Violent Pacifism

[chufeng]

Kaith,

In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided that the best way to get a reluctant America into a war with Hitler was to "back door" a war by luring Japan into an attack against the United States. By cutting off oil exports to Japan, Roosevelt forced Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies, and by placing the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl, Roosevelt made an attack at Pearl the mandatory first move in any military move by Japan in any direction.

See "Pearl Harbor: The Mother Of All Conspiracies" for the details on Roosevelt's monstrous swindle.

This smacks of conspiracy theory...and kind of destroys the credibility of the rest of the article you posted...mixing fact with one's own agenda is deception and misinformation and really doesn't do much to objectively address an issue. I admit that America exploited the Hawaiians...and the Native Americans of this land...BUT, look at it from the perspective of the time in which all of that happened...it was a different world...The Spanish, Portuguese, British, and French were the major colonialists...not the US...Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were our big conquests...and we offered self rule (except Hawaii) to them after a time...

I can dig up tons of stuff against America and tons of stuff for America...some of it downright socialist in its ideas and the other side damn near fascist...I prefer the middle ground...but when my brothers are dying in a place where tyranny is the rule...when they lie in the sand bleeding because they really believe that what they are doing is right...I'm going to stand behind them and the Commander in Chief.

There will be time enough to argue the good and the bad of this conflict after our troops are safely home...arguing against the conflict only feeds the resolve of the enemy and increases the numbers of those who will die, on both sides...

:asian:
chufeng

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by chufeng
when my brothers are dying in a place where tyranny is the rule...when they lie in the sand bleeding because they really believe that what they are doing is right...I'm going to stand behind them and the Commander in Chief.

There will be time enough to argue the good and the bad of this conflict after our troops are safely home...arguing against the conflict only feeds the resolve of the enemy and increases the numbers of those who will die, on both sides...

:asian:
chufeng

Preach it, bruthuh!!!!!

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hey could all you Europeans and Africans and Asians jsut pack up and go home?

I would like to have my lands back.



(* Real life incident I was involved in, on 9/12/01 at a Gas Station *)

Man exits Gas Station Yelling at the Middle Eastern Gas Station Owner, with lots of racial slurs. He walks right into me and he is stopped looks up and continues to yell and the owner and now me. I am shocked. My Jaw is on the ground and he just will not shut up. His wife says something to him and he gets into his/her truck. He then yells out at me. "Got a Problem *Sensor*, why do'nt you go back to your own country? "

I just smiled and said, "Go Home White Man!"



The US is not set up for being an empire. In November 2004 we will have another revolution and one third of the Senate, 100% of the House and a New(old) President will all be open for replacement. This will happen again in two years where another third of the Senate and 100% of the House will be up for revolutionary overthrow. The empire will not happen. If it does move forward then look for a civil war from within both politically and violently.

He who screams the loudest is not always the most right. He just wears out his vocal cords


(* Just my opinion posted here *)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I put up 3 bits, just as reference. I saw the 3rd first, and took it with a grain of salt.

My only intent was to veryify the 'Hawaii' comment.

Havent checked CNN yet....

Chufeng, Kirk, you wont get any disagreement from me on those points.

:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

Fox...

the network that brought us "Who wants to marry a millionaire"

nuff said.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Fox...

the network that brought us "Who wants to marry a millionaire"

nuff said.

Yeah ... dems and libs hate fair and equal reporting. I suppose
you think Dan Rather is unbiased???

 

[Kirk]

Why attack Iraq now?

Al Qaeda, Hamas and associated terrorists of the
world are out to get the US in a big way. They
proved with the Sept 11 attack that they are
capable of a major strike. This just whetted their
appetite for an escalation to the next level.

There is a strong likelihood that the next level
will not be a similar attack that takes out 2,800
people, but leaves no long-lasting damage. They
will take their time, and likely go for a strike
that will try to take out a major US city. It
could be a dirty bomb, with combination radiation
and/or biological agents, exploded near a major
city, such as from a container ship in the Hudson
River, or San Francisco or Baltimore harbors. It
would not even have to be unloaded, and we don't
have the technology to detect it in advance. And
they are likely to have several such strikes in
the works, in case one or two are discovered.

We are talking about a "first strike" by them that
will, for all practical purposes, seem like a last
strike to us. It will do so much damage to our economy,
and several hundred thousand people, that the war is
over as far as the terrorists are concerned, and they
won. We will only be left to wonder who did it and who
to bomb in retaliation.

So the notion that we are not a "first strike"
country becomes a death sentence for us, if we allow
this to happen first, before we take action.

The terrorists will have a very difficult time
pulling this off without the help of a small industrial
complex. The current providers of such a complex to the
terrorists are Syria, Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

From among these, Iraq and North Korea have
the least stable leadership, and Iraq is the one with
the most proven attempts to develop weapons of the type
that terrorists would like to have.

It is reasonable to think that our national leaders
believe that we must prove to all these countries that
we are not going to sit by waiting on Armageddon. We
need to stop the terrorist supporters now, and we need
to show the other terrorist supporters what is in store
for them if we feel we need to hit them to protect our
national interests.

Terrorists have no allegiance to a particular
country, so they don't fear retaliation by the US. The
old cold-war standoff is no longer operative. The
terrorists probably consider a nuclear retaliation
against one or more of these supporting countries just
the cost of war. They, and their supporting countries,
also know that the US will not just heave a few nukes
onto a Baghdad in retaliation, killing a couple of
million innocent civilians.

The terrorists are also not members of the UN. Our
discussions there are just a comedy to the terrorists.

So the US must act now in every way possible to
stop the possibility of such an attack against the US. Part
of that action is to deny the terrorists the support of
these rogue countries. If a rogue country's leadership is
so unstable that they might sell/give the terrorists the
weapons, then we must stop it now. Iraq is such a country.
A measured, non-nuclear attack on Iraq may cause the others
to cease their support of the terrorists in such a
dangerous way. It also may cause the least civilian
casualties of all the alternatives.

We must make it clear to the terror-supporting
countries that there will be a price to pay, and that a
nuclear retaliation, which we are unlikely to use, is not
the only option open to us.

I think President Bush understands he cannot let a
first strike happen, and that nuclear retaliation is no
longer a threat.

We must go after the terrorists, and their supporters
and suppliers, now.


P.S. A history lesson:
Do you know why the US was in such a rush to
develop the atomic bomb in WWII?It's not because we simply
wanted such a weapon.

It's because concerned physicists, including German refugee,
Albert Einstein, warned Roosevelt in writing that the
Germans had the most capable physicist in the field of
nuclear physics, Nobel Prize winner, Werner Heisenberg,
and he was known to have a laboratory working on such a
device. We knew what would happen if he was the first to
have such a weapon. Think about it.

I believe we are in a similar race today against the terrorists.
The war has begun, so the "don't go to war" crowd apparently has a
mis-understanding of what we are up against. We are at war
today.

Our country was similarly divided just before Pearl Harbor and
our entry into WWII. A modern-day "Pearl Harbor" is likely
a surprise that is unacceptable to us.

 

[MountainSage]

You all need to learn more about politics. Pro or con war doesn't matter in the political arena. It is all about getting re-elected! Politicians hold their fingers in the air and find the direction of the wind and make a moving stand. You're going to drive yourselves crazy trying to put a rational arguement,pro ro con, on a political situation. Bottomline: POLITICIAN DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, THEY JUST WANT YOUR VOTE! Yes Kaith, Bill Clinton didn't give a damn about you or any other liberal .

Mountain Sage

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Elfan
Mexico

Wanna brush up your geography again? IS Mexico our 51st state now?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Philippines, Mexico, Cuba (well, briefly), Puerto Rico, Texas, California, a fair chunk of the Indian Nations, etc. etc. etc...

Then there're all the "protectorates."

Wanna go back to school with eflan too? Is the Philippines one of our states now? BTW, we inherited the colony after the war with Spain. We took over the administration. We didn't invade and conquer it. Cuba? Puerto Rico? Good riddence if they want independence, get rid of them. Texas? In case your high school curriculum failed to mention this, Texas was an independent state, The Republic of Texas. The Texans later decided to join the Union. Cali? Was Cali ever a nation? Indian Nations? Those are nations in names only.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Hawaii

okay.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Fox...

the network that brought us "Who wants to marry a millionaire"

nuff said.

We are talking about the FoxNews Channel. O'reily has nothing to do with that sleazy program. Of course you knew that. So why bother to mislead?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Originally posted by MountainSage
You all need to learn more about politics. Pro or con war doesn't matter in the political arena. It is all about getting re-elected! Politicians hold their fingers in the air and find the direction of the wind and make a moving stand. You're going to drive yourselves crazy trying to put a rational arguement,pro ro con, on a political situation. Bottomline: POLITICIAN DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, THEY JUST WANT YOUR VOTE! Yes Kaith, Bill Clinton didn't give a damn about you or any other liberal .

Mountain Sage

Actually.... in the last 4 elections I voted as follows:
Dukakis, Perot, Browne, and Browne.
Never voted for Clinton, or her husband.

But otherwise, yup, your right

 

[rmcrobertson]

I love it. Freud was right: the basic structures of all alibis is, "I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back, and anyway it had a hole in it when you gave it to me." The question comes up: when did the US ever land-grab? Answers are given; the response is, "that never happened, we gave the land back, and anyway they weren't real countries anyway."

And who spoke up for politicians, liberal and otherwise? I certainly didn't, and (as I've remarked before) never voted for Bill Clinton.

By the way, I recommend reading ALL of Heinlein, rather than selected bits. Try, "Solution Unsatisfactory," in which he remarks that a) "the US has had greedy Congresses and Presidents before. Oh yes! read about the history of the Mexican War..." (OK, it's a paraphrase...but read it), and b) that no country can be trusted with total power over the world.

Thanks for the discussion. It's interesting, now that some of the silly name-calling has died down.

 

[MountainSage]

Kaith,
Read your post during lunch and about choked to death from laughing about the Clinton comment. I like that one . Your a better Libertarian than I am, I voted for I voted for CLinton once and only once and the Republican candidates. Do I take your comments to mean that you didn't approve of Hillary running for Senate in New York. We need to start a political thread to poke polite barbs at each other and our parties.


Mountain Sage

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Wanna brush up your geography again? IS Mexico our 51st state now?

heh I chose the most blantantly obvious example and you still arn't happy. Here is how Britannica (ie a dour encyclopedia, about as unbiased as you can get) describes it:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=53692&tocid=0&query=mexican war&ct=

Mexican War
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

also called Mexican-American War , Spanish Guerra de 1847 , or Guerra de Estados Unidos a Mexico (“War of the United States Against Mexico”) war between the United States and Mexico (April 1846–February 1848) stemming from Mexican anger at the United States' annexation of Texas in 1845 and from a dispute over whether Texas ended at the Nueces River (Mexican claim) or the Rio Grande (U.S. claim). The war—in which U.S. forces were consistently victorious—resulted in the United States' acquisition of more than 500,000 square miles (1,300,000 square…

Emphasis added. I also found a prety map for you from encarta:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Well, that proves to you that Britannica is WRONG! LOL Texas was an independent republic, before they decided to join the Union!

 

[Elfan]

I think you are getting a bit to hung up on that word...

an·nex ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nks, nks)
tr.v. an·nexed, an·nex·ing, an·nex·es
1. To append or attach, especially to a larger or more significant thing.
2. To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.
3. To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Genius. The point is, we didn't conquer and annexed Texas from Mexico. The Republic of Texas WAS an INDEPENDENT and FREE state, before it decided to join the UNION.

Gee, wanna brush up on ENGLISH too??

 

[Elfan]

Mexico may differ in opinion with you about the legal status of Texas at this time, nor did I or Britannica claim that Texas was annexed *from* Mexico, only that it was annexed.

However, that is besides the point as shortly thereafter the US conquered about half of Mexico as you can see by the pretty map.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Tone the heat down a bit folks....


Texas won its independence from Mexico and became a free republic. They later joined the Union on their own. This was seen as a point of issue and the Mexican War broke out. Many of the generals in the civil war (US) fought in that war.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Genius. The point is, we didn't conquer and annexed Texas from Mexico. The Republic of Texas WAS an INDEPENDENT and FREE state, before it decided to join the UNION.

Gee, wanna brush up on ENGLISH too??

Sure I will brush up on English, any time. I can always increase my vocabulary.

http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm

Check the above site out.