I would like, time barring of course, for you to describe, in detail, what your views are on the following: World War I World War II Korean War Vietnam War Bay of Pigs Invasion Grenada (83) Panama (89) Persian Gulf War Afghanistan War Iraq War What is your opinion of this link: http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm Or, this one: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41677.pdf
World War I - a European aristocratic family squabble turned deadly. World War II - started by a nutter who wanted Europe for his own nation and which provided other imperialist nations an opportunity for a similar economic land grab. Korean War - still going. Vietnam War - a complete balls-up. Bay of Pigs Invasion - a smaller, but complete, balls-up. Grenada (83) - LAPD SWAT have had bigger firefights. Panama (89) - whatever happened to assassination to remove a recalcitrant former ally? Persian Gulf War - you mean the effort to give Kuwait back to the incredibly wealthy family which annexed it from Iraq? Afghanistan War - unnecessary, should have been a surgical strike and then out of there. Iraq War - a diversion.
What are your views of forums with discussion threads that are organized into categories so that specific topics can be located easily by people with common interest? [/The post a.k.a. what does this have to do with 9/11?]
I would like for you to describe in detail your views on the following: Marius' conquest of Jurgutha and Numidia Rome's defeat at Ararusio and their ultimate recovery at Aque Sextiae and Vercellae The importance of Sulla's victory at the Colline Gate The First, Second, and Third Mithridatic Wars Pompey's Campaign against the Cilician pirates Caesar's Gallic Campaign Crassus' defeat at the Battle of Carrhae and the loss of the Eagles The Battle of Pharsalus The Battle of Philippi The Battle of Actium http://www.forumromanum.org/history/index.html
Here's a good video on WW1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159# The theory is that 9/11 was a false flag operation. False flag operations are to give the people a reason they will accept for going to war as they would never accept the real reason. When the US goes to war, the reasons given to the people are never the real ones. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145531 The theory is that 9/11 was the latest false flag operations in a series that gives the US government a pretext to intervene abroad. This topic looks relevant to me.
Right. And how do you decide what the "real ones" are? I suspect there's a lot of this involved: http://www.myshrink.com/counseling-theory.php?t_id=18
Was my post too subtle for you? The OP itself is not on topic. You should request it be moved to the appropriate forum.
I would have opposed US entry into World War I. In World War II the US should have declared war on Japan only and waited for German aggression against us before adding them to the list. We should not have demanded unconditional surrender. If Japan refused to negotiate the dropping of the Atomic bombs might be an acceptable solution. Most of the island-hopping was unnecessary. I would have limited US invasions to Europe and not shed one drop of American blood in Africa during World War II. We should have left Korea alone but presented a wall of ships blocking Japan and Taiwan from possible attack. We should never have set foot in Vietnam, but once we were there we should have fought fully with the objective of removing the North Vietnamese government. We should have backed the Bay of Pigs invasion with a major air and naval support force, making it clear that we would consider negotiations that would leave Castro in charge. Grenada was none of our business and the press should have been invited. We should not have given the canal back to Panama until 2002 and used indigenous fighters to achieve regime change. We should have proceeded into Iraq in 1991, removed Saddam Hussein and divided the country three ways (one-third a permanent UN protectorate, one-third to the Soviet Union in exchange for the release of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and one-third as a homeland for the Palestinians.) The Afghanistan war was necessary, and except for doing everything to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden as soon as possible I could not have improved on its execution. If we had done as I suggested in 1991 the Iraq War would have been unnecessary. Otherwise it should have been a campaign promise because I voted for Bush fully expectimg him to remove Hussein during his first term.
Why? So you won't answer it? I want to know the 'views' of the members who frequent this section. What's wrong with that? It will undoubtedly shed some light on why there are so many disagreements, is my contention.
This is a member participation type thread, Fangbeer. If you don't want to, then don't. But I would appreciate your input. It is almost my birthday...
There are so many disagreements because this is the internet. Cyber-disinhibition, look it up. Also, the vast majority of Truther theories are complete rubbish, and that's putting it nicely. I guess you don't want to answer my questions.......... There was actually a subtle point in there for anyone who's a student of history.
Thanks for pointing that out. The NAZIs sure were stupid. Prior to Pearl Harbor I would have been more neutral than Roosevelt though, and used every diplomatic tactic to try to end the conflict. I would have tried to persuade England that having a strong Germany with a few puppet countries nearby would be a solid buffer against the Soviet Union. Roosevelt however was soft on communism and content instead to have a bunch of soviet puppet states pressed against weak European countries that would need the US to defend them. I think he would have enjoyed the Cold War era.
Well Happy Birthday, Jango. Hope you have/had a great day in case I missed it. But do tell, are you trying to make the case that all of these wars/conflicts/etc either were or were brought about by false flag operations by the evil US government in order to enrich their evil corporate interests through the evil military industrial complex?
I am still hoping for commentary on those conflicts, so I will reserve my own until a later date, if you don't mind, but to give you something in semblance of an answer, yes, there has been a false flag in there, not to mention, questionable journalism and public relation practices. Furthermore, I wouldn't classify our model of military as 'evil'. A better word is 'selfish'. Our men and women look out for American interests. Or at least it used to be that way. The point is, look at those two links. Ever since we've had a Navy, and especially since we became a world power, our nation has been doing things of an immoral and selfish nature with its military. A common theme of usage for the military is 'interests'. Our nation does have a track record of imposing its might over private business interests. What were our interests for Vietnam that were so strong that it made the President lie about an attack? Hence, why you guys should participate in this thread, man.
