The “Good” War

So you would have fought during World War II but not Nam, Korea or Iraq and Afghanistan.

What was the actual outcome of World War II?
w6m17k
Why did we fight World War II?

Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?

Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. That was the pretense at any rate.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after America had engaged in a systematic effort to deny the Empire of Japan the resources necessary to build their Nation and Empire.

By the end of World War II, Poland and all of Eastern Europe was in the hands of a greater evil than Hitler could ever have hoped to represent. That evil being the Soviet Union.

Soviet Communism which later morphed into Maoist Communism took China.

Communism also swept through Southeast Asia.

The end result of World War II was that the West fought Japan and Germany in order to hand over their Empires to the Soviet Union.

World War II was a direct cause of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War and attributed to the rise of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the cause of 90% of the Islamic Fundamentalism on this Globe. Islamic Fundamentalism is the root of Islamic Terrorism.

If there were no Saudi Arabia, there would exist no taliban, no ISIS, no al Qaeda, no Khorasan and so on and so forth.

Fundamentalist Shi’a Iran can also be traced to poor decision making based on the the Cold War anti-Communist paranoia that haunted the West from 1945 through the end of the Soviet Union circa 1991.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict can be traced back to World Wars 1 and 2.

World War II also gave us the CIA and the NSA via Cold War paranoia.

You can research any and all of this with a simple google search.

I’m not seeing how World War II was “the good war.” It was an asinine war prompted by the American Banking conglomeration.

World War II was not the good war. It was a war like any other only on a global scale. It put the globe to the flame and destroyed millions of lives and billions of dollars of property.

America profited from the outcome immensely which drove our recovery out of the Great Depression and into the boom years of the 50s and 60s.

It was as much an elective war for the United States of America as Polk’s Mexican War or LBJ’s Vietnam War or Bush’s Iraq War or Obama’s wars in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

Presentation1quote-not-wishing-to-be-disturbed-over-moral-issues-of-the-political-economy-americans-cling-to-the-c-wright-mills-127915

984277_409265232584846_7751683487784598379_n (1)

Michael Moore and Freedom of Speech

 10959850_10202440991861181_8297049850636645370_n

America has been supporting despotic monarchies since, at least, World War II. That thanks to our late, “Great” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is disgusting to me and should be to any American that we are so deeply embedded with the tyrants of this world. All in the name of Corporate Greed. But don’t let that stop anyone from decrying Moore as a hypocrite or a fat ass. I think it disgusting how obese MM has become. He looks like a muppet, he’s so fat.

 
Some of the points he makes in his documentaries are very much laden with truths. Yet, he has attacked corporate greed and does profit from the same system. I can’t blame the guy for using the system as it is. He cannot change the whole of the system. He can only make others aware. Certainly, he is a bit of an ass in the way that he gets his point across. I have a certain amount of respect for that, though.
 
My goal in life has always been to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Working within the system is a good way to go about it. The only persons who can work outside of the system are those willing to be outlaws and those who are born to a silver spoon. Moore serves his purpose and I, for one, am glad to have him speaking his truth. His truth is as valid as many others, more valid than some and less than others. To dismiss all of Moore’s work simply because it makes one uncomfortable is unintelligent and speaks more to the listener than the crier.

Moore is still an American. Even if there are aspects of America with which he disagrees. The Conservative Right hates more because he exercises his right to Freedom of Speech. This is hypocritical of the Right. Moore should speak his mind and tell his truth. If that leaves the Right butthurt, so be it. I, for one, can see where Moore has been correct. A good, healthy, open minded reading of history proves Moore to be correct in many of his more salient points in his documentaries. Moore recently stated that snipers were cowards and shot people in the back. Many folks who have been to War agree with this sentiment. A sniper hides and takes shots at folks who have no idea from where they are being sniped. This is the nature of the job. It’s the same in any war, their snipers are murderous cowards. Our snipers are valiant heroes. That’s the nature of propaganda.

It’s the same with insurgents. The Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary heroes such as the Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, are hailed as heroes. There is not a whole lot of difference in the tactics of Marion and those of ISIS or al Qaeda. Both used terror tactics to achieve a goal of independence. We see it differently only because those tactics when used by ISIS and al Qaeda are an attack on our values and our world view. However, there is no difference. In the American Civil War, Federal Soldiers led by General Sherman raped, pillaged and burned their way through the South. ISIS is doing the same thing in Iraq and Syria. We hail Sherman as a hero for the same actions for which we deem ISIS as villainous and evil.

It’s propaganda. Michael Moore has done nothing more than bring transparency to our hypocrisy and we hate him for it. He’s put a mirror to our face and forced us to peer into our own souls. Sometimes, that viewing leaves us disquieted. This is the nature of what I call Statism. The State wishes us to believe that we are good when we perpetrate evil. We excuse our own excesses. We rationalize our murders and genocidal behaviors. They are evil because they wish that which we do not. It matters not what it is. It only matters that the State tells us that they are wrong and we are right. They are evil. We are righteous. Despite the fact that our actions mirror one another.

Moore is guilty of nothing more than bringing a different perspective to the discussion. We hate him because his perception makes us uncomfortable. That and he is as guilty as the rest of us. He defends or stays silent in the face of the criminality of Obama and the Left. Yet, screams to the heavens when Bush was taking the exact same actions as Obama does now. I am waiting for the Michael Moore treatment of the illegal assassination of Anwar Al Awlaki and his son. Until Moore is as outspoken of the crimes of Obama as he was of the crimes of Bush, I see Moore as nothing more than a Statist propagandist for the Left. I have no respect for the man based on this hypocrisy. That and he is way to intelligent and wealthy to be such an obese monstrosity. He must know that his obesity will kill him.

 
Such is my belief at any rate.
Image

America Beware: History and Political Parties

America Beware: History and Political Parties

If you believe that Democrats are Good or that Republicans are Evil, I’d suggest a look at history.

Both parties have tried to be the party of humanity. Both parties have failed. Both parties claim to be for the rights of humanity. Both parties continuously and consistently fail to work for the betterment of humanity. Both parties lie to the American public first and above all.

If someone attempts to tell you that the GOP or the DNC wishes the citizen well, that person is lying.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

American Idiots

Why do people trust the new administration or the last administration? How is it possible?

Each Presidential Administration in the past 100 years has been proven to have lied to the Citizenry of this nation. It has been proved that each of these persons and their underlings have lied, connived, circumvented the Constitution and profited from doing so.

Yet, we still believe that this one…yes, this one, the last one and the next one is, was or will be telling us the truth.

Americans are this pathetically stupid?

I keep going back to Johnny Walker Lindh. This guy was paraded in front of America as if he were the blood soaked re-incarnation of Tamerlane.

In the end, he was naught but a drug addled boy who had never handled a gun and was rounded up amongst a group of half assed “talibs” like cattle.

The dude did nothing. His crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and refusing to admit guilt when he was really guilty of nothing.

Yet, he was railroaded through our justice system and sentenced to prison.

Our system of justice is warped or perhaps, there is no justice in America. There is only those who have the funds to manipulate the legal system and those who do not.  Woe be unto those who do not have the means to fight and go against the grain.

I am supposedly a free man from a country governed by the principles of Liberty, yet, they tell me that I need permission to travel to Cuba.

Freedom?  Liberty?

Did BushCo allow bin Laden to Succeed?

Recently, a question was asked:  “Do you really believe what you are saying or do you think FDR and Bush were begging and pleading for Japan and Bin Laden to attack us so we could enter a war? Seriously?”

On the question of Japan, undoubtedly FDR was courting an attack as justification for entering the War in Europa. Anyone who has read the history of the build up to World War II knows that FDR was looking for a way to get the American people on a war footing. Embargoes are a mother!

As for bin Laden. BushCo were strangely oblivious of bin Laden prior to 9-11. I do not put it past the Gov’t and especially one guided by the likes of Cheney and Rummy to allow an attack to occur so as to “lead” the nation to war.

Why did we NEED to go to Iraq? The answer is that we DID NOT. Yet, 9-11 and the GWOT were used as an excuse to take us into that war. They definitely “shaded the truth” to get the war that they wanted.

The Spanish American War was yet another contrived war as was the Mexican War and the Vietnam War. When one looks at the Korean War, it is a war into which we either secretly goaded North Korea or into which Truman simply blundered like a blind fool.

American spheres of influence were stated loudly to the World. South Korea lay JUUUUUUUSSSSSST outside of the line. Leading NK, China and the USSR to believe that we’d stand by and do nothing.

From the internet:

In June 1950, after Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared Korea to be outside of America’s sphere of influence, the North Koreans invaded South Korea and attempted to reunify the country under communist rule. President Truman immediately declared Korea a “global police action” and attempted to drive the North Koreans out of South Korea. In fact, the United States secret larger goal in the Korean war was to defeat North Korean communism and create a unified Korea under American domination and control. Korea was supposed to be the first major effort to rollback global communism. However, communist China, feeling threatened that aggressive American actions against North Korea would be followed by American attempts to undermine Chinese communism, entered the Korean war against the United States and its South Korean ally. The Korea war quickly proved to be a deadly stalemate between the United States and communist China. Only in 1953, after President Eisenhower secretly threatened to drop atomic bombs on China, did the Chinese agree to an end to the war, leaving North and South Korea divided just as they were at the beginning of the war.

The Korean war, as many American leader later said, seem to justify America’s global crusade against Soviet communism. It convinced many Americans of the truth of the United States governments warning that the Soviet were plotting to take over the world and impose communist domination over the free world. The Korean war would further justify American creation of the “nuclear umbrella” to shield the free world from Soviet expansion. As described by Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1949, the nuclear umbrella was the American threat to wage nuclear war against the Soviet Union if the communists threatened any country in the free world. An attack on any member of the free world, thus, would be treated as an attack against the United States, which would lead America to wage nuclear war against the aggressor.

Also, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman: mission and power in American foreign policy By Anne Rice Pierce PG 248 (Google Books)

As well as the following:


After World War II, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. divided Korea into spheres of influence—the Soviets backed Communist-ruled North Korea and the U.S. backed the South Korean dictatorship. Both Koreas had threatened to invade the other. When U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that South Korea was no longer part of the U.S. defense perimeter in Asia, the North invaded the South.

Do I think that a US President and/or the US Political and Military Leadership are capable of allowing an attack or incident to happen so as to lead us into war? Definitely.  It’s been done several times.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

REMEMBER THE MAINE!

REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR!

9-11! NEVER AGAIN!

THE LUSITAINE!

FORT SUMTER! (As Lincoln stated; “The North must not be seen as the aggressor.)

The Tonkin Gulf Incident

Leaving the Koreas outside of our “sphere of influence.”

What did Madame Ambassador say to Saddam Hussein when he asked how the US would view aggression against Kuwait?

Known faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq in ’03.

The War of 1812 and lust for Canada.

Hawaii, the US Marines and Dole Fruit

Gautamala and United Fruit

Nicaragua/Panama ~ We needed a Canal passage.

Pinochet ~ Nixon and Henry Kissinger

Nixon, Cambodia and Laos

Bush Hate, Obama Euphoria

Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom. Urgent though the problem is, not even the efficient and responsible spending of a $1 trillion stimulus package would begin to address it.

By PETER BERKOWITZ

Now that George W. Bush has left the harsh glare of the White House and Barack Obama has settled into the highest office in the land, it might be reasonable to suppose that Bush hatred and Obama euphoria will begin to subside. Unfortunately, there is good reason to doubt that the common sources that have nourished these dangerous political passions will soon lose their potency.

At first glance, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria could not be more different. Hatred of Mr. Bush went well beyond the partisan broadsides typical of democratic politics. For years it disfigured its victims with open, indeed proud, loathing for the very manner in which Mr. Bush walked and talked. It compelled them to denounce the president and his policies as not merely foolish or wrong or contrary to the national interest, but as anathema to everything that made America great.

In contrast, the euphoria surrounding Mr. Obama’s run for president conferred upon the candidate immunity from criticism despite his newness to national politics and lack of executive experience, and regardless of how empty his calls for change. At the same time, it inspired those in its grips, repeatedly bringing them tears of joy throughout the long election season. With Mr. Obama’s victory in November and his inauguration last week, it suffused them with a sense that not only had the promise of America at last been redeemed but that the world could now be transfigured.

In fact, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria — which tend to reveal more about those who feel them than the men at which they are directed — are opposite sides of the same coin. Both represent the triumph of passion over reason. Both are intolerant of dissent. Those wallowing in Bush hatred and those reveling in Obama euphoria frequently regard those who do not share their passion as contemptible and beyond the reach of civilized discussion. Bush hatred and Obama euphoria typically coexist in the same soul. And it is disproportionately members of the intellectual and political class in whose souls they flourish.

To be sure, democratic debate has always been a messy affair in which passion threatens to overwhelm reason. So long as citizens remain free and endowed with a diversity of interests and talents, it will remain so.

In October 1787, amid economic crisis and widespread fears about the new nation’s ability to defend itself, Alexander Hamilton, in the first installment of what was to become the Federalist Papers, surveyed the formidable obstacles to giving the newly crafted Constitution a fair hearing. Some would oppose it, Hamilton observed, out of fear that ratification would diminish their wealth and power. Others would reject it because they hoped to profit from the political disarray that would ensue. The opposition of still others was rooted in “the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.”

Indeed, the best of men, Hamilton acknowledged, were themselves all-too-vulnerable to forming ill-considered political opinions: “So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes, which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions, of the first magnitude to society.”

In surveying the impediments to bringing reason to bear in politics, it was not Hamilton’s aim to encourage despair over democracy’s prospects but to refine political expectations. “This circumstance, if duly attended to,” he counseled, “would furnish a lesson of moderation to those, who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right, in any controversy.”

As Hamilton would have supposed, the susceptibility of political judgment to corruption by interest and ambition is as operative in our time as it was in his. What has changed is that those who, by virtue of their education and professional training, would have once been the first to grasp Hamilton’s lesson of moderation are today the leading fomenters of immoderation.

Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are particularly toxic because they thrive in and have been promoted by the news media, whose professional responsibility, it has long been thought, is to gather the facts and analyze their significance, and by the academy, whose scholarly training, it is commonly assumed, reflects an aptitude for and dedication to systematic study and impartial inquiry.

From the avalanche of vehement and ignorant attacks on Bush v. Gore and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, to the remarkable lack of interest in Mr. Obama’s career in Illinois politics and the determined indifference to his wrongness about the surge, wide swaths of the media and the academy have concentrated on stoking passions rather than appealing to reason.

Some will speculate that the outbreak of hatred and euphoria in our politics is the result of the transformation of left-liberalism into a religion, its promulgation as dogma by our universities, and students’ absorption of their professors’ lesson of immoderation. This is unfair to religion.

At least it’s unfair to those forms of biblical faith that teach that God’s ways are hidden and mysterious, that all human beings are both deserving of respect and inherently flawed, and that it is idolatry to invest things of this world — certainly the goods that can be achieved through politics — with absolute value. Through these teachings, biblical faith encourages skepticism about grand claims to moral and political authority and an appreciation of the limits of one’s knowledge, both of which well serve liberal democracy.

In contrast, by assembling and maintaining faculties that think alike about politics and think alike that the university curriculum must instill correct political opinions, our universities cultivate intellectual conformity and discourage the exercise of reason in public life. It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning — after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum

. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11

and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Liberals will deny this phenomenon.  They pretend tolerance even as they attempt to censor the collective thought of the nation with their political correctness and similar intellectually empty and diseased philosophies.