Freedom of the Press Under Duress?

I saw the headline for this article the other day. At first I skimmed right past it. After a moment or two I thought about what I had passed, wondering whether it really did say what I thought it said. So I went up and found the headline again. It read, “Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists.” OK, it really did say what I thought that it said. I then read the article and found that it was exactly as bad as I had feared. It seems that simply going after the 2nd Amendment rights are not quite enough for those in power. They now appear to believe that they have the right to begin regulating the use of rights singled out in the 1st Amendment as well. While the proposed legislation does not stop anyone from writing whatever they like, I see it as a step in that direction. Further I see it as a result, and not an unexpected one, of the politicians in the US finding that they no longer can control the message to the people.

The bill, as proposed, would provide a licensing process for anyone who fancies themself as a reporter. The licensing program would be a situation where in order to become licensed, the prospective writer would be required to first submit proof of the following:

  • “Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.” (as a side note, is there a single member of Congress who could meet this particular standard? There is not a single ethical member of Congress that I can think of)
  • Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent. (Sure, as soon as you require possession of a degree in political ethics and a masters in representative republic administration in order to qualify for national office)
  • Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information. (and not less than 10 years of running a successful private business prior to federal office where you are responsible for a couple of trillion dollar budget)
  • Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
  • Three or more writing samples.

The Senator’s reasoning beind this proposed law? He simply feels that there is too much “bad information” floating around in the world, which is too confusing for the folks out there who are simply being inundated with too much false information. This proposal would allow the people to have a centralized way to have the government tell the citizens who is a credible source, and who is not. I know that this concept may sound good to some of you folks, but really, is this something that you think a government can do without bias or favoritism?

Here is the reality around this particular proposed law: It is going to die right there in the Michigan legislature. It is a single sponsor bill, meaning that no other legislators were willing to sign on to the bill and support it. The reasons for that are, I am sure, as varied as the legislators themselves. I would imagine that some of them feel, at least right now, that this is a political hot potato they are not willing to touch. Others oppose the concept altogether. Others still, support the concept but not the means of execution. I would imagine that, at least at the moment, that the Supreme Court would strike down the law as un-Constitutional even if it did pass. That is a sentiment I would agree with. It is un-Constitutional. So it is not as if I am worried that this bill is going to pass or even gain traction in the short term future.

What I am worried about is the fact that a long time member of a state legislature felt that this was an acceptable premise. We are not talking about a radical rookie Congressman. We are talking about a two decade member of the legislature, who by his own admission, felt that proposing this bill was a first step towards beginning the open conversation on regulating those who call themselves “the media.” And to make matters far worse…. this man is a practicing “Constitutional Lawyer”! His specialty in law is the Constitution, and he has the brass cajones to propose legislation to usurp the 1st Amendment!

This should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the mind of a politician. For all of modern history, they have held that the American popular opinion is primarily driven by “news” organizations, both print and media. Decades ago, politicians realized that the key to holding power was the control of information. So long as they could control the message, and control what was fed to the citizens, they could manipulate public opinion. Once this was understood, they went after control of the media. Both sides have done this. The modern day news organizations are little more than political mouthpieces. There are very, very few real news men and women these days. Almost everyone involved has an agenda. And they push the boundaries of what they can get away with in order to sway public opinion their way.

Think back to 40 years ago. Those doing the news were fairly unbiased in their reporting of news. Sure there were exceptions, but they were exactly that, exceptions. Reporters and journalists went out of their way to find the truth behind the story. It was not normally meant to serve one side or the other. It was meant to find the truth, and do so before other news sources did. Getting the “scoop” was the important thing. But no journalist worth his or her salt would sully their integrity by allowing their story to be driven by anything but the truth.

Fast forward to today. The exception now is the journalist who seeks to expose the truth no matter what. Now the agenda is what matters. They will literally lie, cheat, and steal for a story. Instead of seeking the truth of the matter, they seek a way to bury the truth in order to push forward what they want their readers to believe. Look at what passes for journalism today. Katie Couric does an interview with Sarah Palin. She was not interested in discovering Palin for what she was or wasn’t. She was interested in finding a way to destroy Palin’s image. Glenn Beck does a show daily. He is not interested in truth and justice. He is interested in pushing his version of reality onto those who watch his show. These people are not interested in the truth. They are interested in swaying public opinion to what they believe. No one, not the “9/11 engineers for the truth”, not the Heritage Foundation, nor any other group in the public eye, is interested in the truth. They are interested in promoting their side, or destroying the other side, or both.

The media is a mess. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone is backed by one political group or another. And then along comes this new medium, the independent blog. Sure there are a bunch of them that present skewed data. There are just as many simply seeking the truth. I count myself in that second group. While I am biased in my own beliefs, I absolutely do not have a political agenda. Who would I support? They both suck.

But the key point in the rise of the independent blogger is that the politicians have lost complete control of the message. They have lost control of the flow of information. This is the most disastrous event possible for a group of elitists who wish to control the population. Manipulation through controlling the means of information flow is something that they had perfected. It was the only thing the kept them safe. And now it is all slipping away. Politicians have devolved into something less than human. They have devolved into something that cares not for this country or her citizens. They care only about themselves, and the positions of power they occupy. And all of the sudden, they are finding that they cannot hide this from the American people any longer. They cannot control the flow of information. They are finding themselves exposed for the leaches on society that they have become.

So they are left with only two options. The first option is unthinkable. That option is to become what they have been claiming to be. Representatives serving the people. This goes against everything that they believe in. The modern politician doesn’t even have it in their DNA to be what they have sold themselves to be. It would mean admitting that they are no better than the rest of us. It would mean admitting that they are no smarter than the rest of us. It would mean admitting that they have no rights that we do not also have. No, my friends, option one is not even going to be put on the table by these societal viruses we call politicians.

That leaves only option two. Option two is to find a way to either regain control of the message, or to discredit those who present a message contrary to what the leaches want us to believe. Regaining control of the message is impossible. Information is too readily available. And too many have already figured out their games, and are all too willing to share that information with everyone else. So the only thing left is to find a way to discredit those with a message they don’t like. This has been happening for a decade or two as we speak. How many people with a message have had the careers and reputations ruined in order to discredit them? But even that tactic has failed. The proposal from this Michigan legislator is just a feeler being put out there for how they can find another way to discredit people. Rather than discredit the individual, they can simply only give credibility to those that they approve and control.

Now this is not to say that I don’t see the problem. As someone who spend massive amounts of time attempting to research and verify and understand political stories in this newfound information age, I absolutely agree that the sheer amount of misinformation out there is staggering. And it can definitely leave the average person wondering just what to believe. We have reached a point where we cannot believe what we hear on MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. When you can’t trust the giant “news agencies”, how on earth can you know who to trust on the internet? You simply cannot. You have to find a few places that you trust. A few places that have proven that they are at least trying to get it right over time, and rely on them.

That is a large part of what I believe has been built here at SUFA. I do my best to find the honest answers. I will not ever intentionally lie about facts or stories. I will get things wrong however. Those who have been around a while have seen it happen plenty, and I don’t shy away from it when I do. But what is great here is that there are hundreds of you who participate. And nearly all of you seek the truth, whether it benefits your beliefs or not. And you all keep me, and each other, honest. You cannot take what you get at SUFA as the gospel. But you can rest assured that if it is wrong, or a hoax, or a lie, that others here will catch it and find the truth, with links, and set the record straight. I cannot prove that any one person on this site, including myself, is honest or correct. But I think I can safely say that in the discussions that follow any given article, what is truth and what is not will get ferreted out. As a community, SUFA seeks the truth. And as a community, we generally find the truth on any given subject. That is priceless, my friends. And it is why this site retains its popularity and readership (along with the opportunity to have discussions on a professional level without the name calling and insults, of course).

Unfortunately, SUFA remains a rarity in today’s information age. We all read sites every day that are interested in further peddling the lies they read elsewhere, or who are interested in pushing an agenda at the price of integrity. Sites where logic is ignored, reason is found to be unreasonable, and where dissenting opinions are either deleted or attacked in horrible ways. And that is somewhat of a problem. Because SUFA simply cannot handle 300 million readers. Most Americans don’t have the time or the patience to seek out what is truth and what is not. So they are forced to rely on the media as it exists, with all its flaws and its complete lack of integrity. Obviously, I don’t think limiting the free speech of Americans is an answer. I also don’t think some process where government dictates who is credible and who isn’t is the answer. So the question I pose is this: Is there an answer? Or does the answer lie in educating people to a level of critical thinking to discern for themselves? If so, is that even possible?

The link below is to the article I was referencing above:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/28/michigan-considers-law-license-journalists/

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Cyndi P says:

    We’ve got a BIG problem. Czar Cass Sunstein.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ministry_of_truth_obamastyle.html

    Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
    – George Orwell
    President Obama has been agitating for the authority to criminalize political opponents since he took office. First there was the raft of DHS reports profiling conservatives as terrorists. Then came the push for a new fairness doctrine, subsequently refined to be achieved in diversity regulations to be imposed on local radio stations. Following these attacks on free speech was the much debated hate crimes legislation, considered by many to be a back-door path to silencing critics of the administration. But, while dangerous to free speech, none of these draconian policies could do as much damage as new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein’s shocking proposal to ban “falsehoods” — a term left up to the Obama administration to define. If Sunstein succeeds, free speech will be truly dead in America.

    These revelations are found in Sunstein’s new book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, in which he attacks the plague of “rumors” besetting the Obama administration. Rumors must be regulated, according to Sunstein. Suspiciously, Sunstein’s definition of “rumors” never seems to favor conservatives. To combat “rumors,” Sunstein proposes fines, and even obligatory retractions, in the case of Internet publications.[1]

    In his new book, harsh penalties would be meted out for those that “spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president,” an occurrence likely to increase if Sunstein continues to assault the very foundations upon which America is built.[2] Sunstein will have to accuse millions of Americans of “spreading rumors.” Perhaps Sunstein even dreams of an eventual final solution for rumor perpetrators.

    The flaw in Sunstein’s logic should be obvious to even the mildly literate: libel and slander laws already exist to address Sunstein’s alleged concerns. What Sunstein is after is not merely a redress of disinformation, or even the ability to dismiss critics as liars, but rather the actual power to threaten critics with the penalty of law. No due process need be given to those Sunstein accuses of lying. All that will be required is a “notice to take down,” in the case of the Internet. As Sunstein writes, “Those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice.” But who determines falsehoods? Not a court of law, if Sunstein’s proposal is enacted.

    Sunstein, arguably the most powerful bureaucrat in America at present, will decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. At present, if someone lies, there is a sure remedy already in existence: Sunstein, President Obama, or any other official about which a deceptive statement is made, can provide information to contradict the claims of the “liars.” The only problem for Sunstein and Obama is the frequency with which accusers are telling the truth, and no contradictory information exists.

    As it happens, the ability to contradict opponents is not a strong suit of the Obama administration. The President is consistently caught in a web of falsehoods on issues like healthcare, with no credible defense to offer. If only Sunstein could simply issue a “notice to take down” decree to all those pesky web journalists who don’t get leg tingles when President Obama speaks, Obama’s “truth” could proceed in a vacuum. But, for now at least, facts are still available for those who care to seek them.

    In Sunstein’s ideal new republic, though, any plan of the Obama administration would be unchallengeable. Inconvenient facts would be unreportable. Not even the infamous Sedition Acts approached the degree of disdain for the Constitution inherent in Sunstein’s philosophy. Sunstein would scrap the First Amendment if it saved him political embarrassment. And Sunstein provides plenty to be embarrassed about, such as writing to endorse the use of cap and trade, to conceal redistributive justice, or saying that animals should have the same rights as human beings.

    Bottom-line, freedom of the press is protected not only when it is helpful to the President. It is protected in all cases at all times. Apart from inciting violence or yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, no precedent exists for the regulation of free speech. Our revered charter of liberty does not say that government can regulate free speech when it is politically expedient or deemed necessary by an animal-worshipping socialist posing as an environmentalist. The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This staunch prohibition may be inconvenient in the extreme to the Obama administration, but anyone who plots to counteract this constitutional protection of liberty is, quite simply, a traitor and should be removed from public service.

    The essence of America is freedom for all who seek it. This includes freedom of the press, freedom to speak the truth, freedom to criticize our leaders. If America becomes a land of “freedom for some,” it will cease to be America. There is no possible justification for the desecration of liberty, and if an ideology requires the desecration of liberty to succeed, it has no place in America. Freedom of speech, that precious gift men have died to protect, is rubbish to Sunstein, who considers the Constitution to be nothing more than a set of outmoded guidelines:

    A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government… Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.

    Sunstein adds that his proposal is “almost certainly unconstitutional.” It is curious that an effort to restrict the freedom of individual Americans to express ideas is “democratic” in Sunstein’s lexicon.

    Ideas are not criminal offenses in America. Beliefs are not censorable. Sunstein seeks to create an America where deviation from an arbitrarily ordained political orthodoxy becomes a punishable act. And this is not something to which Americans should ever consent. Sunstein should be removed from his position at once.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [1] Cass Sunstein, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), 78-79.

  2. TexasChem says:

    There is a movement by the elitists to attempt to constrain free speech.Not only in journalism but the hate crimes legislation as well.

    On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

    Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

    “Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

    Now this sounds fine and dandy until you take into consideration that what one person sees as harassment is not the same as anothers.If I believe Islam (Sharia Law) to be a means of pushing society back into 7th century mans perception of treating women can I not say so?If a mans religion teaches that deviant sexual behavior is a sin is that now a crime?

    The elitists are funding this govt run media movement as well with ginormous amounts of money.

    “Soros-Funded Group Urges Media Run by Gov’t.”

    http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2010/05/20/soros-funded-group-urges-media-run-govt

  3. What was that song? “And the beat goes on”?

    This manure pile will continue to grow until someone actually stands up and does something about it!

    I know that I have been saying that for quite a while now. To my knowledge all of you who hang out here are MUCH younger than I am, so this is YOUR future that is up for grabs.

    ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!

    Well?

    • Morning G.A. 🙂

      I have looked into local poitics in Northeast Ohio. Both parties are simply currupt, lying bastards. That’s one of the smaller reasons I’m relocating to Western PA. It’s an area that has little political problems, is conservative, and I might give it a look for next year.

      As you say actions speak louder than words, and despite our age difference we both took a similar action, by joining the Oathkeepers, we took action. USW writes the articles tha we discuss, that is action by all.

      Kent and Black Flag promote their Anarchism and do it daily, that is action.

      These are peaceful actions, there is no requirement for violence. While I believe being armed to defend myself, I take no action against anyone that is not a threat, so my being armed is an action, but harmless to 99% of our neighbors.

      If these actions are still not enough, what would you suggest?

      Remembering 😦

      G!

  4. USW

    Katie Couric is their news anchor, supposedly an unbiased reporter. Glenn Beck is a commentator, and frequently states he is not a reporter. I think either The Fox Report with Shepard Smith or Special Report with Bret Bair would be their equivalent to the evening news.

    “The modern day news organizations are little more than political mouthpieces. There are very, very few real news men and women these days. Almost everyone involved has an agenda. And they push the boundaries of what they can get away with in order to sway public opinion their way.

    Think back to 40 years ago. Those doing the news were fairly unbiased in their reporting of news. Sure there were exceptions, but they were exactly that, exceptions.”

    I think today’s MSM is more agenda driven than being political mouthpieces. It may give the same end results, but I do not think the media is controlled by politicians. They make their choices on what and how to report based on their agenda, and have been doing this for much longer than 40 years. Compare the media favoritism of JFK over Nixon. Both were war vet’s, but Nixon was much better qualified. His latter actions could even be attributed to the way the press treated him in the 60’s.

    FDR extended the depression, yet the media praise him. Obama has extended our financial crisis and unemployment, but gets more positive reporting than Bush did when he had a measurably better economy.

    I think this guy is just a left wing wacko. Obama, Cass Sunstein, Eric Holder, Pelosi, etc…, that’s the scary thing. They will figure out ways to take our freedoms, such as the internet, little by little, until we are a socialist country.

  5. Bottom Line says:

    The Fascist American “Ministry of Truth” has been steadily monopolizing information for a century or more. Half of everything we’ve heard in the last hundred years is nothing but customized bullshit. This licensing requirement is just one more method of control.

    • Bottom Line says:

      From:

      The New York Times

      Archive of February 14, 1917.

      http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9504E7DA1538EE32A25757C1A9649C946696D6CF

      – FOR PRESS INVESTIGATION –

      Moore Asks Inquiry Into Charges
      on Preparedness Campaign.

      Special to The New York Times

      WASHINGTON, Feb. 13.–A demand for an investigation of charges printed in the Congressional Record by Representative Oscar Callaway of Texas, a pacifist Democrat, that “the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel shipbuilding, and powder interests” had purchased control of twenty-five great newspapers to further the preparedness campaign, was made in the House today by Representative J. Hampton Moore, a Pennsylvania Republican. Mr. Moore said Mr. Callaway had obtained unanimous consent to extend his remarks in The Record, and his charges had not been read on the floor, “but buried in The Record.”

      “I question whether a single newspapers in the United States has taken cognizance of the remarks of the gentleman from Texas,” said Mr. Moore.

      “I believe they constitute a matter of high privilege.”

      He said that unless some Democrat introduced a resolution to investigate the truth of the charges he would offer such a resolution.

      Following the Moore speech Congressman Callaway told interviews that he could produce proof of his charges, and said Representative Tavenner of Illinois would offer immediately a resolution for an investigation of alleged inspired newspaper articles in behalf of preparedness and participation in the European war.

      Mr. Callawa’s speech, as inserted in The Record charged:
      “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations got together twelve men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select from the most influential papers in the United States in sufficient numbers of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.

      These twelve men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of twenty-five of the greatest newspapers. The twenty-five papers where agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached, the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; and editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

      “The contract is in existence at the present time and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

      “The policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March 1913.

      “They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the national Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the army and navy under the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is ‘patriotism.’ They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”

      Mr. Slayden asked Mr. Moore what he construed the world “sandbag” to mean.

      “It means to drive Congress into a corner and make them believe we are in state of war now,” said Mr. Moore. He quoted an advertisement, signed by the American Rights League, which began:

      “To the American people: Germany is at war with the United States. The repudiation of past pledges and the threat to destroy our ships and citizens constitutes a virtual declaration of war.

      It is no longer a question of whether there shall be war with Germany. There is war with Germany.”
      Mr. Moore said that among the signers of the advertisement were Dr. Lyman Abbott and the Reverend Randolph H. McKim, pastor of the Church of the Epiphany of this city, and went on to criticize the latter for his actions as a minister of the gospel. Mr. Moore then proceeded to declare his own neutrality.

      “I am neither pro-German, as some of the papers have recently insisted, nor pro-Ally,” he said. “I am, as this Congress ought to be, pro-American and nothing else.”

      • Bottom Line says:

        http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

        The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

        President John F. Kennedy
        Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
        New York City, April 27, 1961

        Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

        I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

        You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

        You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

        We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

        But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

        If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

        I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

        It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

        Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

        Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

        If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

        On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

        It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

        My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

        I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

        This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

        I

        The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

        But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

        Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

        If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

        It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

        Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

        Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

        For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

        The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

        The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

        On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

        I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

        Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

        And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

        Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

        II

        It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

        No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

        I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

        Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

        This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

        III

        It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

        And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

    • Bottom Line says:
      • Bottom Line says:

        http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html

        The Depraved Spies and Moguls

        of the CIA’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD

        by Alex Constantine

        Who Controls the Media?

        Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning,
        double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles
        and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney.
        Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The
        Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser .
        It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that
        the public print reports news from a parallel universe – one that has
        never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking
        thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with
        secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales – a place overrun by lone
        gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In
        this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit
        __is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no
        residency status.

        This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD.

        It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold
        war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate
        media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news
        outlets.

        In this period, the American intelligence services competed with
        communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or
        without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an
        undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service,
        rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert
        operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip
        Graham, __a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg,
        PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner’s
        wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

        “By the early 1950s,” writes formerVillage Voice reporter Deborah
        Davis in Katharine the Great, “Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of the
        New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus
        stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA
        analyst.” The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for
        German and American corporations who wanted their points of view
        represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25
        newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA
        propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary
        views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry
        Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times).

        Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been
        appalled to f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA
        office memos of their pride in having placed “important assets” inside
        every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982
        that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have
        acted as case officers to agents in the field.

        “World War III has begun,” Henry’s Luce’s Life declared in March,
        1947. “It is in the opening skirmish stage already.” The issue
        featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the
        creation of an “American Empire,” “world-dominating in political
        power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including
        war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people
        … would hold more than its equal share of power.”

        George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce
        in 1947, explaining tha__t “although avoiding typical Hitlerian
        phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world
        and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of
        Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably
        leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the
        American flag.”

        On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the
        CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A
        firm believer in “all forms of propaganda” to foster loyalty to the
        Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of
        his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation’s media, Allen
        Dulles. Paley’s designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was
        Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.

        The CIA’s assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the
        Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an
        executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for Cold
        War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit
        a year later, disgusted at the administration’s political infighting.
        Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war
        strategist.

        “Nixon,” writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice
        Department’s Office of Special Investigations, took “a small boy’s
        delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft – the hidden
        microphones, the ‘black’ propaganda.” Nixon especially enjoyed his
        visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the “special
        forces” drilling at covert operations.

        One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence
        underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Blücher, the son of A
        German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by
        the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a
        civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army
        until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime
        records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin-Film on
        a movie entitled One Day …, and finished out the war flying with the
        Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy – his mission was the smuggling
        of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the
        subject of Sayer and Botting’s Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover
        of the Reichsbank at the end of the war.

        In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named
        Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron,
        presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from
        the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe’s Jews?).
        Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver
        German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the
        National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi
        revival.

        In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color
        Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing
        scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a
        film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he
        returned to Buenos Aires, then Düsseldorf, West Germany, and
        established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti-chemical
        warfare agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in Düsseldorf
        in 1982, von Blücher boasted to journalists, “I am chief shareholder
        of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The
        Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the
        biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed
        up by these people over their second bottle of brandy.”

        Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken
        dreams of world-moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg,
        publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the
        CIA/mob-anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like most American
        high-rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a
        scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939
        for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars – the biggest case
        in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed
        to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax
        claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three-year
        sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary.

        Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the
        campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to
        woo Reagan’s kitchen cabinet. “This is the topping on the cake,”
        Bush’s regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush
        team met at Annenberg’s plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands,
        California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon’s cabinet was
        chosen, and the state’s social and contributor registers built over a
        quarter-century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose
        acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

        The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan’s
        recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the
        intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda
        and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the
        possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance
        technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition
        published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according
        to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program
        that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast
        transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images
        with the equipment as far as 25 miles away.

        Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his
        disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe.

        In 1952, at MCA, Actors’ Guild president Ronald Reagan – a screen idol
        recruited by MOCKINGBIRD’s Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the
        resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus – signed a
        secret waiver of the conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled
        studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television
        programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore,
        historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987,
        reported that Reagan had “fed the names of suspect people in his
        organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned
        ‘an informer’s code number, T-10.’ His FBI file indicates intense
        collaboration with producers to ‘purge’ the industry of subversives.”

        No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former
        intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI’s Moscow
        correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD’s
        Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis.

        Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror-film
        simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other
        organized-crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell
        Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the
        corporate front for Lansky’s branch of the federally-sponsored mob
        family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the
        investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated
        $100,000 to Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign. This was the year that
        Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New
        jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling
        license to the company, citing Mafia ties.

        In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the
        broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general
        spookiness. The company’s chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey,
        who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after
        he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

        “Black radio” was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The
        Invisible Government to describe the agency’s intertwining interests
        in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who
        took to the airwaves. “Daily, East and West beam hundreds of
        propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of
        competition for the minds of their listeners. The low-price transistor
        has given the hidden war a new importance,” enthused one foreign
        correspondent.

        A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda
        push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR),
        received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private
        foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television
        series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People
        and Politics, a “study” of the American political system in 21 weekly
        installments.

        In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia
        combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film
        studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army
        during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the
        film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA,
        played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited
        Italy’s Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood
        remodeled his office after the dictator’s. The only honest job
        Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret
        investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former
        producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone’s representative on
        the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn.
        Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson,
        publisher of the Hollywood Reporter.

        In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of
        the CIA’s covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract
        CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost
        of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265
        million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures
        of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates.

        In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with
        the intelligence services – in fact, 23 employees were full-time
        employees of the Agency.

        Most consumers of the corporate media were – and are – unaware of the
        effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A
        network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of
        psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from
        the national security sector’s chamber of horrors. For this reason
        consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic
        beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these
        United States.

      • Bottom Line says:
    • Bottom Line says:
    • Bottom Line says:

  6. I could see someone taking anti-gun legislation and replacing the second amendment with the first. Example, instead of registering guns, let’s register all pens, pencils, typewriters, and computers with internet connections. Restrictions on ammo translates to restrictions on paper for publishers and internet postings. Licensing of gun owners goes to licensing reporters and publishers as noted by USW.

    The sad part is that once a barrier such as this has been broken, it gets easier the next time. The Chrysler bailout in the late 70’s made it easier to bailout the banks and Detroit this time around. We will see more of this in the future.

  7. interesting how the media tries to discredit wikipedia because it is not under any controls. It seems, however, that group think may be one of the more dependable data sources out there. If the government goes after wiki sites, blogs will be soon to follow. People say that blogs and wikis are not credible because “anyone” can write on them, but for free market thinkers that is the best possible situation.

  8. Security Council to meet after raid in international waters kills 10 activists

    …someone in Israel’s bureaucracy is a complete dolt to have Ok’d an attack on a Turkish flagged ship in international waters….

    Israel has successfully alienated its only Muslim ally, and successfully confirmed is rogue stature to the rest of the world (except in its client state, USA)

    …Israel, as a State, will not exist in 50 years….

    • Think of it this way, BF; You are a little kid who has to walk to school every day. The only route you can take is through a bully’s neighborhood. The bully threatens you each and every time you walk through, but you have a friend that is bigger than the bully and this friend has taught you some martial arts tricks so that you have the ability to defend yourself. Then one day your friend decides “screw you, I ain’t going to teach you anything any more” and that makes the bully very happy. All of a sudden you see your former friend sucking up to the bully and you know that your days are numbered. You remember old Knute Rockney’s statement that a good defense is a darned good offense.

      What would you do? Would you quietly become submissive to your antagonist? Or would you go on the offensive, fighting to your last breath?

      Remember this; The reason that Islam was invented in the first place was to annihilate every Isreali on the planet. It ain’t about religion, it is all about former slave owners getting revenge on the former slaves who freed themselves.

      • G.A.Rowe

        The reason that Islam was invented in the first place was to annihilate every Isreali on the planet.

        BullCrap.

        Keep believing this, G.A., and you will represent one of the very reasons why Israel will dissolve as a nation.

        • Mathius says:

          Flag! How dare you question the meme that Islam is evil. How dare you. Aren’t you the one always saying that there are hard truths in the universe? Surely this is one of them.

          And those poor innocent Jews in Israel are just defending themselves.

          Stop questioning the established storyline.

        • Yeah, sure, let’s just exterminate all those who do not fall in lock step with Islam and that will end all the troubles in the world . . . You sound like a NAZI.

          I am sure, BF, that you read somewhere in all your books that it is Israel who is the aggressor, that it is Israel and the Jews who are the scourge of the world. Keep believing that. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth? Nope.

          You are on one side, and I am on the other. Unfortunately you are on the wrong side. Maybe you read the wrong book?

      • G.A.

        Only a blind man would consider the largest military power in the Middle East a “little kid”.

        I find it incredible how twisted the minds are of Americans on the issue of the Middle East. It astounds me that the degree of mental disassociation from reality.

        • The largest military power in the middle east is Saudi Arabia, followed very closely by Iran.

          You seem to be the one out of touch with reality.

          • Your information is as faulty as your understanding, but that is typical of you.

            http://www.globalfirepower.com/

            Israel Global Rank :11
            Defense Budget: $18,700,000,000 [1999]

            Egypt: Rank 17
            Defense Budget: $2,500,000,000 [2006]

            Iran: Rank 18
            Defense Budget: $6,300,000,000 [2007

            Saudi: Rank 24
            Defense Budget: $31,255,000,000 [2006]

        • BF says: “I find it incredible how twisted the minds are of Americans on the issue of the Middle East. It astounds me that the degree of mental disassociation from reality.”

          D13 says: Funny…I was thinking the same thing about you. All your postings from the Internet (which is questionable at best) is a smoke screen. The size of an army has NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether you are a big kid or a little kid….Defense budgets are a ridiculous measuring stick for any country out there and are a very handy talking point. And to assume that the size of a defense budget

          Was Israel right or wrong? I am not going on either side until I know of all the facts. ALL OF THE FACTS and not what is posted on the fictional internet.

          Here is what it appears to me…..you (BF) make a big deal out of repelling pirates. Pirates enforcing an embargo that has inspected, I think, 29 ships prior to this one with no problems. A flotilla coming filled with activists coming from an Arab nation that claims a tacit allegiance to Israel but in reality does not have an allegiance at all. Peace loving activist that just happened to be armed with pipes, clubs, and knives and appeared with military like tactics on specific parts of the ship….even a layman could see that it was an ambush and the fact that it was with pipes, knives, and clubs is another smoke screen designed specifically to appear as they were just “little innocent activists” to feed a “poor starving nation” or whatever you wish to call it, and Israel is a big puppet regime of the United states that is a bully in the region.

          However, these threads are not long enough to be able to discuss this with any rationality…..so I have a challenge for you.

          D13’s Challenge to Black Flag: (this would undoubtedly have to be done with USW’s full and unbridled permission as it is his blog).

          Let us both write articles to be done by a specific date. You are clearly anti-West, so you justify your position in any manner you wish, with whatever facts you wish to present, on how bad the USA and Israel are and justify in your article how the USA/Israel is responsible for the world’s problems….especially the Middle East and the Persian region.

          I will take the Big Bad USA/Israeli side, (It will not be a fair fight for I am not a strong supporter of Israel but I will take their side on this one) and I will justify MY position that the policies of the USA are not the cause of the world’s problems….especially the Middle east and the Persian Region.

          Whaddya say? (Picture the movie Fort Apache where John Wayne rides in front of Henry Fonda and throws his gauntlet on the ground.)

          USW? Interested or not a viable issue for SUFA?

          • USWeapon says:

            I am absolutely interested. I think it would be a great experiment, and further would proote some great discussions.

            USW

            • Sorry USW…thank you for the opportunity….but he will not debate unless I agree with him and accept his premise. Too bad…would have been fun…but will go ahead and write my article if ok with you.

          • D13 says: Funny…I was thinking the same thing about you. All your postings from the Internet (which is questionable at best) is a smoke screen. The size of an army has NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether you are a big kid or a little kid….Defense budgets are a ridiculous measuring stick for any country out there and are a very handy talking point. And to assume that the size of a defense budget

            And then in steps D13, and totally confirms my point.

            Your rant is bizarre.

            So, budget doesn’t matter – size of army doesn’t matter – having nukes doesn’t matter – Stratfor ratings doesn’t matter – Globalresearch ratings

            So what matters???

            I give globalfirepower as a link to compare

            You give … nothing but weirdness.

            *sigh* You seem to be suffering a brain tornado.

            Was Israel right or wrong? I am not going on either side until I know of all the facts. ALL OF THE FACTS and not what is posted on the fictional internet.

            The FACTS is that Israel bordered a foreign flagged ship in international waters.

            That is not fiction!

            And only applied deaf/dumb/mute monkey can see something different.

            Here is what it appears to me…..you (BF) make a big deal out of repelling pirates.

            No, it was a ship boarded and attacked in international waters.

            You want to paint some sort of color so to excuse a rouge state’s action – for reasons that I do not understand.

            I do not understand the rabid loyalty to Israel. It makes no sense whatsoever.

            You are clearly anti-West,

            With a statement like that, I will immediately decline.

            You obvious have a presumed and biased opinion of my opinion.

            You either do not read my posts or you are incapable of comprehending them.

            • Murphy's Law says:

              BF,

              Why decline D13’s challenge just because you think he has “a presumed and biased opinion of [your] opinion”. Why not accept the challenge and let the rest of us read and decide whose argument has the most merit?

              I read the same words you do on this blog. Most here are respectful of each other’s opinions, and I would rate USW and D13 at the very top of that category. I would place you pretty much at the bottom. They, as well as others, present facts and back them up with experience and well researched references. When others disagree with them, I am amazed at how gracious they are, as well as JAC, LOI, Anita, BL, Mathius, G. A. Rowe, G-Man, Cyndi, Kathy….I know I am leaving many out of this list and please all of you forgive me for it.

              But when anyone disagrees with you, BF, I’ve seen insults and statements that amount to bullying hurled back at them. Your latest- aimed at D13- “You either do not read my posts or you are incapable of comprehending them.” goes too far. You owe an apology for that one.

              But I am not surprised at your reluctance to take D13 on. He is more than a match for anyone on this blog, from what I have read.

              Murf

              • Murph,

                Why decline D13′s challenge just because you think he has “a presumed and biased opinion of [your] opinion”.

                It is laced with insult.

                I most certainly do demand a higher moral ground upon those that hold the most power.

                The old “Great power/Great responsibility” theory…

                To purposely misconstrue such a demand of HIGHER moral ground to be anti-Western is an intellectual insult. It demonstrates a total lack of argumentative understanding.

                If this was some dolt who wander into SUFA yesterday, I’d be forgiving. But D13… he is no dolt. His insult was purposeful.

                Therefore, I chose not to play his childish game.

                Why not accept the challenge and let the rest of us read and decide whose argument has the most merit?

                No.

                I will not entertain the masses upon a response to a blatant ignorant insult that sets the tone.

                But when anyone disagrees with you, BF, I’ve seen insults and statements that amount to bullying hurled back at them

                I will admit I bully inconsistent or contradicted argument, or ill-reasoned.

                Your latest- aimed at D13- “You either do not read my posts or you are incapable of comprehending them.” goes too far. You owe an apology for that one.

                Nope, not going to happen.

                If he reads an “anti-west” slant (which is the cause of my response), then my words are true and need no apology.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                BF says- “If he reads an “anti-west” slant (which is the cause of my response), then my words are true”

                Let me make sure I have this straight…..the misinterpretation of a statement proves the truth of that statement.

                LOL!!!! Only you, BF, have the arrogance of making a ridiculous statement like that and thinking the rest of us will just accept it.

                It’s actually fun watching you come up with this crap…..you are so predictable.

            • Sorry to hear it, BF….It would have been fun. I will still write an article and try to explain to SUFA why military budget has nothing to do with a lot of anything…..whether you have one nuke or ten….it matters not….but your opinions are already formed as well.

              I will outline international law….the law of embargo…on the open seas and where it is LEGAL…

              It is tough for me to take the side of Israel on anything….I am not pro Israeli….do not think they should have been recognized to start with back in 1949….but the fact remains..they were. However, it is a moot point where you are concerned.

              the challenge still stands….but I can do it without the name calling.

      • Except the bully in this story is actually a homeless person, with no arms or legs.

        • USWeapon says:

          Funny Bob, because I just watched the videos being posted on HuffPo, and it sure does look to me like the peaceful humanitarians were attacking the soldiers as they descended. I am quickly beginning to think that Israel is telling the truth about what happened on board that ship.

    • Flag,

      What happens when you try to run a naval blockade? “Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade” And Israel has been weighed and measured by the unbiased Black Flag. At least you don’t call for their total destruction. And why does Israel impose a blockade? Someone keeps supplying Hamas with missiles, which they then shoot at civilian targets in Israel. Those ships were warned they would not be allowed direct access to Gaza, but could have docked at an Israeli port for inspection, and then distribution.
      from newsbusters,

      The Importance of Reporting Israel’s Side of the Flotilla Incident

      By Noel Sheppard

      CRITICAL UPDATES at end of article.

      It’s now all over the headlines: “Israeli Soldiers Kill at Least 10 Protesters on Boat Carrying Supplies to Gaza.”

      But with all stories, there are indeed two sides.

      As international outrage mounts, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancels Tuesday’s scheduled meeting with President Obama, it is crucial that news outlets here offer an accurate, fair and balanced assessment of exactly what transpired in the Mediterranean Sea early Monday morning.

      After all, according to Israel’s Haaretz, this isn’t the unprovoked massacre some in the media are depicting (h/t Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, photo courtesy AP):

      The left-wing activists on board a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip tried to lynch the Israel Navy commandos who stormed their Turkish-flagged ship early Monday, Israel Defense Forces sources told Haaretz.

      The commandos, who intercepted the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara after it ignored orders to turn back, said they encountered violent resistance from activists armed with sticks and knives. According to the soldiers, the activists threw one of their comrades from the upper deck to the lower after they boarded.

      Activists attacked a commando with iron bars as he descended onto the ship from a helicopter, the army said. The IDF said its rules of engagement allowed troops to open fire in what it called a “life-threatening situation”.

      The soldiers said they were forced to open fire after the activists struck one of their comrades in the head and trampled on him. A senior field commander ordered the soldiers then to respond with fire, a decision which the commandos said received full backing the military echelon. […]

      The military said in a statement: “Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade (of the Gaza Strip) … During the takeover, the soldiers encountered serious physical violence by the protesters, who attacked them with live fire.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/31/reporting-israels-side-flotilla-incident#ixzz0pXEBdWUd

      • At least 10 Gaza blockade runners killed in seaborne clash (updated)
        Thomas Lifson
        News dispatches from Reuters and AP provide first details of an encounter between Israeli forces and the blockade runners attempting to bring “relief supplies” to the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza, which both Israel and Egypt have agreed to isolate from arms re-supply. The Israelis sought to inspect the cargo and and prevent the ships landing. euters:

        Israeli commandos who raided a Gaza aid ship on Monday were set upon by activists with knives and clubs and some troops jumped overboard to save themselves, according to an Israeli account.

        Israel said commandos opened fire in self-defence and 10 activists were killed and seven troops wounded. With Israel jamming signals and censoring media, there was little independent reporting of the events at sea.

        An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons.

        “They had pistols with live ammunition as back-up, to defend themselves,” he said.

        One of the commandos told reporters he descended by rope from a helicopter onto one of the six ships in the convoy and was immediately attacked by a group of people waiting for them.

        “They beat us with metal sticks and knives,” he said. “There was live fire at some point against us.”

        http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/at_least_10_gaza_blockade_runn.html

        • Yes, I would suspect that if you were being attacked by pirates they would put up some resistence. Oh well only a few dead eh.

          • Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way
            The time is gone, the song is over,
            Thought I’d something more to say.

            Pink Floyd

            Gooday Bob,

            Egypt and Israel jointly enacted the Gaza blockade. What would happen if N. Korea started supplying the IRA with missiles? Who then began multiple attacks on civilian targets in England?
            A “blockade” of the Irish coast? And weren’t the first pirates English? hehehehe

            • Hehehehe funny you should bring up the IRA, guess which citizens of a certain country provided most of the funding to them 😉 but thats a discussion for another day.

              From what I saw from the news articles these ships were on a humanitarian mission and were in international waters, making what the Israelis did piracy.

              • USWeapon says:

                The Israelis weren’t plundering. They simply wanted to inspect and ensure no arms were being brought into Gaza.

                I guess that you are in the belief that a “humanitarian” ship would never have arms smuggled aboard it. Just like terrorists won’t hide weapons in schools, mosques, and hospitals.

                We are awful judgemental of what Israel has done here. Perhaps we aren’t being given the whole story one way or another.

                If they just wanted to stop aid from getting to Gaza, they could have sunk the ship and been the assholes you are assuming them to be.

              • Err what right did they have to “inspect” a flagged ship in international waters?

              • USWep,

                First, they have no right to act upon ships flying a non-Israeli flag. That is an act of war.

                No more than Russia can invade Alaska to ensure there are “no weapons”…..

                Further, the Palestinian territory is NOT Israel – they have no right to blockade except as an act of war.

              • USWep,

                …and do you really believe the governments of Turkey and Greece would allow arms on humanitarian ship flying their flag????

              • USWeapon says:

                Are you serious? I have worked that region extensively. I will say no more than the governments of Turkey and Greece would load the arms on the humanitarian ship if there was something in it for them. But I don’t believe that to be the case this time. I don’t believe that the Turkish government had anything at all to do with that ship other than the fact that the Turkish flag was flying above it. The aid group is responsible for what is on the ship.

                So the question is do I believe this particular aid group would allow arms on a humanitarian ship? YES. Without a doubt.

              • USWep,

                No way.

                If arms was discovered, the international consequences would be extreme.

                Israel can attack anyone anywhere with near impunity.

                But if Turkey was even ‘accidental’ complacent in supplying arms, the USA economic actions and political repercussions would overthrow the sitting government in Ankara.

                The asymmetrical consequences for Turkey is far too high.

      • LOI,

        This occurred in international waters – and as such was an act of war against Turkey and Greece.

        • Bob is correct. This was an act of State-sponsored piracy.

          • TexasChem says:

            Your definition of Piracy seems to be entirely wrong.If you remember correctly one of these aid ships a few years back was indeed busted with weapons in its cargohold.Israel is completely justified in searching the ship.They were not there to steal the cargo nor ransom the ship.

            Hamas without a doubt is a terrorist organization that took control of the Gaza strip with physical violence from the Fatah party.It is on the U.S. list.

            Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule.

            Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.is a fundamentalist international organization or organizations originating in Egypt, whose goals are the conversion of Muslim countries into states ruled by Sha’aria law, the re-establishment of the Caliphate and ultimately, world dominion. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, which insists that Islam is a prescription for governance as well as religion, is the prototypical example of Islamism. Their slogan is self-explanatory: “God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur’an our constitution, Jihad our way and dying for God’s cause our supreme objective.The Muslim Brotherhood believe that an Islamic society can be achieved by violent means in the near term, or by education and “preparation” of society and “democratic” takeover. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded formally in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, but it may have existed before in a less formal framework.

            In the group’s belief, the Quran and Sunna constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate.

            The MB goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam’s manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.It preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom to the extent allowed by the Sharia laws of Islam.

            If you do indeed support a society where there is to be no violence upon a non-violent man then why do you support Islamic terrorism?Do you think the(kuffar)infidel should just lay down as cattle to appease their masters?I am completely baffled towards your line of thought here BF!

            • TexasChem,

              First, it is an act of piracy. They seized the ships and its cargo.

              Second, they hold no “super right” to attack a flagged ship of Turkey in international waters. This is an act of war.

              These two things are without dispute, TC.

              Hamas is a democratically elected government – and as a rogue state, whoever the US declares as a ‘terrorist’ group is a bit the pot/kettle/black thing.

              I do NOT support terrorism – but as Christian, I find it appalling that you justify acts of state terrorism.

        • They were warned to turn around or they would be inspected.
          They were given the option of docking at an Israeli port where the cargo would have been inspected, then passed on to the intended. They chose to attempt to run the blockade, then attacked the Israeli’s who boarded the ships. Seems to me one side was intent on a violent confrontation. And don’t forget, Egypt is a partner in the blockade.

          I think we will have to wait several days for more information. You seem to have already made up your mind? And I hate that, you have a great mind, full of….insight,
          except when you close it to information that conflicts with your beliefs.

          Is Israel “innocent”? No.
          Is Israel under frequent attack? Yes.

          Before I pass judgment, I ask, what would I do in the same situation? I might have avoided some of the mistakes they have made, but if someone keeps attacking me, how would i react? Turn the other cheek? Not while they try to kill my wife and children.

          • LOI,

            The warning is IRRELEVANT!

            Do you believe Russia has the right to board a US Aircraft Carrier in international waters as long it tells the US it “better turn around”???? or force it to dock at a Russia port for “inspection”!!

            Bizarre!

            Egypt did not attack a Turkish ship in international water, so I don’t understand what your point is about Egypt.

            Yes, my mind is made up. Attacking a Turkish flagged ship in international water is an act of war. Period. There are no exceptions.

            Is Israel under frequent attack? Yes.

            Bullcrap.

    • USWeapon says:

      Turkey has not been a real ally to Israel for quite some time. And if they were, this incident would not “successfully alienate their lone ally”. Turkey will see it for what it is.

      I know, it was just a supply ship bringing relief. Because terrorists don’t smuggle arms on relief ships, right. It goes against their code……

      Oh, if only you had the ability to be as critical of others as you are of the US and Israel.

      • USWep,

        As there were participating in joint military maneuvers (now canceled) as well as full diplomatic relations – I’m not sure what part of “ally” you would suggest was not in effect.

        • USWeapon says:

          The aid group was a Turkish group previously associated with supporting terrorism. From another source:

          “A 2006 report by the Danish Institute for International Studies described the group as a front for funding terrorist organizations and for sending mujahedeen to fight in countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. The report cited a 1997 investigation by Turkish authorities and a French intelligence report.”

          Turkish authorities will see this for what it is. They know what type of activity this aid group has been conducting.

          Perhaps you should do a little research on the relationship between Turkey and Israel. It initially had to do with security in a region where Turkey did not get along with any of its neighbors. Over the last decade that has changed, and relations between Turkey and Israel have been strained for several years. This is not the first cancellation of joint military exercises. This is not the first time Turkey has spoken out against Israel. Diplomatic relations mean nothing. Turkey also has that with Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

          • USWep,

            A bit confused here – what does Bosnia have to do with an Alliance with Israel??

            • USWeapon says:

              The only mention of Bosnia was that this aid group was found to have supported terrorism in those countries. What it has to do with Israel is that it was this same aid group. Your question is like me saying that the US is willilng to drop a Nuke on Iran, after all they did so to Japan. And you following up with “what does Japan have to do with Iran/US relations?”

              After all, you love to use past actions as proof of future behavior when it is the US in question, why do you object when it is a group you want to support?

              • USWep,

                No where at all does your post say anything about Israel or any connection between Bosnia and Turkey’s alliance with Israel.

                And, it still doesn’t.

                The use of a weapon as a historical fact demonstrates a risk of a repeat performance.

                But how does an alliance between two nations (Turkey/Israel) have anything to do with Bosnia???

              • USWeapon says:

                It doesn’t. The reference to Bosnia was made about the aid group that was controlling the ship that is in question here. It shows that the aid group was not to be trusted, and that is why Israel suspected that the ship may have arms on it.

              • USWeapon says:

                As such, Turkey will see this for what it is, because they know who this aid group is and what they have done in the past. THAT is how it impacts this situation.

              • USWep,

                The ship passed through numerous national ports and inspections, including Cyprus, England, France, Italy, Greece and Turkey.

                So, if your conspiracy includes all of those governments…. 😉

                Turkey WILL use this to impose itself back into the region. TC will be overjoyed with the resurgence of the Ottomans.

          • USWep,

            I know Turkish relations have been strained – I posted about that a few months ago.

            This action will terminate the relationship.

          • The good news about this is that Israel has lost her corridor to attack Iran.

            Turkey was the expected path of the unilateral attack – and now that is gone.

            • Dont worry they wont need to do much attacking. One will be enough

              http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

              • Bob,

                If Israel uses nukes, Russia will nuke Israel.

                Ergo, Israel will not use nukes.

              • If Israel continue on the path they are following now they will lose support from the US. If that happens there will be lots of nukes flying in the air from Israel, maybe they just want to get started early?

              • Bob,

                I do not see Israel doing that.

                They will collapse financially, like the Russian-supported States … Cuba, Ukraine, etc.

                Ukraine has nukes, but they don’t fling them around.

                Pakistan has nukes as does India, and they are at “war”, and they don’t fling them around.

                Yes, Israel acts like a rabid dog… but I believe they would undergo a civil war first before they use nukes first-strike.

              • Well we will see, I will dig my nuke hole just the same, 3 feet should be enough.

            • Turkey has announced it will now send armed escorts with the mercy ships – which will lead to direct confrontation with Israeli naval forces.

    • Interesting how you have highlighted the Israeli issue and have been silent on the other two attacks in International Waters by Korea and Iran.

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Nice observation, D13.

        Murf

      • D13,

        Your observation is a fabrication (as is becoming typical)

        We DID discuss the Korean sinking (which you incorrectly claim was in international waters – it was not – it was in S. Korean waters).

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/israel-seizes-ship-weapons-hezbollah

        You mean this assault in international waters by Israel on an Iranian ship? This one, no one died.

        • OOps..you are right, on International Water, my bad….it was investigated by an International committee or team on the issue of a torpedo attack. I did not see any of the blog on the Korean issue but I was gone for almost two weeks….I will go back and read.

          But I issued a challenge to you above…..hope you are interested.

    • USWeapon says:

      From the Desk of Mrs. Weapon,
      To Black Flag:
      I guess I am curious what this has to do with USW article? Would it not have been better to send a separate e-mail and ask for an article on Israel and the current situation? It seems the article above, which USW spends a lot of time working on, was completely high jacked to talk about another issue. Common respect tells me that, although the situation is news, and you wanted to give your view, you would wait until the discussion was lead in that direction. I am not one to be critical of anything on SUFA but I did want to express my frustration of the situation. USW spends hours and hours every night researching and putting together his articles for all to read. Please have enough respect to stick to the topic to which is being discussed. I know this happens often and you are not the only guilty party. I also know that my husband will be a bit frustrated that I posted this…. but I think it is important to have respect for the one who spends his valuable time putting together interesting and well researched articles for all to read and discuss.
      HAVE A GREAT DAY!
      Mrs. Weapon

      • Madam!

        The core “point” of USWep’s article is the overt manipulation of the “message” via the press and media upon the People. That is, a “Main Stream Propaganda Machine” and its power.

        This is most evident in the reporting on the Middle East where open acts of piracy, mass relocation of a people and international war crimes are wholly ignored and actually supported by US popular opinion.

        This could not occur without the Machine in full and non-stop action.

        If there is an example of the potency of such propaganda, this issue regarding Israel ranks among the top.

        • I see why this topic may be pertinent, but the way you have posed it and the way it has been discussed is nowhere near the point of USW’s article. Your intent with this post is obvious.

  9. From the AP Wire Service;

    KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan authorities suspended two Christian foreign aid groups Monday on suspicion of proselytizing in the strictly Islamic nation and said a follow-up investigation would include whether other groups were trying to convert Muslims.

    I find it interesting that Islam can go into any other country and convert Christians(or anyone else) to Islam but refuse to let Christians(or anyone else) convert Islamists. To me, those are the actions of a cult, not a religion.

  10. Bottom Line says:

    “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” – George Orwell

    • BL.

      The truth always wins.

      Do not worry about what some men may make myth into “history”. It does not matter the Universe about the illusions of men. The Universe knows better.

      The Universe operates on truth. And the Universe never loses.

      • Mathius says:

        Perhaps. But not all truths are black and white. There was once a Gray Flag who understood that.

        • All truth is Black and White, and not Grey at all.

          Do not confuse YOUR truth with someone else truth.

          • Mathius says:

            No, sir. There are things that are not so simple. To suggest that everything is either true or false means I can boil everything down to 1’s and 0’s.

            That is where Einstein fell down. You choose to fall in the same pit?

      • “The truth always wins.”

        Bulldookey, Nero did not fiddle while Rome burned. Perception becomes reality, such as the Civil War being fought over slavery.
        Do you know why women shave their underarms? It all began with the May, 1915 edition of Harper’s Bazaar magazine that featured a model sporting the latest fashion. She wore a sleeveless evening gown that exposed, for the first time in fashion, her bare shoulders, and her armpits.

        A young marketing executive with the Wilkinson Sword Company, who also made razor blades for men, designed a campaign to convince the women of North America that:

        (a) Underarm hair was unhygienic (b) It was unfeminine.

        In two years, the sales of razor blades doubled as our grandmothers and great grandmothers made themselves conform to this socially constructed gender stereotype. This norm for North American women has been reinforced by several generations of daughters who role-modeled their mothers.

        http://www.quikshave.com/timeline.htm

        • USWeapon says:

          I guess they never ran that ad campaign in Europe….

          • Sorry US as a European I will have to take offence to that. In rebuttal

            • Haven’t been to Europe lately, have you?

            • Bottom Line says:

              Europe would be called Deutschland if it weren’t for the U.S.

              Happy Memorial Day.

              • Actually that statement is false and I hear it get repeated ad nauseum. The axis armies lost the war the second the first soldier stepped over the Russian border. What the rest of the allies did was kind of a sideshow compared to what happened in Russia, D-day a minor skirmish.

                You could argue that we would be speaking Russian if it werent for the US but thats a discussion for another day, make no mistake about it though it was Russian blood that stopped the Third Reich.

              • USWeapon says:

                More of a combination of the Germans being forced to deal with two distinctive fronts is more accurate. I agree that it wasn’t all the US that saved the world. But it wasn’t all Russia either.

                Regardless, German would be the language without foreign intervention.

              • US by the time we landed in Europe we were mostly facing boys who were guided by the odd veteran. The experienced bunch, the Axis hardasses had been chewed up in Russia, I would hate to think what would have happened if they had been on the beaches, all 2.7 million of them.

              • Bob,

                Again – I must agree with you.

                * 716th Infantry Division (Static) consisted mainly of those ‘unfit for active duty’ and released prisoners.

                * 352nd Infantry Division, a well-trained unit containing combat veterans

                * 91st Air Landing Division (Luftlande – air transported), a regular infantry division, trained, and equipped to be transported by air.

                * 709th Infantry Division (Static). Like the 716th, this division comprised a number of “Ost” units who were provided with German leadership to manage them.

              • Bottom Line says:

                BOB – “Actually that statement is false and I hear it get repeated ad nauseum.”

                BL – Russia and Germany were pretty evenly matched…Russia having an advantage with it’s sheer size/might.

                Germany’s mistake was not having the logistical foundation to keep up with the fast paced expansion/Blitkreig strategy. Hitler had overextended German forces and it was only a matter of time and perseverance before they fell.

                Russia had a larger force and bigger tanks. Their sheer size is what gave them strength. However, ineficient use of their forces resulted in horrible kill ratios. They were getting slaughtered by the Germans, but were large enough to out-sustain them.

                The eventual outcome would have been something not far from a stale-mate with victory going to the Russians.

                What made the difference?

                What weapon said:

                USW – “More of a combination of the Germans being forced to deal with two distinctive fronts is more accurate.”

                BL – When The US jumped in the European theatre, it effectively tipped the scales in favor of the Allies. No way could Germany handle the extra burden.

                Not to belittle the efforts and sacrifice of the Russians, but I think you’re giving them too much credit.

                And I would hardly call the efforts of the allied forces a sideshow and/or a minor skirmish. It made all the difference.

              • Sorry BL, lets put things into perspective, just in the Battle of Stalingrad alone the Germans lost twice the amount of troops the US did in the European and Pacific theatres in the entire war. The Russians lost more than 1.2 million troops in the battle, combine all of the allied casualties and you might get close to that number. One battle.

                The Russians broke the Germans by throwing millions of troops at them, they lost about 20 times what the US did in the entire war, the reason there could be a D-Day was due to the German defeat in Russia. We landed 160,000 troops on D-Day, again going back to the Axis losses in Stalingrad imagine an extra 850,000 Axis troops behind those MG-42’s, 600 extra fighters and bombers in the air, not a pretty picture is it and that was just Stalingrad.

                It is not that I give too much credit to the Russians its that you give too little, I invite you to study the Eastern front, you will be amazed at what happened.

                Again the European campaign was won by the meat grinder that was the Eastern front, you can now see why I get irked by “If it wasnt for the US…….”, say that and you do the Russians a disservice. Not that the rest of the allies did not do important things, but just read the Russian casualty numbers.

              • Bob,

                I agree.

                If anyone seriously studies military history and WW2 – without the rose colored glasses of the self-proclaimed “Greatest Generation” stuff, the Eastern Front was WW2.

                The size and intensity of warfare on the front is beyond ancient and modern imagination.

                At the Battle of Kasserine Pass, where the Americans met for the first time the tough, veteran Eastern front tested Germans, …and were obliterated…

                …the event arguably almost ended the American European War. The public opinion on the causalities was severe and damning. Had the Americans suffered a second defeat of equal size, I believe US would have had to abandoned Europe in response to the American public outcry.

                The Germans thought it was funny. They noted that the entire American losses up to that point in the war was about 1/2 day of causalities of the Germans on the Russian front.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Bob,

                It’s not that I don’t give the Russians due credit. I do.

                They were by far our most powerful ally.

                I never said that the US were the only ones fighting.

                I’m not trying to make it out like Russia didn’t play a big role.

                Without the Russians, victory in Europe would have been impossible.

                The Russians sustained HALF of the casualties of the ENTIRE war all by themselves.

                I’ve studied the eastern front and I know better than to dispute their crucial importance.

                They took the brunt of it.

                I get it.

                It wasn’t my point to be dismissive of them at all.

                My point is that we played a crucial role in the outcome of the war and European occupation, hence my saying “When The US jumped in the European theatre, it effectively tipped the scales in favor of the Allies.”.

                Germany and Russia were having a hell of a time with each other, so when the US stepped in, Germany caved.

                Because our troops were there, Europe remained free from German and/or Russian occupation.

              • Bottom Line says:

                BF – “If anyone seriously studies military history and WW2 – without the rose colored glasses of the self-proclaimed “Greatest Generation” stuff, the Eastern Front was WW2.”

                BL – I resent your insinuating assertion that I(or weapon) would take a stance of rose colored ignorance.

                You’ve been kinda moody lately, bro.

                As a SUFA friend/acquaintance, I would suggest that you smoke a joint, take a poop, and eat some Fruit-loops.

                🙂

              • By the time we landed on the beaches of France the German line on the Eastern front had broken, sure we may have advanced the destruction of the Axis armies a little but D-Day or no D-Day the Russians would have pushed straight through to Berlin all the same. The question is how far they would have gone.

              • BL,

                Germany caved

                TOTAL BULLCRAP!

                Beyond any doubt, the failure of Germany to take M0scow in ’42 and Stalingrad in ’43 guaranteed a communist Europe.

                Russia was going to win – and not one thing Germany could do would stop it.

                Without a shadow of a doubt, the Normandy invasion and subsequent assault into the Greater Europe was not to free Europe from Germany but to free Europe from Russia

              • BL,

                en kinda moody lately

                I do not take self-molested ignorance of people very well.

                It is a “trigger point” that gets my gall and I am trying to minimize it – it is a fault of mine.

                When blatant crimes are dismissed because of horrifically misplaced loyalty – I see such a confluence of errors that simply aggrevates me – especially when normally well reasoned and adjusted people fall for such obvious lies.

              • Alright you two, this is elementary strategy stuff. Russia did not beat Germany. The US also did not beat Germany. Germany fighting a two front war, plus a small bleed in North Africa defeated Germany.

                Great Britain was the only thing left on the Western front, and had the US not jumped in, Hitler may well have defeated Russia eventually, because Britain was not able to continue without US help, and so they were little more than a nuisance. North Africa was nothing without Allied support either, so the full force of Germany and the total of European production would have eventually overcome Russia, providing Hitler did not push too fast.

                He pushed too fast at first, but German generals were not idiots. Rommel was one out of many. The two front war was not Hitler’s only error, but technology, strategy, etc. were still powerful aspects of the German force. Russia did not have this power. They had large tanks and a large army, but they were not industrialized as well. Furthermore, their strategy for slowing the German advance was to destroy as they retreated. That means that they made supply difficult for rapid advance, but it would make their own advance and recapture slow as well, such that German defeat by Russia, even over time, would be quite impossible without a major distraction, another front. A front Britain could not mount alone.

                Thus, it stands that America’s entrance to the war would not have worked without Hitler’s impatient attack on Russia, but had we not entered, Russia would have fallen as well. It was neither the efforts of the US nor the Russians that beat Hitler, is was Hitler’s arrogance, insanity, blundering, etc. Had he not done things wrong, it would not have mattered what we or Russia did. The real allied blunder was allowing Hitler the expansion into other countries, expanding his production base early on. That was where WE lost, by doing UN style BS, feel good, PC stuff. We would have lost permanently, had Hitler not blundered just as badly.

                I don’t care what you have studied, which side, etc., basic strategic thought will tell you I am right.

              • Bottom Line says:

                BF – “Germany caved

                TOTAL BULLCRAP!”

                BL – I could be wrong, and I suppose that would be because I have been looking at the loyalist propaganda textbooks through rose colored glasses, BUT, I thought Germany surrendered to the allied forces on June 5, 1945. I thought that The US played a pivital role in assisting with the defeat of Germany.
                🙂

                BF – “Russia was going to win – and not one thing Germany could do would stop it.”

                BL – I didn’t suggest that Germany was going to win, the closest I came to that was suggesting that Russia would eventually win by a close margin.

                BF – “Without a shadow of a doubt, the Normandy invasion and subsequent assault into the Greater Europe was not to free Europe from Germany but to free Europe from Russia”

                BL – (From above)”Because our troops were there, Europe remained free from German and/or Russian occupation.”

                I think we’re arguing something different. I’m not arguing WHICH ONE would have taken it, I am simply arguing that the USA was there to stop either/or both or another,ect…

                You speculate that Russia WOULD HAVE won. I don’t disagree. They most likely would have.

                BF – “It is a “trigger point” that gets my gall and I am trying to minimize it – it is a fault of mine.”

                BL – Yeah, I get it. Remember the day I explained to Todd how it must feel to be you?…and how frustrating it must be dealing with relatively stupid people all of the time?

                I feel ya bro, Im just givin’ ya shit.

                BF – “…self-molested ignorance …horrifically misplaced loyalty…confluence of errors…”

                BL – I’m not sure I agree with your assessment, but I do see your point.

              • Bob is correct.

                The US did not “save” Europe from the Germans.

                The Western Allies “saved” Europe from Stalin – but only by accident and not by design.

                Russia did not “need” Western armies to defeat Germany.

                http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288

                As shown, the number of divisions in the Western Front never exceeded 100 post 1942, and never exceeded the number facing the Russians.

                Put it another way, the Germans lost more troops in Stalingrad then they had in the entire Western Front.

                Nope, Europe would never have been “German” – but it most certainly could have been “Russian”.

        • LOI,

          Does the Universe care if Nero fiddled or not?

          • USWeapon says:

            I spoke to the Universe during meditation this morning. The Universe cares deeply about the Nero situation. Some about a cataclysmic pattern of events unfolding that would destroy the earth. I think the Universe said that if Nero actually did fiddle, that we can now hold Nero responsible for Global Warming. I’m just sayin…. you should really be careful about assuming to know what the Universe cares about. She is a fickle gal.

          • It’s a distant second to the appearance of ladies armpits.

        • Okay, I understand that. But who started the pubic shaving craze?

      • Bottom Line says:

        “The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun.” – George Orwell

  11. Freedom Is Not Free

    I watched the flag pass by one day
    It fluttered in the breeze.
    A young Marine saluted it,
    And then he stood at ease.
    I looked at him in uniform
    So young, so tall, so proud,
    He’d stand out in a crowd.
    I thought how many men like him
    had fallen through the years.
    How many had died on foreign soil?
    How many mothers’ tears?
    How many pilots’ planes shot down?
    How many died at sea?
    How many foxholes were soldiers’ graves?
    No, freedom is not free.

    I heard the sound of Taps one night,
    when everything was still
    I listened to the bugler play
    And felt a sudden chill.
    I wondered just how many times
    That Taps had meant “Amen”
    When a flag had draped a coffin
    Of brother or a friend.
    I thought of all the children,
    Of mothers and the wives,
    Of fathers, sons and husbands
    with interrupted lives.

    I thought about a graveyard
    At the bottom of the sea
    Of unmarked graves in Arlington…
    No, freedom is not free.

    posted at
    http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=119

  12. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Holed up in Amarillo..

    Havin’ myself some great Memorial Day BBQ while Mathius slogs through another day at his office. Hehehehe

    • And where is Thor’s Hammer?

      • TexasChem says:

        I have Thors’ Hammer down below and am trying to bash some sense into BF!

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        She’s docked in the port o’ Los Angeles taking on supplies of In ‘n’ Out burgers and Dr. Pepper. Once I meet up with her, we’ll take an indirect root to the coordinates you provided.

        I’ll be in Albuquerque by nightfall, Sedona by the next night. By the night after that though, I’m in liberal territory. I fear that this is the most dangerous leg of my journey. Mathius has spies everywhere and I don’t wish to go back in the basement.

        • Ahhhhh…you are in route to the Port of Liberal Enclave….watch out for Mathius…he may be liberal but he is worthy of watching out for….he is a sneaky one. To send raptor support would undoubtedly draw attention…once on the high seas, you will have raptosub escort.

          • Mathius says:

            Attention will be unavoidable. How often do you think they see one-eyed, peg-legged, Dr. Pepper drinking individuals with a hook for one hand and a parrot on one shoulder who are dragging a treasure chest behind them?

            I’ll try my best to blend in, but I think it’s going to get hairy.

  13. Back on topic, I think USW published before NB.. Could SUFA be one of their sources?

    And So It Begins: Michigan Considering Law To License Journalists

    By Noel Sheppard

    A Michigan lawmaker wants journalists to be licensed.

    “Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers,” reported FoxNews.com Friday.

    “Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets–traditional, online and citizen generated–and an even greater amount misinformation.”

    According to the bill, folks wanting to be considered as reporters would have to provide proof of:

    –“Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

    –Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.

    –Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.

    –Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.

    –Three or more writing samples.

    Well, the “good moral character” clause certainly eliminates most of the usual suspects.

    That said, interested parties are already lining up against the bill:

    Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized with disgruntles politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They say that adding members of the so-called fourth estate to the list of government regulated occupations would likely be found unconstitutional.

    “It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert, the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.

    In response to the proposed legislation, Glenn Reynolds opined Sunday:

    How about requiring that all sitting legislators pass a test on the constitution? And maybe an IQ test, too . . . .

    Now THAT’S a bill I could get behind.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/31/and-so-it-begins-michigan-considering-law-license-journalists#ixzz0pXkQrA5S

  14. Considering the thread is about media distortion, it is ironic to see how many on SUFA are distorted about the Israeli actions – primarily due to the media!

    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

    • TexasChem says:

      You are clearly basing your point of view on an extremely biased version of BF reality!

      It certainly is not based upon the scientific method, otherwise you would have applied reason and logic by now to discover the truth.

      • TC,

        You read but do not understand as your mind is clouded by myth and fantasy.

        • TexasChem says:

          BF,

          My mind is as clean and crisp as a bright sunny day on the beaches of Padre Island my friend!I can see for miles and miles.I may have the occasional fantasy with Shania Twain but never-the-less I do make the journey home to the real world version of reality! 🙂

    • TexasChem says:

      Since the Obama administration took office the majority of the medias view in regards to the middle-east conflict has been ANTI-ISRAEL.You distort truth BF!

      • TC,

        It has NOT been anti-Israel at all! In the US, Israel gets the benefit of the doubt.

        You should try reading more than the American media news – go to Europe, and there you’ll get a taste of a whole different take on Israel.

        • TexasChem says:

          I just started going to Eurabian blogs and I just started taking them on but they do not post my writings or they take them down fearing it will offend Islam!That is just from posting factual truths and quotes from their own dad-blame Islamic leaders!What The Heck is wrong with people that they would deny truth staring them straight into their eyes!

          • TC:

            What blogs are you going to?

            Though I agree, I’ve found most blogs exist to promote their own badly skewed points of view and often delete those that contradict them – par for the course.

            That is why SUFA is valuable. Dissent is argued, but never deleted.

        • Yea, you get a whole different tale on socialism, gun control, keyensian economics, health care, the UN, and a lot of other crap. I know our news is skewed, and I do watch foreign news actually more than our own, but its no more trustworthy or less full of crap. Its just a different take, which is always valuable, just not more valuable than our own.

          Like I said, I always weigh it against what I know on the ground, or hear from others on the ground.

    • USWeapon says:

      Perhaps you should go to HuffPo and watch the videos BF. You may find that there is more merit to what us stupid people think that you want to admit.

  15. Black Flag analysis on the Israeli action.

    As I’ve noted before, I believe there are two – polar opposite – factions with the Israeli elite … one, fighting for the long term existence (and thus, co-existence) within the Middle East and another, fighting for hegemonic domination and territorial claim to the mythical Kingdom of Israel of the Biblical history.

    The first group is by far more numerous. The second group, by far, commands the core of Israel military.

    At every juncture of regional peace process, Israel appears to undermine its own initiatives – this current action examples this perfectly. It is completely illegal, wholly a demonstration of State terrorism.

    Israel did not wait until the ships entered Palestinian water, where arguably, they may have had a claim to some international norms regarding war blockade.

    This attack was purposely an affront to the international community and international law – it was purposeful. This action was designed to completely derail and destroy any peace initiative by any party everywhere.

    This is a common series of Israeli contradictions – exposing a serious and internal political conflict within the governing elite of Israel.

    • …which also means that the current peace initiative was close to becoming an agreement.

    • TexasChem says:

      BF Stated:”This attack was purposely an affront to the international community and international law – it was purposeful. This action was designed to completely derail and destroy any peace initiative by any party everywhere.”

      TC:You are so right BF!You just have the aggressor bass-ackwards

      This IHH “peace flotilla” knew exactly what would happen if they attempted to run the blockade.It was no SECRET!This was purposefully initiated along with Turkeys blessings.Turkey’s PM Erdogan has said there is no “moderate Islam.” He is an fundamentalist who calls himself “middle of the road.”

      Spread your BS somewhere else where their are the uneducated BF.IHH headed by Bülent Yildirim is a group centered on promoting ISLAM utilizing any and all means.Violent and non-violent.In practice, besides its legitimate humanitarian activities, IHH supports radical Islamic terrorist networks. In recent years it has prominently supported Hamas (through the Union of Good). In addition, the ITIC has reliable information that in the past IHH provided logistical support and funding to global jihad networks.IHH’s orientation is radical-Islamic and anti-American, and it is close to the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas’ parent movement).

      IHH supports Hamas and does not hide the connection between them. Hamas also considers its links to IHH and Turkey to be extremely important, and regards Turkey as a target audience for its propaganda network (Palestine-Information, Hamas’ main website, has a Turkish version, and as of the end of 2009, the website of its military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, has also appeared in Turkish).

      In recent years, especially since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, IHH has supported Hamas’ propaganda campaigns by organizing public support conferences in Turkey. At those conferences, which featured the participation of senior IHH figures, the heads of IHH expressed their support for Hamas and its strategy (including the armed struggle it favors), in defiance of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas’ rival.

    • TexasChem says:

      “BF Stated:”It is completely illegal, wholly a demonstration of State terrorism.”

      TC:Prove it.

      • TC

        **blink blink**

        Hmm, an armed seizure of a foreign flagged ship in international water.

        I’m not sure how hard you need the 2×4 pounded against your forehead.

        • TexasChem says:

          I may let you borrow Thors Hammer that I borrowed from D-13 earlier to whack me just so’s I can see what it feels like when I’m finished whacking you with it!

  16. Israel vs the Flotilla

    Well, well. It seems that a blockade, enforcement of said blockade and boarding other ships as part of that enforcement is NOT illegal in INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

    Now the following is an Israeli source but I am guessing the legal part is true. Thought this was interesting as I also jumped to the conclusion that this was an act of piracy because of international waters. OOPS, guess I was wrong.

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Gaza_flotilla_maritime_blockade_Gaza-Legal_background_31-May-2010.htm?784a9080

    I also saw another report that the UN Sec. General stated that the “blockade” of Gaza is legal per international law.

    As for my view on this. This is what happens when you mix arrogant assholes and bullies together in a confined space. Neither will back down and eventually people get hurt.

    While Israel was stupid in their action, one must really ask what the goal of the “flotilla” organizers and ship captains was. They had to know an attempt to actually run the blockade would end in violence. So did they deliberately take that chance to create just this situation?

    And of course, by now Israel should know they are being baited and should be smarter than this.

    I’m shorting the market tomorrow morning. How about you guys?

    • TexasChem says:

      JaC:”And of course, by now Israel should know they are being baited and should be smarter than this.”

      TC:”Have no doubt they knew they were being baited.That is the reason why they boarded the ships with paintball guns with sidearm back-ups instead of tavors.They did not expect to be ambushed and attacked with knives and clubs.The previous ship cargo checks went fine as those ships co-operated.The Mavi Marmara Flotilla participants chanted Islamic battle cry invoking the killing of Jews.
      Reporter: “Despite the Israeli threats and several unexpected delays, the arrival of the ships at the meeting point before sailing to the Gaza Strip inflamed the emotions and the enthusiasm of the participants.”
      Visuals from Gaza flotilla ship of young Muslims shouting Islamic battle chant invoking the killing and defeat of Jews in battle:
      “[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!”
      [Khaibar is the name of last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s army and it marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia in 628.]

    • JAC,

      You were wrong that you were wrong. Your source being the Israeli Foreign Ministry, purposely misapplied the United Nations’ 1982 Convention.

      http://www.asil.org/insigh34.cfm

      The American Society of International Law contradicts your sources.

      Quote:
      One of the most basic principles of international law is freedom of maritime navigation: the freedom of one state’s vessels to ply their trade on the high seas (and innocently through the waters of other states, including straits) without hindrance or interference by other states.

      High seas and related freedoms are now codified in the United Nations’ 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is generally considered to reflect customary international law, and to which the United Kingdom and 129 other states, including Yugoslavia and Russia, are party. The 1982 Convention generally prohibits a warship from one state from visiting or boarding a foreign ship on the high seas. There are a number of exceptions, relating for instance to piracy and slavery, none of which apply here.

      Now this was a discussion regarding NATO actions on Yugoslavia – and thus it is key as it is an example not muddled in the Israeli conflict propaganda.

      Israel does have the power under international law to enforce the blockade inside her waters and Gaza waters. This DOES NOT confer any rights for Israel to board any foreign flag ship in international waters

      • JAC,

        Indeed, I’ve considered the affair as a chess game.

        Why would Israel ‘ok’ such a maneuver? Why not wait until entry into the economic zone around Gaza and then take the ships? It’s not like these boats are speed demons…. and there is little doubt to where the ships were headed – and they weren’t ‘evading’ anyone.

        So, we have to believe it was with purpose to do it in international water.

        Such an act squarely places Turkey into a serious situation. If Turkey does not respond to this direct assault on her sovereignty, the Turkish government will look impotent and probably fall.

        If she does respond – like sending her fleet to confront the Israeli’s and demand immediate return of the Turkish ships as well as armed escort, Turkey will without a doubt be fired upon by Israel.

        That will now place the USA into a serious problem. An attack on a NATO country (Turkey) by an non-NATO country (Israel) will cause Turkey to evoke the NATO charter and agreement requiring US intervention AGAINST Israel.

        Who will America pick? If USA joins Turkey against Israel, that’ll be the end of Israel – all the “trading with the Enemy” laws come into effect and Israel cannot survive without American grants.

        If USA does not act for Turkey, it will be the end of NATO…. and that will mean the US Armies in Afghan and Iraq will be abandoned by (ex)NATO allies leaving the US to hold the whole bag – and significantly up the risk of the loss of both Armies. And this doesn’t even begin to imagine what the unraveling of NATO will do to the Russian power balance in Europe.

        So, the question is: Who is trying to force USA hand? How are they in control of the Israeli military complex? No matter the apparent end-scenarios, Israel is a big loser or the US is a big loser – and if the US is a big loser Israel is a big loser.

        So, Israel is a big loser in this ploy.

        So why did they do it?

        • Salon has an interesting post on it.

          http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/01/israel_get_away/index.html

          Indeed what he says about the US is true. If Americans give Israel a “mulligan” even after they attacked the US Liberty, it’s no stretch to imagine that the American public will be even more brain dead when Israel attacks a bunch of European civilians on a Turkish boat.

          I also agree with his conclusion – Israel is trading its future for small politics today.

        • TexasChem says:

          If the US (Obama) sides against Israel there would be chaos in the US.Riots, civil unrest, military dissent…a frickn nightmare!It will never happen.There has not been enough “Islamization” of America yet for this scenario.The public would literally be up in arms.

          Hmmm

          • TexasChem,

            If the US sides with Israel against Turkey, NATO will evaporate overnight.

            The consequences of that in the geopolitical Great Game would be so substantial that grasping event the potential known consequences would be near-impossible, let alone the dominoes of the unintended consequences.

        • as the spokesman for the flotilla said herself, this was not about humanitarian relief, it was about breaking the blockade.”

          FNC’s Krauthammer Argues Gaza-Bound Ships Intended ‘Provocation,’ Israel Offered to Deliver Aid
          By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
          Mon, 05/31/2010 – 23:57 ET

          On Monday’s Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, during the show’s regular “Fox All Stars” segment, columnist and FNC contributor Charles Krauthammer argued that the group of ships that were raided by Israeli troops were intentionally trying to provoke an incident and weaken Israel’s blockade of Gaza, as he related that Israel not only already allows plenty of aid shipments into Gaza, but had even offered to deliver the aid on the ships so long as the military was allowed to screen the contents to make sure no weapons were being smuggled.

          After complaining about the word “humanitarian” being applied to ships, Krauthammer argued that there is no “humanitarian crisis” that was being addressed: “There’s no one starving in Gaza. The Gazans have been supplied with food and social services, education, by the U.N., by UNRWA, for 60 years, in part with American tax money. Second, when there are humanitarian needs, the Israelis allow every day food and medicine overland into Gaza. The reason that it did not want to allow this flotilla is because, as the spokesman for the flotilla said herself, this was not about humanitarian relief, it was about breaking the blockade.” He went on to recount that the blockade exists to prevent weapon shipments to the terrorist group Hamas which controls the government in Gaza.

          Weekly Standard editor and FNC contributor Bill Kristol argued that the Israelis would have been willing to deliver legitimate aid from the ships: “As Charles said, they can get humanitarian aid into Gaza. If they want more humanitarian aid to Gaza, airlift in five million tons of nice goods, and the Israelis will just take a look and make sure they’re not arms and let them go through the checkpoint. This checkpoint is open. Stuff goes through every day.”

          Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/05/31/fnc-s-krauthammer-argues-gaza-bound-ships-intended-provocation-israel#ixzz0pcfucy9z

          • Israel Offered to Deliver Aid

            The problem with this is that if this was true, then the supply ships would not be needed.

            Israel does not deliver aid. It withholds it.

            • What about the spokesman for the flotilla said herself, this was not about humanitarian relief, it was about breaking the blockade.

              How about applying your thoughts to that, the flotilla was created and embarked with the sole intent of breaking the blockade. Why?

              Is Gaza running out of food, water or medicine? Seems not.

              Is Hamas having a weapons/missile shortage? We can hope.

              • LOI,

                So, sir, take two of those great and powerful brain cells you have and rub them together.

                Breaking a blockade that stops FOOD and MEDICINE and the NECESSITY of LIFE is a good thing!!!!

                I would hope this act would break an WAR CRIME by Israel!! (It is a WAR CRIME that they are enacting upon Gaza).

                Your point seems to be: do nothing in the face of war criminals….

              • LOI,

                The whole darn point of the Gaza flotilla was to HIGHLIGHT the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza suffering under ILLEGAL (under the international law) Israeli action!

                Why do you think they advertised it so much?????? So to hide it????

                And they were -sadly- far more successful then they wanted to be.

    • I personally believe that Israel had a right to search this ship but I do question why they would choose to do so in International waters. Those of you who have military experience -are there strategic reasons that make it more dangerous to wait?

      • V.H.

        Nope – there is no reason other than to create an international incident involving Turkey (IMO)

        • Why do you think Israel would want to create an international incident -if by your reasoning it will hurt Israel.

          • V.H.

            I posted some of my thinking in a sub-post response to JAC above.

            My conclusion:

            It is such a bizarre move with such massive negative consequences internationally that I cannot see why they did.

            Of course, I am approaching the issue on the belief that international support is necessary for Israel’s survival and thus, diminishing that support would be a huge negative.

            However, if one suggests that Israel does not need international support and only needs the US, then such an action – as a demonstration of its impunity and uncompromisable belief of the single Israeli point of view – could be explain their carelessness.

            • It also could be an announcement to the world that they mean what they say and that they will protect their people and their interest-as a way to discourage further ignoring of their war time policies. I do however believe that this situation may have gone further than they anticipated. But that is just a possible reason. I am very interested in every ones opinion on why. Their right to do so has been argued but the WHY in international waters hasn’t.

              • V.H.

                Several people have stated that Israel wanted to stop and board the ships in the dark. They speculate that was to prevent massive video getting out of the boarding operations.

                If they had let them reach blockaded waters it would have been daylight.

                They let the nighttime raid goal dictate the location.

                I am speculating but maybe the flotilla knew this as well and made sure to time arrival for the daylight hours.

                I find this answer totally plausible in a political and military bureaucracy. Either someone forgot to consider the ramification or they didn’t care. Or, they really didn’t expect any resistance and someone started shooting when they shouldn’t have.

                I do not think this was done in International waters for sole the purpose of telling the world to piss off.

              • Speculating is about the only option we have at this point. It really wasn’t my intention to say they wanted to tell the world to piss off-but I suppose it could be interpreted that way. I was thinking of it more as an offensive move. Hadn’t heard about what you brought up-but it sounds plausible.

      • V.H.

        Israel maintains a 20-mile exclusion zone Israel maintains off Gaza’s coast. This is 8 miles further out than the 12-mile territorial limit.

    • Politico’s Ben Smith:

      For while much about the incident remains unclear, a day of carefully parsed statements from the White House and State Department left at least one irrefutable aftershock: With much of the world expressing fury over the raid, the contrast with Washington’s muted response could not have been more striking.

      “The situation is that they’re so isolated right now that it’s not only that we’re the only ones who will stick up for them,” said an American official. “We’re the only ones who believe them — and what they’re saying is true.”

      So the virtually the entire world — dictatorships and democracies, allies, enemies and neutral parties toward Israel, in Europe, Asia and South America — have condemned Israel and rejected its claims. But the U.S., standing virtually alone, embraces the Israeli claims and (as is virtually always the case) refrains from even the mildest criticisms.

      As usual, we find here the Key Tribal Principles: my side is always right, and the group which my parents taught me from childhood to love and cherish can do no wrong.

      • Or perhaps for once in a long time, our govt is waiting to actually find out what happened before they start spouting off.

        Heard an interesting comparison a little while ago. All these nations so quick to condemn Israel at the U.N. but they could not agree to condemn N. Korea for sinking a S. Korea ship.

        It is an interesting question.

        • JAC,

          Not even a close question.

          Two MILITARY SHIPS of nations at war

          vs.

          An Allied ship with civilians

          And you think there is some similarity????

          • BF

            YES.

            They are considered by many to be ACTS OF WAR.

            So why is it so easy to line up 200 against Israel and 0 against N. Korea.

            And don’t give me that “they are still at war crap”. The world doesn’t view the two Koreas in an active war.

            By the way, I spent some time cruising through the Maritime laws and your black and white claim is not holding up. There are exceptions. But near as I can find the treaties call for UN recognition of the blockade, which I doubt very much has occurred.

            • JAC,

              So let’s step slowly through the different circumstance.

              Korea:
              Military on military with a history of both attacking each other.

              Gaza:
              Citizens against a war crime with only one side having a history in attacking the other.

              There are exceptions

              …and I did annotate the exceptions in my post and quote – and which was also pointed out DID NOT APPLY

              ,,,please do try to keep up with my arguments…

  17. TexasChem says:

    Perhaps some debate should ensue to determine the ramifications of the Islamic cultures growing encroachment upon Western civilization.If it weren’t for the immigration invasion of Islamic culture into Western society 3/4ths of the worlds problems would cease to exist!To those of you who do not see this as a fact you are blind to the current reality we are facing in todays world.I can provide ample proof of this if needed but, all you really have to do is turn on your television set and watch the evening news to verify this.As I have posted before the Islamic Ummah appetite for territory will never be sated.The 22 nation Arab league can not stand the fact that Israel exists in the heart of the Arab world.

    Ummah (Arabic: أمة‎) is an Arabic word meaning “community” or “nation”. It is commonly used to mean either the collective nation of states, or (in the context of pan-Arabism) the whole Arab world. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or “Community of the Believers” (ummat al-mu’minin), and thus the whole Muslim world.

    PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein stated this on March 31, 1977, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
    “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.
    “For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

    Deliberate Social Deprivation by “Friends.” How Arabs abuse so-called Palestinians.

    On February 27, 2004, Reuters reported that people living in PA controlled areas are becoming increasingly critical of their leaders. This supports previous comments from the AP, late last year, that the Arab world is manipulating the Palestinian cause to the detriment of the people themselves. Reported again in the “LA Times”, on January 4, the article states that most Arab countries have denied citizenship, jobs and education to anyone claiming Palestinian ancestry. The article quotes 35-year-old Mohmoud Zahar: “We can’t own a house, land or get a loan from the bank, despite the fact that I was born here (in Egypt) and have no idea what is Palestine”. A Cairo-based Palestinian writer, speaking in the same article says: “The language of the (Arab) governments and media is in one direction and the real practices on the ground are totally the opposite.”

    Hisham Youssef, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, acknowledged that Palestinians live ‘in very bad conditions,’ but he said the policy is meant ‘to preserve their Palestinian identity. “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine,” AP reported. Jordan would be a clear exception to this pan-Arab policy, where Palestinians are granted full citizenship and rights. As a result, except the 13% living in UNRWA camps, Palestinians are being progressively integrated into Jordanian society without international welfare subsidies. This would make sense because the Palestinians are Jordanians to begin with.

  18. TexasChem says:

    BF I have some suggested reading for you.

    http://www.masada2000.org/index.html

  19. TexasChem says:

    I have just been sitting here pondering the route the US government is leading our society, it leads to a non-identity within our society without pride or patriotism.

    The middle and upper class are being milked/robbed to provide for the elitist welfare state.The control of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights are under attack and stand a goodly percentage chance of being taken away or at the very least severely limited.

    I hope the upcoming elections turn this ship around or else we will be headed towards the rocky shore at full speed!

    I believe the world economy to be manipulated by an elite class.This in turn means that our entire society is being manipulated.

    Have any of you ever given any thought as to how easily the elitist class could milk and govern if Islam were truly to become a world religion?Every nation in the world is seemingly being manipulated using Politically Correct dogma towards this end.I am not theorizing the elites hold Islamic beliefs.Just that it seems a possibility they could use this form of religion as mass control while removing a substantial global population at the same time.Conspiracy theory?Maybe, probably but these thoughts have crossed my mind just by observing global current events.

    • Cyndi P says:

      It doesn’t seem too crazy to me, but, then look who I am, lol!

      🙂

      • TexasChem says:

        Sorting through and deciphering the mind-screwing of the media is kinda like taking a hike in Yellowstone with Ted Nugent and Nancy Pelosi!

        As you three round a corner in the trail a 700lb grizzly charges towards you.Ted is shoving a .480 Ruger Super Redhawk into your hands yelling “shoot”, “shoot it or it’s gonna eat us!”
        Whilst Nancy is screaming “Just lie down, just lie down he wont bite,he looks so cuddly!”

        “The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil.”-Ted Nugent (Yup, I agree)

        “We Must Pass The Health Care Bill So That We Can Find Out What’s In It…”-Nancy Pelosi (WTH Moron.)

        “War is good when good survives and evil is crushed. If you don’t crush evil then evil will get you.”-Ted Nugent. (Yup, I agree)

        “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.Natural gas is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels.”-Nancy Pelosi (OMG What an intellectual we have here! I can’t believe she is just two heartbeats away from the Presidency!)

        Hrmmmm… Which persons advice am I going to take?!!!

  20. TexasChem says:

    USW stated:”As such, Turkey will see this for what it is, because they know who this aid group is and what they have done in the past. THAT is how it impacts this situation.”

    TC:Research the political state of Turkey.The July 2007 election win of devout Muslims in Turkey (AK party) over the moderates was a red flag. The warning, yet again, of Turkey’s re-islamization. After decades of Ataturk’s moderation, Turkey turned – and turned harder still with the August 2007 election of an Islamic fundamentalist, Prime Minister, Tayyip Recep Erdogan. He has devout, pure Islamic leanings.Turkish PM Erdogan in a Speech During Term As Istanbul Mayor Attacks Turkey’s Constitution, Describing it As ‘A Huge Lie’: “Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah”; “One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular.”

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1388.htm

    Turkey is on the Arab Islamic bandwagon now.

  21. TexasChem says:

    @-BF

    What happens to an economy that has a run on gold if the gold supplier sits on the cash for an indefinite amount of time once the gold supply has been extinguished?

    • TC,

      What does “extinguished” mean to you?

      More gold is traded daily (in terms of dollars) than any other commodity on Earth – 10x the size of the oil trade.

      As the supply of gold vs. demand drops, the price rises – like any other commodity.

      • TexasChem says:

        Extinguished as in those whom have the most wealth and gold suddenly sit on the cash taken out of the economy and do not sell nor buy nor produce.

        • TexasChem,

          Ok, you’re doing good confusing me.

          If you buy gold, you sell cash.

          So how do these “rich” folks buy gold and sit on cash at the same time?

  22. TexasChem says:

    Bat Ye’or, World’s Leading Historian on Islam, Eurabia and Islamic Anti-Semitism Sits Down with Pamela Geller: Emergence of Western Islam.

  23. To be honest, I have little faith in the information of most of the info on foreign affairs. I tend to have a lot more faith in the people that are there, mixed with people with an “objective” viewpoint. I find that if you depend solely on one or the other, it tends to be pretty lousy. I know I am weak on foreign affairs, I have no problem with this since foreign affairs are none of my business. The US is enough for me to worry about. I know what my philosophical positions are, and no information of any type will change that. I know what I hear is happening, but I find that Isreali affairs sound a lot different when I hear about them from my friends who live there than when I hear about stuff from anyone in any media in the world.

    I could give a rat’s butt about the hijacked subject matter, I am far more concerned about the original post.

    Just sayin’. 🙂

    • TexasChem says:

      You might would think differently if the hijacked subject matter becomes an “in your face” issue as a direct result of the original posts subject coming to fruition and becoming ststist law! 🙂

      Anyways, sorry bout’ the hijack but I strongly believe that Islamic expansionism and the villainization of Israel for securing its borders to be important current events that will have an impact upon the U.S.A. in the next couple of years.I see a Grizzly charging round the corner in the trail…

      • You may be right TC. I see lots of grizzlies charging. The particular one you are talking about I see too, but I think the solution is to get off the trail, because its not charging at us. Considering how steeped we are in overseas matter, however, your position and watchful eye is far more realistic more than likely.

        I don’t mind the hijack, btw, I just don’t see the reason we are so involved in foreign affairs to start with. I do not see a reason for it.

        • TexasChem says:

          That grizzly hopped across the pond on 9-11 and is beginning to run rampant in the nation.

          • Seperate issue, or at least, it should be, and would be, if we meddled less. 9/11 was between the US and some theocracies, I do not know if we brought it on ourselves solely through meddling, it may have also been our entertainment that is spread throughout the world. I do not think that our support or lack of support for Israel is a primary issue. If we get too involved in those affairs, however, it might be. I have no problem shooting the bear till dead and thrice more for good measure when they cross the pond, but I have no interest in hunting bear on the other side of the pond after taking out the bear clan after the attack. To be honest, we did a poor job of even that because of the cowtowing to the UN and other PC pressures, etc. Either kick a$$ or go home, anything else is just BS.

            Bear in our property: Shoot him.
            Bear in the neighbors property: Not my business unless the neighbor asks for help.
            Neighbor keeps poking bear with sticks then asks for help? Neighbor gets what he deserves.

            Not justifying terrorism, just not caring about the neighbors house when ours is about to fall down because of lack of interest in our own.

        • TexasChem says:

          The mega mosque if built at ground zero of the the 9-11 attack will be his hibernation den.

          • Bottom Line says:

            The mega mosque if built at ground zero of the the 9-11 attack will be burned to the ground some day.

            I don’t care what anyone says, It is an obvious slap in the face.

            Everyone ‘knows’ that the attacks on 9/11 were carried out by radical islamic fundamentalist nut-jobs.(cough- cough -state sponsored false flag operation)

            If your neighbor’s kid had just been recently run over by a drunk driver, would you show your support by renting them a car with a bottle of scotch in the glove box?

  24. Cyndi P says:

    Hijack…

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/05/guest-post-slouching-towards-despotism.html

    27 May 2010
    Guest Post: Slouching Toward Despotism

    Posted by Keith Hazelton, Anecdotal Economics

    Benjamin Franklin, when asked at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what that assembly had created, purportedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it,” which seems likely given his remarks to Convention members on that September day immediately prior to their vote on the proposed Constitution in its original form.

    Often, but on far more occasions in the last three years, we are reminded of a portion of those remarks. Dr. Franklin, given his age (81) and health, asked to have his commentary read to delegates preceding what he hoped would be a unanimous vote in favor of a nonetheless flawed agreement.

    “In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, (but) can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” (Emphasis mine.)
    And the question we keep pondering is, “Are we there yet?” Are we merely slouching toward despotism, or have we arrived? Are we already so corrupt so as to need despotic government, what with Vampire Squids and corporate/union-bought elections and Congressional bystanders and regulatory capture and Systemically Important Too Big To Fail and Gulf of Mexico oil well disasters?

    (Despotism, by the way, describes a form of government by which a single entity rules with absolute and unlimited power, and may be expressed by an individual as an autocracy or through a group as an oligarchy according to Wikipedia, the world’s leading source of made-up information, which is good enough for us.)

    In previous posts we have observed the growing and discernible disconnect between several types of government-reported economic data such as Retail Sales and actual state sales tax collections, and the Employment Situation and withholding tax collections. Others also have made solid cases for these disconnects between statistical theory and economic reality and it occurs to me that, far from being isolated or random events, they are evidence of much more disconcerting forces at work.

    Fudging on unemployment numbers or “rounding up” retail sales reports may seem like minor infractions, and many of these government data reports have been manipulated for years, maybe half a century, but they represent a pattern of conscious, calculated design of “don’t worry, be happy, the government’s in charge, nothing to see here, so move along.”

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), for example, estimates who is working and who is not, but conveniently excludes millions of people from its composition of the unemployment rate who are not working but neither deeming them “unemployed” because they are “marginally attached” to the workforce or are “discouraged” by a lack of job prospects and no longer are looking for employment (2.3 million as of March 2010 plus another 3.4 million “persons who currently want a job,” who also aren’t counted as unemployed).

    Side note: You are well aware, of course, the Social Security Administration probably could tell us monthly almost exactly how many people really are working, not working, working part time, self-employed, and so on based on its receipts of tax withholdings from employers. It is beyond the pale to imagine SSA could not furnish a version of the monthly Employment Situation that would be far more reliable by orders of magnitude than the guesses of the BLS.

    As to why government statistical agencies may be reporting “happy” numbers, well, you know the answer to that…government statistics are lying’s fifth circle of hell, just a shade better than Campaign Promises.

    How about the major changes to the Producer Price Index and the Consumer Price Index which were made in the 1980s and 1990s to greatly reduce reported inflation numbers as a means of containing the cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for Social Security recipients, as John Williams at ShadowStats extensively has reported for years?

    Or the March 2010 Monthly Treasury Statement, which understated the true government deficit last month by including a $117 billion collection described as “proprietary receipts from the public” by the Treasury, likely TARP repayments but not defined as such. Or the December 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement in which $45 billion extracted from the nation’s banks as a 13-quarter advance FDIC premium also was shown as a “negative outlay” which creates a significant understatement of the true FY2010 deficit picture (so far, $162 billion this fiscal year, which will understate our true deficit by about 10 percent).

    Or the “New” General Motors wasting millions of (tax) dollars for print and television ads to promote a fictitious narrative that it has “repaid” government loans of $8.1 billion (to the U.S and Canada) “plus interest” five years early when in fact SIGTARP, the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Plan Neil Barofsky, told Congress and Fox News that GM did no such thing, that the loan “repayment” did not come the old fashioned way from sales and earnings but from a “cash advance” on another TARP facility which both governments will count as additions to their already significant equity positions. Nothing in those ads mentions the many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars borrowed from China which flowed into General Motors and Chrysler pre-bankruptcy which never will be repaid.

    And now the New GM wants to create another automobile financing company, or buy back its former GMAC/Ally unit which itself has received nearly $20 billion of government Too Big To Fail largesse, so it may become even more profitable by returning to sub-prime auto and everything-else lending and have a happy IPO later this year, because as everyone knows, including the New GM’s management, there’s precious little profit in building cars no one wants and few can afford. “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly,” (Proverbs 26:11) as Jesse’s Cafe Americain recently observed.

    How about the seeming inability to legislate any significant financial reform in the wake of the worst economic crisis in 80 years, a crisis which, mind you, needed fewer than eight years to erupt once the last shred of restraint – Glass-Steagall – was forcibly removed at the end of 1999 by those who, coincidentally (paging Messrs. Rubin and Summers), have profited so handsomely from its demise.

    The Banking Act of 1933 – Glass-Steagall – was a wonder of simplicity in a simpler era. It set forth in a mere 37 pages of text the safeguards necessary to separate commercial banking from everything else and to ably prevent for 66 years – two full generations – any meaningful implosion of the nation’s financial system. Any search for cause and effect of The Great Recession must begin here. The useless financial reform act – the Dodd act – weighs in at a lobbyist-induced 1,500+ pages, and will do nothing to prevent another financial crisis, nothing to dismantle Too Big Too Fail, nothing to contain derivatives, nothing to audit the Federal Reserve and nothing to curtail abuses in consumer financial practices.

    Yet where are the criminal investigations? Where is the FBI? Where are the Congressional inquiries and panels and special prosecutors? Where are the indictments? Where are the perp walks and the jail sentences? Where is the justice, Mr. Holder and your 50 friends among the states? Aside from two former Bears Stearns hedge fund managers in 2007, and a pretend hedge fund manager – Mr. Madoff – in 2009, a weak SEC civil show-case against Goldman Sachs in 2010 and the mostly voluntary, golden-parachute-enabled “retirements” of a handful of TBTF C-level executives, a number of which, John-Thain-like, merely have revolved around the door a couple of times and landed at another lucrative looting opportunity, nothing has happened. Nothing, nada, zero, zip, dick. Nothing. It’s breathtaking in its design and execution.

    We now are reliably told the TARP program will cost less than $100 billion when all is said and done. Huh? What about the $2 trillion-plus of added government debt which itself adds tens of billions to the annual interest servicing burden, or the $1.5 trillion-plus willed into existence by the Federal Reserve? Who are they kidding?

    Or a Health Care Act which, in 2,500 pages manages to spend about another trillion dollars or so and leaves no health insurance company behind, effectively criminalizing, albeit with monetary penalties far less than the cost of individually paid health insurance plans, anyone not otherwise exempted who fails to purchase health care coverage.

    It seems to us, after thinking about this topic for some time now, that we have arrived. We have arrived at that point in our civilization in which our government deems it acceptable to obfuscate about things both small and large on the basis that, Jack-Nicholson/Colonel-Jessup-like, we (the rest of us who aren’t lodged in the political/oligarchical castes) “can’t handle the truth.”

    And most of the time it would appear they are right, that we – the rest of us – can’t be bothered with such discrepancies and inconsistencies, falsehoods and half-truths. We’re too busy trying to keep the house, make the mortgage and auto loan and credit card and student loan payments. We’re too focused on our own financial survival to be concerned with what goes on at a national leadership and direction level. And doesn’t it just seem a little too convenient for those who wish to plunder the wealth of the nation to keep the other 90 percent of us so strapped with indebtedness and an outdated personal moral conviction that debts should be repaid regardless of their potential to physically and mentally harm one’s well being or, heaven forbid, harm one’s all-important credit score, when walking away from debt has been an accepted business practice for centuries?

    It only seems to matter on those rare occasions when things blow up, and the average, non-voting, non-taxpaying citizen awakens from his or her media-induced stupor to ponder that when the curtain is drawn away, it reveals only humans and not wizards, or that the outgoing tide reveals who has been swimming naked or when the emperor is shown to be undressed. But interest in such matters wanes quickly, and the thirst for change recedes silently into renewed acceptance of the status quo, as we now discover.

    Soon, no doubt, when markets resume their upward trajectory and the Dow returns to and surpasses 14,250 (probably by this summer) and oh-don’t-worry-about-those-6.5-million-log-term-unemployed-because-they’re-just-lazy, much of this unpleasantness of the last three years will be forgotten by those more interested in only good news and Dancing With the Stars and American Idol, and the continued warnings of the Cassandras will be deemed evidence that these are, once again, merely the musings of disaffected social misfits or bad-news-opportunists who deep down must hate America (right up until the point at which the next crisis erupts, and erupt it will).

    In fact, our short attention spans are relied upon by the political class of both parties and by the oligarchical class which controls it, as magnificent wealth transfer schemes blossom anew (talk about green shoots…) and the all-so-brief period which has elapsed between the “days away from financial Armageddon” of September 2008 and the “all clear, business as usual” of May 2010 insures, like the watered-down, useless “financial reform” legislation written by financial industry lobbyists which certainly will pass soon, that the laudable goal of making safe our financial system and returning it to the status of handmaiden to legitimate capital-producing and jobs-creating enterprise, will be discarded in exchange for the pretense of life as we knew it, circa 2006.

    Only this time, effectively having destroyed the middle class of Boomers, Gen X-ers, Gen Y-ers, Millennials and Echo Boomers, and having bought the complicit silence of the of a near-majority (47% of Americans paid no income tax whatsoever in 2008) in exchange for bread and circuses, and having largely destroyed the previous primary mechanism by which wealth has been stolen and transferred (credit creation and personal indebtedness), the masters of the universe will have to find a new scam, which, at this writing, appears to be sovereign government debt, currencies and commodities, because turning back the calendar to 2006 alone will never recreate the consumer spending/debt orgy of 1982-2006.

    In fact we think the oligarchs realize this, and they are redoubling their efforts to pillage as much as possible before the real collapse occurs, even as its seeds already have been sown in this crisis which now appears, by design and deception, to be ending. That collapse draws nigh, and Roubini and Taleb and Ritholtz and Panzer and Jesse and Tyler and Mish and Yves and Charles Hugh Smith and Joe Bageant and many, many others already see it, yet all are being dismissed – again – as those nattering nabobs of negativism who, broken-clock-being-right-twice-a-day-like, were merely “lucky” in guessing about the immediate past crisis as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested in a recent television interview.

    Tell us Greece is not the “sub-prime” of early 2007; that the US$150 billion “cure” to be soon applied by the EU and IMF is only can-kicking but will allow one and all to congratulate themselves on “containing” an isolated problem and to quickly return to the never-ending cocktail party, that is until the next Greece Fire which spreads to one after another country, including, ultimately, the possibility of the conflagration reaching bond markets in the U.S.

    Or that a mere US$1 trillion of bailout/rescue/currency support recently proposed by the Eurozone and the IMF to “shock and awe” financial markets dominated by the recently rescued TBTFs who busily apace bet against the very governments which saved them (except now in Germany), is not merely another stealth rescue of these giant financial institutions which, having been caught with a bit too much Club Med sovereign debt on their books while their own prop traders work hard to destroy its value, now cry out – again – that the risk of their insolvency – again – threatens the global financial and economic systems.

    Or that the battling machines of high-frequency trading, which briefly wiped out and then restored a trillion dollars worth of fictitious (paper) wealth in fewer than 15 minutes mid-afternoon May 6th in a dry-run rehearsal of things to come, won’t now become even more emboldened and empowered to manipulate financial markets in any manner necessary to insure continued quarters of perfectly profitable trading days.

    (May 6th should have been a non-event. We were expressly warned by the Manhattan Assistant US Attorney in a July 2009 court filing, in which it was alleged that a former Goldman Sachs quant trading programmer stole Goldman’s “secret proprietary trading code,” that “there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways.” Well, duh. Doesn’t it just seem like someone took this code, or a similar one, out for a test drive earlier this month?)

    Soon, perhaps if not already, the wealth transfer will be complete, and a newly impoverished, former middle class will wake up from their recliners to find not only is Dancing With the Stars over, but also is their former debt-fueled way of life as the economy staggers, unemployment escalates, more good jobs are exported and living standards rapidly erode. (Irony alert: Their former U.S. employers, who effectively have downsized and off-shored their way to record profits, will find they have destroyed their own customer base – the former middle class – who no longer can afford their products.)

    When 40 million people are receiving food stamps at one end of the economic spectrum (and probably another 20 million eligible according to the Department of Agriculture), and the bulk of financial and real assets have been concentrated into the top 10 percent of the other end of the economic spectrum, nothing good can come of it. So the well-off cohort will remain well-off and will conspire to direct through their agents in government only enough resources to buy the complicity and silence of the bottom 40 percent, like tax breaks, food stamps, health care subsidies and so on, and the soon-to-be-former middle class will be ground into yet lower levels of the economic ladder, such, that when the looting has concluded, we will see a top 10 percent and a bottom 90 percent, much as feudalistic Europe in the centuries of the Dark Ages.

    (We strongly recommend two books on the subject, both of which in far more detail and eloquence lay out the symptoms, causes and effects of our slouch toward despotism: Survival +, by Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds, and Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches From America’s Class War, by Joe Bageant at Joe Bageant (and whose recent post about the American Hologram Lost on the Fearless Plain also is required reading).

    “All lies and jest… Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest,” so said Paul Simon, which rings so true more than four decades later. We hear what we want to hear, and, apparently, what we want to hear is that all is back to normal, that all is good, that the wizards have everything under control, and that nothing bad can ever happen again.

    So, are we there yet? Have we not already abdicated our responsibilities as citizens and tacitly embraced the despotism of which Franklin predicted 222 years ago, having become so corrupted (contaminated) as to require the despotic government of an oligarchy dedicated to insuring the truth never gets in the way of a good narrative, an enormous disparate accumulation of wealth and a firm grip on the levers of power to ensure the preservation of that wealth?

    A few Tea Party primary victories and incumbent “mandatory retirements” aside, nothing will change in Washington as long as the strings of campaign cash and lobbyist perks are being pulled elsewhere. The “outs” who soon will replace some of the “ins” promptly will forget about their mandates from the voters the day they move into their new D.C. offices and townhomes and realize from moment one their only responsibility is to their own rational self-interest of being re-elected in 2012 and 2014 and 2016. Et tu, Barack?

    And if Benjamin Franklin is not prescient enough for you, how about the Teacher, in Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1, v.13-18, from about 2,300 years ago:

    What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted. I thought to myself, “Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief. (Emphasis added.)
    Indeed, with wisdom comes sorrow, and from more knowledge, more grief. Would, sometimes, that we could empty so much of it from the mush of our remaining gray matter and then we wouldn’t have to pretend it’s all good, when, in fact, it’s anything but good, as soon, perhaps in a matter of a few short years, we shall see.

    We first wrote the following paragraphs in June 2006, long before sub-prime lending, a bursted housing bubble, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, CitiGroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, GM, Chrysler, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and The Great Recession began to dominate our lives, when Franklin’s predictions and our inexorable slouch toward despotism first appeared on our radar screen:

    The transition from unitary executive to dictator – conservative, benevolent or otherwise – will not happen in the waning months of the current administration, so uniquely manifested by America’s First Triumvirate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and, until recently, Karl Rove, but succeeding chief executives may choose overtly to expand further the envelope-pushing and Constitution-trampling of the 43rd President and his neo-conservative command-and-control cabal as the American oligarchy, and the nation, slouches slowly toward despotism.

    As such, we will one day awake from our debt-financed, pleasure-induced stupors to find one person or group firmly in charge, answering to no one, especially not Congress, and in complete grasp of the military, the intelligence agencies, the treasury, the Federal Reserve and the financial and judicial systems. It will happen – it is happening – an inch at a time, until the day comes when not only will we, the fun-loving, celebrity-worshipping, civic-duty-abhoring citizens of America, so embrace the notion of despotism, we will think it entirely our own idea.
    Are we there yet?

    Keith Hazelton is an Adjunct Professor of Finance at Oklahoma City University’s Meinders School of Business and an Economic Adviser to the Oklahoma Bankers Association. His opinions are his own.

    • TexasChem says:

      Incredibly good read!
      Thanks for sharing!
      I’m gonna go load another hunnerd’ rounds of 5.56 now.

      • Cyndi P says:

        might be a good idea…. 😦

        ….Despite the controversy the New Black Panther Party continues to grow and expand. The National Black Power Conventions impressive lineup of guests and organizations is a testimony that the New Black Panthers Leadership has support in wide circles in the Black Community, particularly amongst grassroots organizers and entertainers.

        “With the rise of the Tea Party, the white-right and other racist forces. With gun sales nationwide at an all time high amongst whites, with a mood that is more anti-Black than any time recent, it is imperative that we organize our forces, pool our resources and prepare for war!” Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Esq. Convention Convener and Party Chairman….

        http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/05/prweb4040824.htm

        • Hi CP 🙂

          Just posting for comments today. Hope all is well!

          G!

        • TexasChem says:

          How ridiculous.
          Reverse racism at its finest.
          I have not noticed any anti-black mood trends.Hell if anything they had been the lowest in years until the Obama admin.

          Organizations such as this are the ones keeping racism alive in our society today.They just keep injecting the heroin into the veins of society.

        • TexasChem says:

          Well, since you mentioned gun sales I would like to recommend a few for home and personal defense.

          For carry you can’t beat the semi-auto Smith and Wesson MP in .357 Sig.(15 round clip and 1 in the chamber, you have the same exact ft.lbs. force as the 357 mag but instead of 7 rounds you have 16!Woohoo!115 grain corbon self defense JHP has the best performance out of this weapon I have run across.1500 fps @ 575 ft.lbs.An added bonus is that you can also buy an aftermarket barrel in .40 S&W that will drop in to the weapon allowing you to fire the .40 S&W load using the same clips since .357 Sig is essentially a necked down .40 S&W load.

          To beef up home defense I recommend the MSAR STG-E4.5.56 Nato/.223 with the 18.5 inch HBAR.
          Bullpup design,gas piston,available 42 round clip where legal!1.5x optical sight with back up irons standard.This truly is an amazing weapon.The bullpup design allows for a shorter weapon so it makes your profile smaller and is awesome for tight places and around corners for FAST target acquisition.When held it feels like an extension of your body.IMO this weapon is superior to the AR-15 hands down.You have the performance of a full length rifle in a short package.You don’t have the fouling that you normally would have with direct impingement.You’re basically running a cleaner and cooler weapon by moving the operation of the rifle from the upper receiver and bolt carrier to the front gas block.
          Add a Remington model 870 12 gauge with a forward pistol grip, cut the barrel down to your states acceptable length and run 00 Buckshot and you essentially have rounded out your personal and home defense to exactly where it needs to be!

          Now my “hunting” rifle is a 1000 yd. With (trued bolt and reciever)Weatherby MK V Synthetic chambered in 7mm Rem Remington Mag.Added a forward bi-pod and Burris Black Diamond 8X-32X 50mm scope.Plinck, Plinck, Plinck.

          I could go on and on about guns but then yall might think me some crazed right wing christian extremist that just hangs onto his religion and guns now wouldn’t you? LOL

  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Might be a bit off-topic, but then again, somewhat related in a way. I think that it is VERY important that everyone read this, it takes about 3 minutes to read:

    http://www.kitco.com/ind/Nathan/may262010.html

    • Peter,

      Very informative. I wonder about the US economy, and at times, feel I have too much information. National debt now ar 13 trillion, Senate passes financial reform and the stock market looses a thousand points, Freddy/Fannie still seeping with toxic assets and still not reformed. And this morning I heard China has a housing bubble equal or larger than the US, poised to burst.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        LOI,

        The entire world has been living a monetary “Life of Illusion” for at least 77 years now, ever since the US Government “confiscated” (a “nice” word for STOLE BY THREAT OR USE OF FORCE) the gold which was the property of the American People.

        Freedom and Liberty were already on life support before 1933, but when the government stole the people’s gold, Freedom and Liberty were finally stolen right along with it.

        EVERY economic move in the entire world since then has been a Ponzy Scheme.

        The rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle has gotten squeezed.

        This is not because of “Capitalism” as the “liberals” and “leftists” and “marxists” would have you think. Capitalism requires a free market.

        Any illustion of a free market evaporated when the government stole the gold of the people.

        • Peter,

          I agree. I suppose I am trying to think of what are the main indicators we shoul be worring about today? Possible Greek default or California’s? US spending/deficit/entitlements? Chin’s housing bubble?

          I think overall, USW article on freedom of the press might be more important, and urgent. Our losses of freedom have been acomplished by a compliant media that the USSR would envy. The best slaves don’t realize they are slaves, they think they are free….

  26. Robert Reich has finally come completely out of the closet. I have maintained that he is just another Progressive Fascist yet he continually gets on the TV trying to portray his bankrupt theories on economics.

    Well here he has exposed himself in full bloom.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-obama-should-put-bp-u_b_595346.html

    Please notice that there is an increasing cry from the “left” to “nationalize” or “take over” what ever it is that they view as a problem in the past few months. So far this is coming primarily from the likes of Reich and media darlings and celebrities, but I think it reveals the underlying philosophy.

    I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day
    JAC

    • I have to say that it is not always the intent of the Progressives which I disagree with it is the means by which they want to achieve their desires.

      • I have to ask, what part of the Progressive intent do you agree with?

        • Feeding the hungry, giving people free hospital services, not insurance, medical care.

          • I guess I see it differently. I don’t believe that is their intent at all – it is certainly what they want you to believe is their intent, however, I believe they really want to keep people down and beholden to them.

            We’ve been through this discussion countless times on SUFA, but the Progressives believe it is only government that can provide that “helping hand” (which becomes a permanent life style). There are many other ways to address this than have government “provide”.

            • I think we are using the word intent differently. I think many progressives(people-not most politicians) actually just want to help people. When we get to the people and politicians who actually want to use this as an excuse to actually destroy all our freedoms, I use a different ism to identify them. The problem I see is whatever their true intent-the outcome will be the same and unacceptable.

              • V.H.

                When I use the name Progressive I am referring to the ideological followers whose ancestors can be traced back to the late 1800’s.

                They were the forefathers of fascism. They may or may not believe in helping the poor but their primary goal is govt control and their values are supported primarily by “pragmatism”.

                Do something, we need to act now, nationalize GM, put BP in receivership. I think you get the idea. Progressives, the traditional ones, have absolutely no respect for individual freedom or liberty. They have in fact changed the meaning of those words to convince us they are really the good guys.

                Now, there are many in this country who call themselves “progressive” (small p) because they believe in “progress” and that is what they were taught in school. After all, their only alternative to being “progressive” is to be “backward”.

                So you are right, most just want to help others. But they have fallen for the Big P Progressive propaganda that ONLY Govt can do the job. After all, our society is simply to “complex” for freedom to work.

                🙂

              • As always, JAC explains things far better than I!

                Thanks!

              • 🙂 Will attempt to keep the different definitions straight.

              • V.H.

                I forgot to add that the off spring of the old “Progressive” movement were the “modern” liberal and the current “Progressive Movement” which is exemplified by Soros et al.. I believe Mr. Obama is part of that crowd.

                It is ironic that the prime trait of Progressives, namely pragmatism, is also the cause of him losing some support from the “Progressive” group after health care, bank reform and now the oil spill. They want ACTION. But the Pragmatist side says if I can’t get it all, then I will at least take one step in the direction I want.

                That is where I think we are today.

  27. Ray Hawkins says:

    Wow – lot of activity yesterday in here! Was too busy running six yards of mulch, cleaning/repairing gutters, cleaning the deck……

    I enjoyed reading this article – paints a fairly accurate portrait that the wealth of “information” has created a scenario where it is difficult to know the precise truth and form understanding and opinion that has a solid foundation. Many of the responses to the article reference shaky “factual” information in attempt to drive a particular angle (e.g. Cyndi’s re-posting of the American Thinker article).

    I did find it interesting that Katie Couric’s Sarah Palin interview(s) was so roundly criticized in the original article – here we have an enigma in Sarah Palin that was plucked from no where, thrust on the biggest of political stages and an interview that is attempting to uncover the unknown is seen as political posturing and driving an agenda – not quite sure how questions like “…what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this…” or “….what other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with” become anything other than ‘tell us what you think’? It is for me the same phenomena that attributes credibility to James O’Keefe when the Monday morning QB shows that O’Keefe lacked even rudimentary credibility.

    I think we’re permanently in a spot where, if you want to be rooted in fact, you need to do some work to ensure such. The information overload and opinion posing as fact makes it too easy to shrug one’s shoulders and just ‘run with it’. I equally admonish those whom rely on, and only on, their own experiences or what they see to state fact or generalize therein. We’re predisposed to “see” things in a way that fir our own paradigms. Challenging our own assumptions is very hard to do.

    FWIW – the venerable, avuncular Cronkite is largely recognized as the first major journalist/reporter to inject his own opinion into his reporting of the news. That was during Vietnam, some 40 years ago.

    • I agree that a lot of the stuff in that interview were seeking truth. I also agree that Palin was an out-of-nowhere anomaly. Obama was too. I got the distinct impression, however, that the interview was seeking the bad stuff in a lot of cases, and when something negative was not found, the next question was quickly jumped to.

      That said, I think Palin is attrocious as a leader. Perhaps less attrocious that many that we have, but that says almost nothing. Cat crap is less smelly that pig crap, but its all crap, and unfit for the dinner table.

      Still, overall, a balance of personal experience and trusted opinions offset by expert opinions and broad research is certainly the best path. It is hard to find truly trustworthy resources, even among those without an agenda. In the end, the “truth” of some things is difficult to discover. We can, perhaps, accurately determine what happened, but not always why.

  28. Bottom Line says:

    FLAG, BOB, & WEAPON,

    We can debate/argue/converse about the hypothetical outcomes surrounding US involvement in the European theatre till we’re blue in the face…which I might add would be rather enjoyable with a fine group of intellectuals like yourselves. But, as to not be too testy and further aggrivate Mrs. Weapon, I would suggest that we reschedule any further responses for open mic night. 🙂

    I just have to make this point…;)

    Regardless of whether it was Russia or Germany that would have established post WW2 hemogony in Europe, it wouldn’t have been Allied Europe. Europe survived without being called Deutschland or European Soviet States.

    Why? – Because The U.S.A. stepped in and changed the outcome(.)<—period.

    But that wasn't really my whole point. Perhaps I should have been a little less vague in my response to BOB.

    Here's what I was trying to say…

    All too often I hear statements made with regard to this whole Euro-American rivalry crap.

    "Americans are fat,lazy,stupid, imperialists." – "Europeans are gay socialist wimps with green teeth." – "Our system is better than your system." – "My government can beat up your government."

    …Etc, …etc…

    Europe's beloved culture and way of life, their sovereignty, their socialism…

    …All a gift given by those buried under those crosses in the above picture.(and others)

    I just thought I would remind Bob, seeing how yesterday was Memorial Day.

    North America and Europe have a LONG standing alliance that has been crucial to our mutual survival and prosperity. I think it's time we put our differences aside and at least respect each other's culture.

    I still call French Fries – "FRENCH" fries. Does anyone know about The War Of 1812?What's that big green thing on Ellis Island? How come The U.S. has so many white people?

    • TexasChem says:

      If you look at all the blunders of the war Hitlers major mistake was misjudging the soviets.He made the same mistake Napolean did.He would have succeeded with his push into the Soviet Union if America had not entered the war.America entered the war approximately six months after he invaded Russia when attacked by Japan.Without a doubt the tremendous resources made available by the “sleeping giant” once awakened was the key major decisive factor in the European theatre.Strategically in my opinion he should have dealt with Europe first before even thinking of invading Russia.He was too paranoid of Stalin though.Evidently he must have thought the US would be too busy with Japan to send much aid to Europe but he was proven wrong.If could have struck a deal with America to divide the Soviet Union up betwixt themselves and not persecuted the Jews the cold war would have been Germany vs America rather than the Soviet Union vs America!

      • I agree. Russia may have had a troop advantage, but they had to be fed. Armies require food, ammo, fuel, as well as tanks. The US material aid proped up a failing defense effort. An how long would the UK stood without US material aid? How many Liberty ships got through, and how many were sunk?

        • Hmmmm dont worry we paid for all that material, in fact we only finished paying it off in 2006.

          • No worries at all. And to say it was done to save Europe, Russia, or anyone else is not completly honest. Germany and Japan were intent on total world domination. It was in the US’s self interest to fight while we had allies, and to do it on someone elses real estate.

            And maybe WW2 is part of our problem today. We emerged as a super power, encountered the red threat and endured the cold war. Would the world have been a better place if we had not countered the USSR and China’s ambitions? Our becoming the worlds policeman did not happen overnight, and it’s a damn thankless job. We have become entrenched mentally and physically. We should withdraw from S. Korea. We should withdraw from NATO. The world has changed, and we should make changes that address
            today’s world.

            • LOI

              on total world domination

              Who ever told you this was lying.

              Japan and/or Germany had absolutely no misconceptions of their ability to “dominate” the world.

              They COMPLETELY KNEW IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

              They merely wanted to dominate THEIR REGION.

              If you sit and maintain such a (sorry if it is insulting) ignorance of the capability of either nation, it is a testament to why the WW2 is so misunderstood.

              • Sooooo, Hitler was gonna give a lot of land back after he defeated the allies? Or was his “region” all of Europe and half of Asia and Africa? Would he have stopped there? Was his blunder militarily simply impatience, or could overextension be a wee part of it?

                Maybe WORLD domination is a stretch, but Hitler was not content with a certain level of power, no one is. That’s the thing about consolidated power, that is the temptation. The desire for more never ends, there is never enough. So were the leaders of Japan and Germany bent on World domination? Yea, human psychology says so.

              • Jon

                Sooooo, Hitler was gonna give a lot of land back after he defeated the allies?

                “Give back…what?”

                He had no interest in land from France.

                Geo-politically, it is impossible to assume land that is assuredly another nation – you condemn yourself to a ‘forever’ war of insurrection and unrest.

                Don’t forget, Jon, that the surrender of France, Hitler did NOT occupy 80% of it – it became Vichy. Simply, there was no way to enforce his occupation (eventually he did occupy it after the US war entry so to try to seize the French navy and secure the South of France from Invasion).

                Hitler’s goal in the West was alliance with Britain and the return of the Allasc-Lorraine to Germany.

                He had no more designs on France then the Chinese beyond that.

                Would he have stopped there?

                He was completely predicatable. He wrote it in a book, and he applied it to the letter.

                He wanted back the Germany at pre-WW1 borders – meaning most of Poland, Czech, Lorraine, etc.

                No where in any document was there a desire for Empire.

                He did want to destroy Communism – hence, Russia – and felt that the self-interest of the Western Democracies would ally with him.

                Was his blunder militarily simply impatience, or could overextension be a wee part of it?

                Nope, it was all merely idol worship.

                He worshiped Mussolini and when push came to shove, he rescued his hero – to the cost of his entire nation.

                Had he ignored Mussolini and let Greece defeat Italy, Russia would have probably capitulated by Winter, 1942/ Spring 1943.

                The desire for more never ends, there is never enough. So were the leaders of Japan and Germany bent on World domination? Yea, human psychology says so.

                Nope, wrong psychology.

                Hitler wanted “his” Germany back.

                Japan wanted resources out of China.

                Neither had any ideas of “world” anything beyond that.

                Don’t buy into the myth that tries to justify the mass slaughter of millions of innocent Japanese and Germans on the belief the slaughter prevented some “global” empire.

                Japan simply is not big enough by population.

                Germany is simply not big enough by population AND it is essentially land-locked.

                Simple geography betrays the lies of “global” domination.

              • Yet he still went after sovereign nations based on some mythical right or history, much like what you accuse the Israelis of doing. Also, it is interesting that with all the stuff you said about other fronts not mattering, only Russia, you are now saying Greece is why he lost?

                You may be right that the initial goals of Japan and Germany were not world domination, but they were willing to attack other nations to get what they wanted. Had they won, maybe they would have just had treaties with other nations and kept only part of the territory, but that is not the end of things. It would have continued at another time, most likely. Besides all that, Hitler’s designs on a master race, etc. were a lot farther reaching than gobbling up a couple extra nations. Don’t think the power did not mess with him and he just had “modest goals”.

              • Jon

                Yet he still went after sovereign nations based on some mythical right or history, much like what you accuse the Israelis of doing.

                Hmmm, not quite.

                Israel wants its Kingdom that mythically existed 4,000 years ago.

                Hitler wanted the same Germany he had when he fought in WW1.

                He was sorta 3 order of magnitude more “recent” in years in his dreams.

                Also, it is interesting that with all the stuff you said about other fronts not mattering, only Russia, you are now saying Greece is why he lost?

                Greece cost him time.

                60 days.

                The difference between looking at St. Peter cathedral and being inside St. Peter’s cathedral.

                Hitler still had a chance to win in the Summer of ’42.

                But had he those lost 60 days, he would have won in the Summer of ’41.

                You may be right that the initial goals of Japan and Germany were not world domination, but they were willing to attack other nations to get what they wanted.

                Yep.

                Had they won, maybe they would have just had treaties with other nations and kept only part of the territory, but that is not the end of things. It would have continued at another time, most likely. Besides all that, Hitler’s designs on a master race, etc.

                “Master” race theory carried only so far as a propaganda tool to empower Germans – it was never a “enforcement” on the world.

                Hitler used it to justify German occupation – not a reason to dominate the “globe”.

                It was a justification for occupation not a casus belli

            • LOI,

              Mutual self deference treaties are arguably moral.

              Clinton destroyed NATO, IMO.

              His use of NATO to attack Yugoslavia was a the death blow. After that, NATO became an offensive based policy weapon – and like the Eastern Bloc, is doomed.

    • BL,

      Excellent post on #5. Have wanted to respond, but you have a lot there, and time is not on my side.

      • Bottom Line says:

        JAC,

        I’m glad you found some value in my post. I could have posted a great deal more info, but would have filled up SUFA. lol.

        If you should find the time, I’d be more than delighted to hear you weigh in. If not, there is always another day.

    • BL all I wanted to do was correct a false statement, I have actually heard Americans say “If it werent for us….” to my face and expect me to thank them for a war they took no part in. The point I wanted to make is that western education systems do not really take into account what happened in Russia, we should be studying what happened on the Eastern front instead of the Western if we want to understand the downfall of the third reich.

      I still do not for the life of me understand how we go from, huh European girls have hairy armpits -> huh American girls are fat -> AMERICA SAVED YOUR SORRY ASSES IN WW2, USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. As an obviously tongue in cheek tit for tat why did you bring up such a subject?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Okay Bob,

        Our conversation has been split in two, so I will paste the above down here.

        Above:

        BL – “Bob,

        It’s not that I don’t give the Russians due credit. I do.

        They were by far our most powerful ally.

        I never said that the US were the only ones fighting.

        I’m not trying to make it out like Russia didn’t play a big role.

        Without the Russians, victory in Europe would have been impossible.

        The Russians sustained HALF of the casualties of the ENTIRE war all by themselves.

        I’ve studied the eastern front and I know better than to dispute their crucial importance.

        They took the brunt of it.

        I get it.

        It wasn’t my point to be dismissive of them at all.

        My point is that we played a crucial role in the outcome of the war and European occupation, hence my saying “When The US jumped in the European theatre, it effectively tipped the scales in favor of the Allies.”.

        Germany and Russia were having a hell of a time with each other, so when the US stepped in, Germany caved.

        Because our troops were there, Europe remained free from German and/or Russian occupation.”

        Bob – “I still do not for the life of me understand how we go from, huh European girls have hairy armpits -> huh American girls are fat -> AMERICA SAVED YOUR SORRY ASSES IN WW2, USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. As an obviously tongue in cheek tit for tat why did you bring up such a subject?”

        BL – In respons to LOI’s story of how armpit shaving got started, Weapon said -“I guess they never ran that ad campaign in Europe….”

        This to me was just a clever statement of the obvious. It isn’t as common for European women to shave their armpits. I’ve been to Europe. There are generally more women that do not shave their pits there. If armpit shaving started from an ad campaign, then they obviously “never ran that ad campaign in Europe”

        Then you(Bob) said …”Sorry US as a European I will have to take offence to that. In rebuttal – (insert link to fat american next to euro chick in a thong here)”

        This was what I interpreted as an obvious attempt at typical petty American-Euro competetive one-upsmanship, so I decided to jump in and throw the trump card.

        Memorial Day probably wasn’t the best day for a European to be critical of the US. I spent a couple of hours yesterday watching old war footage of my grandfather’s ‘comrads’ getting shot up over foreigners that had babies that grew up to call us fat.

        Armpits to war – what can I say?

        At least we’re having fun. I know I am.

        🙂

        • By bringing up the subject in such a light hearted joke trivializes the deaths of those men, they should not be used as a “trump” card, you disrespect them by doing so. Having been to the Normandy American cemetry I dont need to be reminded of their sacrifice.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Geeze, We’re starting to sound like two 9 year olds fighting over a GI-Joe doll. But, what the hell…

            Light hearted joke?

            I could be wrong, but I’m not so sure it was as light HEARTED as you’re making it out to be.

            Seemed kinda like a jab to me. You took offense to what Weapon said and responded with a cut. (Oh yeah…well we’re better than you cuz you’re all fat-asses, take that.)

            I in turn, responded with a reminder of part of the reason you have it so nice there. I don’t see that as trivial or disrespectful. If I did, I wouldn’t have said/typed it.

            • If I mean to cause offence you will know it. The fact that you described the deaths of those American soldiers as a trump card does show disrespect.

              I go over to France quite a bit and we have little jabs at each others culture and lifestyles, I would never in a discussion show them a picture of English cemeteries in France and say “These men died so you could say those things!!!”. Please dont say anything like that again, I am sure those soldiers would not like to be used like that in such a petty discussion.

  29. The government always seems to have a way of finding a possible cure which is worse than the problem-to much information is never worse than too little-both situations bring with them the responsibility of trying to decipher the truth. But the truth in this situation is that the public finally has a way to point out the truth about our media. To point out the fact that we need more information in order to counterpoint their manipulation. The fact that some blogs and such also manipulates is unavoidable. But if people want to ignore the contradictions and just focus on their viewpoint-the problem obviously isn’t too much information.

  30. Good discussions!

    Regarding the main post, let’s not forget Obama’s recent grad speech where he mentioned something like, “too much information is a distraction, ie not a good thing”.

    • Mathius says:

      Too much of anything is a bad thing.

      I like water. Give me too much and I drown.

      • I like information, give me to much and I ????

        • Mathius says:

          I like information. Give me too much and I… SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST!

          ..

          If you just have too much to process and you can’t trust it all, but you can’t research it all, so you don’t know what to think, so you accept some and not others and your head gets filled up with information and misinformation and the only way you know which is which is to come to SUFA where Black Flag (the self-appointed arbiter of truth) will bust you like a pinata if you say something he disagrees with, but you can’t do that for all the information because there’s just too much, so you take what you think you know and you go out into the real world and act on it, but sometimes you act incorrectly because the underlying information was false and other times you disseminate false information inadvertently to others who are also too inundated with blogs and facebook and twitter feeds of brain-droppings and the cycle perpetuates itself until you… spontaneously combust!

          • I’ll take the risk 🙂 I wondered how you would interpret my play on words or symbol to be more correct. Were my words a question or a statement? 🙂

            • Mathius says:

              I took it as a request for more information.

              • HeHeHe-Good answer!!! I’ll give you a smiley point 😉 Unfortunately my points are not backed by anything but a smile and an acknowledgement of your cleverness.

              • Mathius says:

                I’ll take it! My favorite points are still Pirate Points though since they’re valued at approx $28,000 each.

              • I really need to have a talk with the pirate. I would really prefer a check in lue of beer. Would even take a small discount. Since he can probably get that amount of beer at a discounted rate.

              • Mathius says:

                I am unaware of anyone making a cash market in pirate points.. Perhaps the Dread Pirate will buy them..?

          • Mathius,

            There is a very successful rule to information.

            If, on a topic, you do not have enough information about it, but you do not have the time (or will) to get up on it, the topic is not important for you. Move on.

            Nature takes care of your information overload. IF the topic was important, you’d already done work on it. IF the topic suddenly becomes important, you’ll spend the time learning.

            But because you didn’t care before, and now can’t allocate the time – it can’t be that important.

            • Mathius says:

              That’s a lousy rule.

              Most people don’t have the time or will to become informed about politics, but it is integral to modern living. They should not just “move on”, but rather should slog through the information and become informed. Maybe then we could fix some of the problems (or maybe they’d agree with you and vote to abolish it entirely).

              Since they don’t, the politicos just play them like violins and they calmly moo as they waltz into the two-party slaughterhouse.

              • Mathius,

                You make your typical assumption – that what appears important TO YOU must be important!

                Politics may or may not play a key role in a persons life – it is arguable either way.

                However, for most people, they just don’t think its that important.

                If they did, they would do something (or like me, do absolutely nothing).

                But they don’t, so by their effort, they demonstrate its lack of importance to them.

                However, your typical solution – the point of gun – will probably motivate them to make it important!

              • Mathius says:

                I don’t force them to pay attention, but to say that it doesn’t play an integral role in the lives of most Americans is simply, demonstrably, false. Period.

                Almost everything you buy is taxed. Your income is taxed. Your currency is standardized. Your roads are built and (at least partially) maintained. The military guards you. The government tells you what you can and cannot do. It regulates broad swaths of the economy. It controls the airspace and the airwaves.

                Unless you are living in a cave in the Dakotas, the government impacts on your life in a significant way every single day. Even you, who “do[es] nothing” would have to admit that it has a major impact on your daily life.

                I can think that gravity is not important to me too, but this would not make it true.

              • Mathius,

                The argument is NOT whether you can make an argument about the impact of politics.

                The argument is: such an argument is meaningless to most Americans, therefore it is NOT important to THEM

          • Wow, that was combustion? I thought it was evolving pains….

  31. Something a little bird sent me.

    Help Stop the Government Takeover of the Internet.
    Contact Congress Now!

    Dear Fellow Conservative,

    Let me get right to the point. We need your help!

    The Obama Administration is moving full steam ahead with its plans to take over every sector of the U.S. economy. First it was the auto industry, then the health care, energy and financial sectors.

    And now, the Obama Administration is also advancing a plan for a government takeover of the Internet!

    That’s right. On April 6th, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. made it clear that under current law the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has absolutely no legal authority to impose stifling and unnecessary regulations on the Internet. But instead of accepting the court’s ruling, President Obama and his pals at the FCC announced recently that they are just going to ignore it.

    Specifically, the administration’s plan now is to quickly side step Congress and arbitrarily change the law so that they can regulate the Internet using arcane rules written in the 1930s for outdated telephone lines.

    The FCC’s announcement has already flooded the financial markets with uncertainty. And, if Obama’s scheme to take over the Internet is successful, the result is sure to stifle Internet innovation, cost American jobs and bring to a halt the billions of dollars in private investment that American broadband companies are investing in high speed Internet networks.

    The folks at MoveOn.org and other ultra-liberal organizations are euphemistically calling the regulations that will lead to a government takeover of the Internet “Net Neutrality.”

    Don’t be fooled. “Net Neutrality” is anything but neutral. Indeed, it is an unnecessary solution in search of a major problem.

    Specifically, Net Neutrality regulations, as proposed by President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission, would virtually eliminate broadband companies’ ability to manage their own networks, prevent web congestion and provide consumers with a safe, secure and reliable connection to the Internet.

    As the editors of The Wall Street Journal recently wrote, “FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski did their dirty work this week by announcing that he plans to reclassify broadband lines so his agency can regulate them under rules that were written for Ma Bell in the 1930s. This means subjecting the Internet to new political supervision—from the federal government and 50 state public utility commissions. The goal is to put one more industry under Washington’s political thumb.”

    Why make government bureaucrats in Washington the gatekeepers of one of the few bright spots of our nation’s struggling economy – an Internet sector that continues to innovate, thrive, create jobs and provide enormous benefit for consumers?

    Proponents of so-called “Net Neutrality” believe that all Internet infrastructure and online content should constitute public property – owned, operated and regulated by the government.
    And if the Obama Administration is successful in its efforts to commandeer the Internet’s infrastructure, you better believe they will move to regulate Internet content next.

    Perhaps that’s why Representative Marsha Blackburn appropriately calls Net Neutrality, “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”

    The failure of the Left on talk radio is well documented, so are they now turning to the Internet to solidify their political power and silence their critics – anyone who still believes in freedom and liberty?

    Fortunately, there is still time to stand up for growth and innovation and oppose yet another government takeover.

    Take Action: Tell Congress to Stop the
    Government Takeover of the Internet!

    Yours in Freedom,

    Jeffrey Mazzella
    President
    Center for Individual Freedom

  32. Cyndi P says:

    BL- I would suggest that you smoke a joint, take a poop, and eat some Fruit-loops.

    Cyndi P – effing hell, funny! I’m using that one! 😆

    • Bottom Line says:

      If a joint, a healthy dump, and some froot-loops don’t fix it, nothing will, …except for the laughter from the suggestion itself.

      I can’t claim originality. I heard a comedian say it about 20 years ago on A&E’s ” A Night At The Improv”.

      It stuck.

  33. Murphy's Law says:

    USW,

    Would you email me so I can have your email address? Sorry to use blog space for this, but I clicked on the link to email you and got some message that amounted to you can’t get there from here. Not sure what the problem is….

    Murf

  34. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    USW, your article was as success! After reading everything, the media has not been truthfull with us at all. The WWII subject that came up, and argued, for what reason I can’t seem to find, of the different views as how things happened. All of this knowledge displayed by the parties could all hold merit, but the media, including all journalists, have given many different views, of which the parties argued over.

    Yes, we must stop the any legislation against freedom of the press, as they have made a mockery of truth and honesty. But the MSM and such do provide needed entertainment, and what would we talk about if they were contolled by Big Brother! They would make local and world news 2 minute commercials and we’d get reruns of I Love Lucy at 6pm! 😆

    G!

    • Thought this would get a laugh or two!

      • Media, in all it’s forms, should always remain free. I give an example of a song from the late 80’s, I’ve heard this song a thousand times, but just finally got it’s meaning. Listen and hear if you get the anti-new world order words. It’s like Flag wrote this about the future that me befront us all!

  35. Bottom Line,

    BF – “Germany caved

    TOTAL BULLCRAP!”

    BL – I could be wrong, and I suppose that would be because I have been looking at the loyalist propaganda textbooks through rose colored glasses, BUT, I thought Germany surrendered to the allied forces on June 5, 1945.

    Germany caved – not because of the Western Allies, but because the Russians took Berlin

    Don’t muddle the influence of Western Allied forces with German capitulation.

    Without Russia, WW2 would be a German victory – with or without American intervention. Without or without America, German would have surrendered to Russia.

    I thought that The US played a pivital role in assisting with the defeat of Germany.

    Important – yes, but not at all to the defeat of Germany.

    Important to the saving of Europe out of the hands of Stalin.

    Pivotal – not one bit to the defeat of Germany. Pivotal to the saving of Europe from Russia.

    The best the Western Alliance can claim is that they saved Western Europe from being overrun by Russians.

    ..and make no mistake, that is core and vital.

    But that has no difference to the defeat of Germany

    Russia defeated Germany.

    America won WW2….

    …and I mean “won” by the gains of post-WW2, not by battlefield victory.

    USA emerged out of WW2 the dominate world power. It suffered minor causalities, and no war on its homeland. It emerged economically and military stronger than any other nation on Earth while carrying an essentially undamaged home base.

    Russia won militarily – big time – and to the great fortune of civilized world, the cost of such a victory was too high to defeat Germany for it to have any strength to press into Western Europe against USA/Allies.

    BL – Yeah, I get it. Remember the day I explained to Todd how it must feel to be you?…and how frustrating it must be dealing with relatively stupid people all of the time?

    No!

    You misread read that post!!

    I do NOT believe others are “relatively” stupid at all!

    I DO get frustrated at feigned or purposed ignorance.

    But at honest disagreement, when backed with real thoughtful opinion – even if I disagree – will never receive “you’re just stupid” response from me. I’ve been shown to be wrong too many times even here on SUFA (and a thousand times more at other times as well) to suggest I’m some how immune to incorrect or misinformed opinion.

    BF – “…self-molested ignorance …horrifically misplaced loyalty…confluence of errors…”

    BL – I’m not sure I agree with your assessment, but I do see your point.

    Ok, enlighten me.

    Explain to me why the US gives another nation – 3,000+ miles away – more loyalty then its own citizens?

    Israel has bombed US citizens to further its aims (Kind David Hotel)

    Israel attacked USS Liberty to further its aims.

    Israel has stolen national secrets, confound US relations internationally, undermined US strategic goals.

    Yet, for the life of me, I do not see any value in an Israeli alliance so significant as to ignore all these direct and purposeful attacks on US interests and citizenry.

    So, you must believe there is something.

    I await your disclosure.

    • Bottom Line says:

      BF – “Germany caved – not because of the Western Allies, but because the Russians took Berlin”

      BL – Correction: Germany caved – not only because the Russians took Berlin but also because of the Western Allies”

      BF – “Don’t muddle the influence of Western Allied forces with German capitulation.”

      BL – Don’t seperate it either. Hitler and company knew they were screwed. They were trying to figure whether or not it was possible to stop the Russians, then we showed up. They said ‘forget it, it aint happenin”.

      BF – “Without Russia, WW2 would be a German victory – with or without American intervention. Without or without America, German would have surrendered to Russia.”

      BL – I don’t doubt it, but how long would it have taken before Germany was defeated? Would they have been fighting for another few years? How many would have died?

      Where we disagree, is that you act as if the US played virtually NO role in the defeat of Germany.

      I.E. – BF – “Important – yes, but not at all to the defeat of Germany.” “Pivotal – not one bit to the defeat of Germany.”

      ?!?!?!?!?”…not at all… not one bit…” ?!?!?!?!?

      BF – “Important to the saving of Europe out of the hands of Stalin.”

      BL – …and Hitler

      BF – “Russia defeated Germany. America won WW2….”

      BL – The allies defeated Germany. The allies won WW2…. Russia kicked ass.”

      BF – “No!

      You misread read that post!!

      I do NOT believe others are “relatively” stupid at all!

      I DO get frustrated at feigned or purposed ignorance.

      But at honest disagreement, when backed with real thoughtful opinion – even if I disagree – will never receive “you’re just stupid” response from me. I’ve been shown to be wrong too many times even here on SUFA (and a thousand times more at other times as well) to suggest I’m some how immune to incorrect or misinformed opinion.”

      BL – I’m not saying that you think people are stupid. You don’t come off as condecending IMO. And I know you’re a typically fallable human, and not a supercomputer disguised as a pirate anarchist. Perhaps the word “stupid” in inappropriate. I meant to use it loosely.

      I’m just sayin’ I can understand how you can get frustrated with those of a lesser intellect…Which includes most everyone.

      (from “Guest Commentary – Limits on Knowledge” by Black Flag
      Nov 7th 2009 @ 1:09 PM) BF – “I have been measured to a degree to claim if I walk into any completely filled sports stadium in the world, I am assured I have the highest IQ there…Yes, I am a Mensa member”

      I can only imagine what it must be like to look through your mind’s eye.

      As I explained to Todd that day…(don’t ask me to go dig it up, I have no idea where it is, I just remember the conversation)…It must be like living in a town full of color-blind people. Try all you want to describe orange, but all they see is brown. They’ll never get it. They are incapable of seeing what you see.

      BF – “Ok, enlighten me.

      Explain to me why the US gives another nation – 3,000+ miles away – more loyalty then its own citizens?

      Israel has bombed US citizens to further its aims (Kind David Hotel)

      Israel attacked USS Liberty to further its aims.

      Israel has stolen national secrets, confound US relations internationally, undermined US strategic goals.

      Yet, for the life of me, I do not see any value in an Israeli alliance so significant as to ignore all these direct and purposeful attacks on US interests and citizenry.

      So, you must believe there is something.”

      BL – Okay, This I misinterpreted. I didn’t realize that you were talking about the Israel situation.

      I don’t have much to say as I haven’t followed it other than today’s conversations. For the most part, I could care less what Israel does or doesn’t do…so long as they don’t attack OUR ships AGAIN.

      I’m up way past my bed time again. Goodnight Mr. Flag and SUFA.

      • BL

        BF – “Germany caved – not because of the Western Allies, but because the Russians took Berlin”

        BL – Correction: Germany caved – not only because the Russians took Berlin but also because of the Western Allies”

        BL, the point is this.

        With or without the Western Allies, Germany was doomed.

        The Allies in the West may have sped up the defeat, but functionally, they were irrelevant to the defeat.

        They were trying to figure whether or not it was possible to stop the Russians, then we showed up. They said ‘forget it, it aint happenin”.

        When “we” showed up?

        You do remember that US appeared on the scene in 1942 and did essentially nothing until summer 1944 – well long after the war was over for the Germans.

        Stalingrad was over in Feb. 1943, and Germans final hope – the Battle of Kursk – was over in August 1943 – a year before any American boots in France

        No, the “we” showing up made zip of a difference to the defeat of Germany.

        but how long would it have taken before Germany was defeated?

        Russia crossed into Poland in July/Sept 1944 – pushing Germany back from the edge of the Volga to Poland in a year – while facing the core of the German Army.

        As Germans got closer to fighting near their borders, their resistance stiffened – however, Germany would have fallen in around the same time it did, with or without Western Allies, May/June/July 1945.

        Would they have been fighting for another few years? How many would have died?

        It would not be “years”. Russia rolled back the German Army 2,000 miles in a year.

        It would have been a few months, at worse (notwithstanding some military miracle and Russia catastrophe)

        Where we disagree, is that you act as if the US played virtually NO role in the defeat of Germany.

        Correct, it played virtually NO ROLE in the defeat of Germany.

        It played a SUBSTANTIAL ROLE in preventing the Red Army from seizing Europe.

        I.E. – BF – “Important – yes, but not at all to the defeat of Germany.” “Pivotal – not one bit to the defeat of Germany.”

        ?!?!?!?!?”…not at all… not one bit…” ?!?!?!?!?

        NOT
        ONE
        BIT
        …to the defeat of Germany

        REALLY
        A
        LOT
        OF
        BITS
        …to saving Europe from Soviets.

        BF – “Important to the saving of Europe out of the hands of Stalin.”

        BL – …and Hitler

        Nope, Hitler lost everything in Feb. 1943.

        I can only imagine what it must be like to look through your mind’s eye.

        “Ignorance is bliss,

        Knowledge is pain,

        For with knowledge one’s illusions are dispelled and one sees the worlds as it is, not as one wishes it was.

        And that seeing is painful.”

  36. A good one for the end of the day. When anything fails…..just blame GWB! (Warning….disgusting photo)

    Al Gore and Wife Tipper to Separate

    Al Gore was the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2000, ultimately losing a controversial election for former President George W. Bush.

    Family friend Sally Quinn told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote may have done the marriage irreparable harm.

    “He’s obviously suffered a lot,” Quinn said. “He’ll never get over that and neither will she.”

    Read all the “gorey” details here:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006438-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

  37. Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100531&utm_content=readmore&elq=a4237e389e4f4a858c900842b2cc4419

    By George Friedman

    On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

    Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal.

    The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

    A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger.

    Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas.

    In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

    The ‘Exodus’ Scenario

    In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus.

    When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

    There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews.

    Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

    It was a brilliant strategy.

    By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust.

    The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

    The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter.

    For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

    The success was rooted in a political reality.

    Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols.

    [BF: This is so important to understand within the context of USWep’s initial post and the saga of the Israeli/Flotilla assault]

    And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in.

    By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

    In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments.

    It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.
    The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza

    The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism.

    Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

    The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis.

    The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however.

    The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables.

    And this is where the flotilla comes in.

    The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project.

    As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

    Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends.

    The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

    The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel

    It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot.

    Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

    In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion.

    It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim.

    The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed.

    Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

    The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel.

    The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

    With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

    Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. >/i>

    Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations.

    The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel.

    For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel.

    The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

    The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked.

    Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct.

    But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

    Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

    While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel.

    Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now.

    Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat.

    Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation.

    The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

    The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold.

    As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic.

    It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

    [BF-The Palestinians have a penchant of doing exactly the wrong thing at the most inopportune time – I expect they will begin firing rockets into Israel as a response and thus, undermine their newest and strongest ally, Turkey]

    Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either.
    [BF – No kidding]

    But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

    And this will cause a political crisis in Israel.

    If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

    …….

    Much of what I posted earlier but much better articulated by Stratfor.

  38. Jon,

    Alright you two, this is elementary strategy stuff. Russia did not beat Germany. The US also did not beat Germany. Germany fighting a two front war, plus a small bleed in North Africa defeated Germany.

    Nope, not even close.

    As Bob pointed out, a few hundred thousand troops that were locked in the Death-struggle in the Eastern Front – if available for France – would be more than a match for the Allied assaults in the West.

    The Western Alliance never faced more than 60 divisions between the Med, Balkans, North Africa and France, compared to the nearly 200 divisions facing Russia.

    Bluntly, it did not matter what happened in the West – all that mattered was what happened in the East.

    A German victory of Russia would have won the war for Germany.

    A Russian victory over Germany ended the war for Germany.

    Nothing else really counted.

    Great Britain was the only thing left on the Western front, and had the US not jumped in, Hitler may well have defeated Russia eventually, because Britain was not able to continue without US help, and so they were little more than a nuisance.

    As of Spring 1942, the war in the West was essentially over. France was defeated, England lay exhausted and isolated. In any measure, the trheat was non-existent, and time was on the German side.

    U-boats were devastating the British economy and survivability, and eventually Britain would come to terms. As I said, time was on the Germans side in the West.

    North Africa was nothing without Allied support either, so the full force of Germany and the total of European production would have eventually overcome Russia, providing Hitler did not push too fast.

    Too much is made up of “pushing too fast”. What does that mean? Hitler did not out run his supply line – so what does “going too fast” mean in military terms to you?

    North Africa was a best a comic theater. Hitler wanted the Suez so to eliminate British interests in the Med and turn it to a Fascist lake. But other than that, it held little strategic value. Germany was not a maritime power nor was Italy.

    He pushed too fast at first, but German generals were not idiots. Rommel was one out of many. The two front war was not Hitler’s only error, but technology, strategy, etc. were still powerful aspects of the German force.

    But it wasn’t a two front war by winter 1941. Because of hindsight, much is made of Germany’s failure to completely subdue Britain, but in fact by 1941, Britain WAS subdued.

    But consider: even if Britain came to terms with Germany after the fall of France, there would be no guarantee Britain would remain out of the war regardless of agreement once Germany committed her invasion of Russia!

    Churchill was more than sufficiently duplicitous to attack Germany if and when he said Germany bogged down in Russia – regardless of some “piece of paper”.

    So even if Germany was successful in wrenching some sort of armistice or neutrality of Britain, in the long run, it would have been meaningless when Germany became overwhelmed by Russia.

    Russia did not have this power. They had large tanks and a large army, but they were not industrialized as well.</blockquote

    Bulldonkey!

    Stalin's single brilliant idea was to -literally- box up all the factories; brick by brick; and move them to Manchuria. He lost nearly nothing of his industrialized base to the German advance.

    Russia produced arguable the best mass-produced battle tank of the war – T34 – hardly a "lack" of industrialization or technology. Indeed, it was revolutionary in its design of a sloped-front – essentially doubling the armor resistance and far superior technically in that design than any tank of its day.

    Furthermore, their strategy for slowing the German advance was to destroy as they retreated. That means that they made supply difficult for rapid advance, but it would make their own advance and recapture slow as well, such that German defeat by Russia, even over time, would be quite impossible without a major distraction, another front. A front Britain could not mount alone.

    Russia suffered no serious supply issues within Russia beyond typical Russian supply problems that always plague them.

    Germans suffered partisan attacks within the occupied territories – a serious impediment not felt by Russians!

    Hitler’s impatient attack on Russia,

    Why do you believe he was impatient??? Stalin’s memoirs indicate he was going to attack Germany in 1943 or 1944, so Hitler’s preemptive attack was pure genius.

    Further it was Hitler’s lack of haste that was his undoing. His error was to involve himself in Italy’s misbegotten adventure into Greece, requiring Hitler to invade Yugoslavia and then enter Greece to save Italy.

    That DELAY cost Hitler the war. Instead of a Spring Offensive – it became a Summer and that missing 60 days difference cost Hitler his Moscow prize.

    • Perhaps we have indeed read different history. I am sure that it part of this. Still, much of what you say proves my point:

      Britain was subdued. Absolutely. They were until THE US ENTERED THE WAR IN FORCE!

      A win in Russia meant a win for Germany. Absolutely, that is what I said, but you assume that the revitalization of the western front had NO EFFECT. This is a strategic blunder. There is more to military operation than troop numbers. Supply was a key factor, fuel being one of the biggest ones. Fuel was actually an issue that plagued the advance of the German army more than nearly any other, thing, and a lot of that was because of the splitting of fuel supply. This is according to German tank division commanders from all three fronts. There was also the distribution of strategic thought and leadership. German commanders were moved all over the place, and were punished gravely for losses. This, again, according to German commanders.

      The assumption that the Western front was irrelevant is baseless. What is that based on exactly? Just because of the losses in Russia, you assume that the rest does not matter? Has it occurred to you that even a small impact from elsewhere had a major effect on the Eastern front? There is no way that even the “less than 60 divisions” can be considered no drain at all on the eastern front. Just because it was a smaller front, does not mean it did not consume a lot of resources, resources that could have tipped the balance in Russia.

      As for impatience, had Hitler waited until he had the resources, he could have done well. As for the pre-emptive attack, I am not sure that all historians agree on that one. Even if that were the case, it was not just delay that lost the war. The Western front did use a lot of resources, perhaps, if Stalin did indeed attack, and if indeed the intervention of the US was irrelevant, then Hitler never had a chance at all, because he did not have enough resources to move when he did.

      I am still not trying to idolize the US intervention or say that it was the only factor or the big key. To say that it was irrelevant, however, is completely ridiculous. To say that Britain holding on as long as it did was irrelevant is ridiculous. Even to say that North Africa was irrelevant is ridiculous. All of it cost Germany. Getting tied up in Italian blunders was a factor, so was Russia’s T-34, and a whole host of other factors. IT IS ALL A FACTOR! Biasing your answer to make a point only destroys the credibility of the point you are making.

      As far as the superiority of the Russian tank, I am not sold on that either. There were major tactical weaknesses in the Russian tanks, including maneuverability and poor rear armor.

      Supply lines in Russia coming back across did not have partisan attacks in their own country. Wow, big surprise. They had limited transportation issues, but that is understandable too, they used the methods the Germans had salvaged or rebuilt to move troops and supplies. They faced little opposition once they hit their own border because Germany was already folding, facing the losses on the Western front (territorial ones, not troops per se), the foreign nations they invaded were vitalized, the German people, realizing it was over and drained of most available capable of fighting, put up little or no partisan resistance.

      War, just like individual combat, is almost more about psychological effect than it is about physical ability. This is a big part of why Germany got as far as it did. The nationalism inspired the production level and the fight of the German Army, the early “victories” created by European pacifism gave the Germans territory, but more so they gained will to fight and belief in victory. The next victories brought about by fast victories with relatively few German casualties had a similar effect. D-Day, even if you could argue that it was not a major victory in terms of troop and equipment casualties on the German side, was a major psychological blow from Hitler on down.

      Would Hitler have won without America? I don’t know, maybe Russia would has still beaten him. Would Europe have fallen totally to Stalin in that case? Who knows, they might have been equally overextended, leading to an even earlier collapse of Communism than occurred because of the relative size and mentality of all of Europe. Maybe the attitude of Europe would not be so socialist in that case. Maybe Germany would have won without the distraction and drain of the revitalized western front, and then who knows. Maybe they would have seen a fast end to fascism because of the relative weight of population that eventually want freedom. Maybe not. You cannot sideline this and say what could have happened any more accurately than I can. I will say that, while I agree the American history books greatly discount the Eastern front, it is silliness to think that it was the ONLY front in the war. Again, strategic theory flies in the face of that concept, even a small second front has a massive effect.

      • Jon

        Perhaps we have indeed read different history. I am sure that it part of this. Still, much of what you say proves my point:

        Britain was subdued. Absolutely. They were until THE US ENTERED THE WAR IN FORCE!

        First US troops landed in England in Jan. 1943. Well, well before then Operation Sea Lion was canceled by the Germans.

        “Sea Lion” was not canceled because of US war entry. It was canceled due to the failure of the German Army in Russia.

        So, the point. With or without USA, Britain was saved due to the failure of the Germans in Russia.

        US entry made not one wit of difference to this.

        A win in Russia meant a win for Germany. Absolutely, that is what I said, but you assume that the revitalization of the western front had NO EFFECT.

        Not
        One
        Bit
        …to the defeat of Germany. Germany was done-for by Aug. 1943 at the Battle of Kursk.

        This is a strategic blunder.

        The strategic blunder was Yugoslavia/Greek invasion. For no substantial strategic reason other than the embarrassment of defeat of Italy, Germany ultimately lost her entire war

        Of course, that was not obvious then to anyone at that time – it appeared that the invincibility of the German forces continued unabated.

        The assumption that the Western front was irrelevant is baseless. What is that based on exactly?

        Based on the FACT that the first American boots in France happened in June 1944, as the Russians were sitting on in the Baltic States and in the middle of Poland, and were busy sweeping through the Balkans toward Yugoslavia.

        Just because of the losses in Russia, you assume that the rest does not matter?

        No! It mattered!

        It mattered NOT in the way you wish to claim – that is, it DID NOT MATTER to the defeat of Germany.

        It COMPLETELY MATTERED to the saving of Europe from the Soviets.

        Has it occurred to you that even a small impact from elsewhere had a major effect on the Eastern front? There is no way that even the “less than 60 divisions” can be considered no drain at all on the eastern front.

        Those “60” divisions were typically units withdrawn from the front for rest and reinforcement.

        In other words, they would go “somewhere else” anyway. Putting them in France vs. Greece or Denmark really didn’t matter.

        Just because it was a smaller front, does not mean it did not consume a lot of resources, resources that could have tipped the balance in Russia.

        Almost no resources for the majority of the war 1942 to 1944, and only after the defeat of Germany was already obvious (fall 1943)

        As for impatience, had Hitler waited until he had the resources, he could have done well.

        What resources?

        Hitler never had a chance at all, because he did not have enough resources to move when he did.

        The Germans had two, huge opportunities and they seized both of them.

        First one, catch the Russians by surprise as they were staging their vast army right against their most Western borders in prep for the Soviet assault Westward.

        Germans caught millions of troops in encirclement. Had Stalin organized his forces for defense, Germans would probably not have prevailed in 1941.

        But the loss of 60 days prevented the Germans from capturing Moscow and Leningrad.

        The Summer offensive of 1942 toward the Caucuses again caught the Russians unprepared. The battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle in modern history. Should it have fallen, the Germans had no natural barriers to mobility until they hit the Urals – all of European Russia would have fallen.

        Stalingrad became an all-in bet by both Russia and Germany.

        The winter of 42/43 proved the undoing of the Germans.

        I am still not trying to idolize the US intervention or say that it was the only factor or the big key. To say that it was irrelevant, however, is completely ridiculous. To say that Britain holding on as long as it did was irrelevant is ridiculous. Even to say that North Africa was irrelevant is ridiculous. All of it cost Germany.

        Africa Corp was not more than a ONE Light German Division and Eight Italian – out of the over 250 divisions of German Army.

        Give me a break! Hardly relevant other than for Hollywood movie ticket sales.

        There were major tactical weaknesses in the Russian tanks, including maneuverability and poor rear armor.

        Fortunately for tanks, the gun is in the front and if you’re Russian you have only one way to attack – forward – since the NKVD was behind you ready to execute those that retreated.

        facing the losses on the Western front (territorial ones, not troops per se)

        Bullcrap!

        Russia was INSIDE POLAND by the time Americans landed in France.

        So what “territorial losses in the West” are you dreaming about?

        D-Day, even if you could argue that it was not a major victory in terms of troop and equipment casualties on the German side, was a major psychological blow from Hitler on down.

        The only pysch blow was to dispel forever that that West would join Germany against Russia.

        Would Hitler have won without America?

        Nope. He had lost the war by the time the first American landed in England.

        I don’t know, maybe Russia would has still beaten him. Would Europe have fallen totally to Stalin in that case?

        Beyond a doubt. Stalin was on the edge of giddy. He had the opportunity to end the “Great Game” – Russia would have ports on the Atlantic for the first time in history.

        I believe he thought he could manipulate the Allies to give him the access he dreamed.

        He miscalculated by 500 miles….

        Hitler may have lost his war, but Americans succeeded in preventing Russia from getting those ports.

        Who knows, they might have been equally overextended, leading to an even earlier collapse of Communism than occurred because of the relative size and mentality of all of Europe.

        Think out of your box.

        The largest country on Earth, largest producer of oil, minerals, food … largest producer of nearly every good on Earth … now having maritime access to the world without having any ‘middle men’ countries blocking it.

        Whether they were Communist or Monarchist or anything, they would be the #1 Global Superpower, easily dwarfing the combination of the entire rest of the World.

        Nope, we would not be speaking “German” or “Japanese” – Russian would be the world-language.

        …and the world missed that fate by merely 500 miles.

  39. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_turkey

    He said that Turkey, a NATO member, would bring up the issue soon at the security alliance’s council.

    “Citizens of member states were attacked by a country that is not a member of NATO,” he said. “I think you can make some conclusions out of this statement.”

    —–

    As predicted, this would become a test of NATO. The USA will fail the test.

    End of NATO.

    Anyone’s guess on how this will empower Russian geopolitical designs.

  40. Murphy

    Let me make sure I have this straight…..the misinterpretation of a statement proves the truth of that statement.

    Well, good that you checked, because you’re about a straight as cork screw.

    If he believes what he believes, it can only be due to a lack of comprehension.

    I cannot solve his lack of comprehension, and without it, dialogue is futile.

    Get it now?

    It’s actually fun watching you come up with this crap…..you are so predictable.

    Pull up your pants, Murph, your ignorance is showing.

%d bloggers like this: