world still thrives on that street, and New Amsterdam is now New York City and the street is named Wall Street, would you believe it?  Or should I google that up for you, too?

So I ask how we could have stopped Hitler?  What atrocity?

Before someone breaks out with 'America, Love it or Leave it' speech, I love America.  I love Americans.  Deep inside we are all sons and daughters of the Revolution, not collaborators.  It is not the Blue Blood in our vein, but blood of a Rebel.  Somewhere, our flag still repesent liberty and justice for all and the power to change.  That is why I can be hopeful, and why I even bother.  Greater the propagenda, it shows they are more afraid of your ability to think for yourself.  Otherwise they would just come out and say it straight up. What liberal media? 

P.S. there are two sites I've listed won't show no matter how hard I try.  The article on Guardian, just go to their home page and type in 'Prescott Bush, Nazis' or google up like that.  The one on Reformed Theology site, go to their home page, click on 'SRT Books', click on 'Political Books' and type in 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler' or google it up.  Am I riling up Agent Smith or what? Hey, give him a break.  You try to control the minds of 6 billion perople.      

Edited by King Kang of Mu

Nope: BC weapons are not even close to the effect of nuclear ones: the proof is that, after experimentation in WWI, they have never been used due to efficiency concerns. Yet the "efficiency" of nuclear war is beyond doubt.

Also Israel hasn't got any major war since it has nukes. Nukes can hardly be used against guerrilla war but guerrilla war requires some conditions of opression to form that can be adressed this other way (or beared - on occasion they can be quelled with military means). Israel can't nuke Jerusalem.

No matter how many alien quotes you want to compare with my discourse, to ridiculize it, the fact remains: nukes are another cathegory in the developement of killing tech: there was the stone axe and then the nuke - everything else is closer to the axe than to the nuke.

Both in the military field and in the economical one humankind has jumped in this past century from simple men and women to quasi-gods... our species' global power has no comparison with ever seen before in the history of Earth. Yet we seem to still be reasoning as mere barbarians.

The gods have given us a big share of their power: will we use it for our destruction or for our emancipation?, for our pain or our joy?

Because having the power of a god carries a responsability of the same level. Like a balck-belt of your favorite martial art, you can't use your power to kill anyone that you happen to dislike but you must be wise and act wise.

We can only destroy ourselves (and much other species, but hardly anything out of this planet) after all.

(I just can hope that the gods, if they exist, knew what they were doing when they allowed humans to touch the very heart of the matter).

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by Thegeneral I'd beg to differ; if we had co-operated with the Germans in WWII, we would have had a problem.  Co-operation with the German people and the Nazis could ONLY be achieved through violence.  Sitting outside and looking and them does nothing at all.  And what peaceful actions could be taken?  Not many are very logical or useful. Do you really think that today is anything like the 1930s? Nuclear weapons have changed things - you may as well be talking about the middle ages. Nuclear weapons are not absolute weapons.  If you look at history, the only role they play pretty much is insurance against other people's nukes. People like you have also claimed many times that some new weapon or the other has made war so terrible no one will start another one.  The latest two examples are gas and airplanes.

 

Strawman. I didn't say nuclear weapons made war obsolete. I asked if you thought they haven't changed the strategic reality, and questioned the dubious validity of comparisons with wars of over half a century ago.

Nuclear weapons certainly do change the strategic reality, just as airplanes do. So does the interdependance of modern economies. These factors combine to alter the nature of conflict itself. War and violence yet exist, but qualitatively they are fundamentally different than they have been in the past.

The vast majority of conflicts in recent decades have not been between governments - the face of war is changing, and the conflicts have already assumed a different character. It is generally populations vs governments or populations vs populations, not war between states - the latter is becoming increasingly rare and brief. Governments have other ways to exert pressure. Never a shot was fired between the US and USSR during the Cold War, but they both managed to challenge each other's existance and eventually, one did finally collapse. There was never a need for direct war to resolve the outcome. Far from the nonsense you were claiming about the only thing a non-war based approach could do is "sit and watch", both sides were very actively undermining each other, very much conducting a different kind of "war" with consequences just as real.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by Genghis We're not talking about whether war has changed, but whether or not it's obsolete, which is Maju's claim.

As long as there's a profit to be made by someone we'll always have war, something you already know considering your signature.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by DukeC Originally posted by Genghis We're not talking about whether war has changed, but whether or not it's obsolete, which is Maju's claim. As long as there's a profit to be made by someone we'll always have war, something you already know considering your signature. Finally, I really respect you for admitting that.

The only problem is, with our increasing technology the weaponry is becoming more and more devastating. We've gone from machine guns and heavy artilley to H-bombs in a short period of time. At some point we're probably going to devise ways to create relatively large amounts of anti-matter.

How about a bomb that would blow a side of the planet off?

Originally posted by Genghis We're not talking about whether war has changed, but whether or not it's obsolete, which is Maju's claim.

In the context of war between major global powers, it is obsolete. That is no longer the nature of war. The nature of modern war is between vastly unequal powers. The only equal powers who battle are those who lack nuclear capabilities.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by Maju the USA and NATO always declared that they would use their nuclear arsenal against an eventual Soviet conventional attack. Indeed. Short range tactical weapons were deployed in signifigant quantities on both sides of the Iron Curtain. If a conventional attack came through, it is inconceivable that such weapons would not be used - there is simply no chance anyone would risk so many weapons being overrun and captured. Some of these weapons were extremely short range ... for instance, the "Davy Crocket" infantry weapon, a man-portable recoilless rifle which could fire an M54 nuclear warhead to a range of a little less than one and a quarter miles. It was so named because even at maximum range, the operators would not be unaffected by the radiation. The US fielded nearly 12 000 tactical weapons in Europe, excluding nuclear air defense weapons.

Jesus, talk of suicide bombers......