| Author | Message | | Libby | | Posted: Sun May 26, 2002 4:08 pm Post subject: The Purpose of War |
| It's obvious throughout most of modern history, that wars tend
to stimulate Western Economies. And though we can justify WW2,
was it actually 'freedom' and 'Democracy' that propelled the
American government to sacrifice 10's of thousands of servicemen
in Korea and Vietnam and minor skirmishes in between? Was the
cold War really a threat to our way of life, or was this just another
subterfuge to provoke fear that our freedom was being threatened
in order to control democracy?
As J.W Smith Wrote in his book: "Economic Democracy,
The political struggle of the 21st century";When threatened
with the loss of power and wealth, Western cultures engage in
massive propaganda, exactly as we are taught is done in dictatorships.
It was under the threat of that loss that Western intelligence
agencies paid corrupt professors to write 25 to 30 fraudulent
books a year, set up entire media conglomerates, and planted
tens of thousands of fraudulent articles in media around the
world while other sections of those intelligence services were
overthrowing elected governments and replacing them with
dictators, decapitating the opposition through establishing
death squads in countries in which their puppet dictators
could not maintain power, and occasionally going to war
when none of those methods worked, and violently killed
between 12 million and 15 million people in the process,
150,000 to 300,000 of these were tortured and killed by
CIA orchestrated death squads.
While I believe the threat of terrorism is real, we can't
ignore where this threat stems from. In order to
have the American empire stretch to all corners of the globe,
We have made many enemies along the way, with total
disregard for human life, all because of greed. We need what
other countries have to keep our own economy running. The
veil is wearing thin though and those whos countries that have
been under the thumb of many American administrations, are
now expressing their contempt with not just words but actions.
And how much longer is the American government able to carry
on with the ruse in convincing it's citizens of what they want us
to believe as justifiable wars and the 'unconditional' support of
Countries, who's own greed to control lands and the people on
them is a threat upon itself and the world, until there is no more
wars to be fought all because of the gluttony of a small sector of
America's desire to control and manipulate not only it's own
economy and people, but also those that have been subjugated
by us as well, too the point of bringing the human race to
extinction?
Well, I got news for them..their money wil be of no use to them
then and it will all come down to survival of the fittiest, not the
wealthiest. | |  | | Libby | | Posted: Sun May 26, 2002 10:36 pm Post subject: |
| I can't seem to get enough of Mr. Smith. Here's another excerpt from
his book:
A social control belief system ("social paradigm") blankets a society filling almost every intellectual niche. It is like air to land animals or water to a fish, one is totally immersed in it at all times.
History is written by the powerful to protect their wealth and power. (Those carefully crafted press releases and carefully crafted recordings of meetings and events are the writing of history.) Because all people are trained to be just (a society could survive no other way), destabilizing other societies so as to lay claim to, or retain claim to, their wealth requires creating the belief system that these people are enemies. The histories of the powerful societies record these created excuses as real and ignores the real cause of wars and strife, these are battles over the world's resources and over the wealth producing process (production and trade). To admit to the true history of "plunder by trade" is to undercut a society's fundamental philosophies through which it justifies wrecking havoc on others and any such admission would destroy its power just as sure as exposure of immorality or criminal behavior will destroy an individuals political power.
Any world trade thesis or economic formula is irrelevant if it does not take into account the exponential gain or loss from unequal pay and powerful nations' imposing those unequal trades.
Plunder by trade:
Within the evolving free city states of Europe there were no resources (wool, hides, timber, etc.) from which to manufacture consumer products. Those resources were purchased from the countryside, processed into consumer products, and a share sold back to the countryside to pay for those resources. When the serfs from the outlying villages observed the simple looms, fulling vats, and other primitive industrial capital to manufacture those products, they promptly returned to their villages and built their own industrial capital. The result was loss of wealth to the city or even starvation. To survive, those cities had to control the resources and trade of their "countryside." Throughout the Middle Ages, raiding parties from the cities raided the countryside, destroyed their primitive industrial capital or carried it back to the city. The comparative advantages of the outlying villages were eliminated by force to maintain their dependency and lay claim to the wealth of the countryside.
One city would become more efficient (or more powerful) than another city and engage in a mercantilist struggle to take over the markets and resources of the other city's countryside. The besieged city faced a loss of wealth or even starvation. So city states fought city states. The imperial city states evolved into nations which continued to fight over the source of their wealth, control of resources and trade. The imperial nations of Europe colonized the entire world and continued to battle over who would control the wealth producing process, processing the natural wealth of, and controlling the trade of, their "countryside."
Those imperial nations broke themselves battling over the world's wealth (World Wars I & II) and no longer had the power to keep the world under their control. The entire colonial world, the countryside of the old imperial nations, started breaking free. The only wealth left to suppress those breaks for freedom was in the United States. Those imperial nations simply handed the baton to America to do the job of keeping the world from springing free and prevent the loss of those cheap resources. America did that job well, which was the Cold War.
Over the centuries, the victors continually encoded their excessive rights into law, a process ongoing yet today--specifically through the "corporate utopian" rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), its successor the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
To maintain access to resources and markets and accumulate capital, the countryside is controlled yet today. Where are Japan's resources? Where are South Korea's resources? Where are Singapore's resources? Where are Hong Kong's resources? Where are Taiwan's resources? Where are the resources of the old imperial nations of Europe? Their resources are primarily in the undeveloped countries, their "countryside." The Imperial nations of Europe consume roughly 14 times the resources as lie within their borders. The ratio within Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan is far greater. America, with just over 4 percent of the world's people, consumes 28 percent of the world's resources.
In short, the basics of world trade today is identical to the basics of world trade 800 to 1,000 years ago when European society evolved from "plunder by raids" to "plunder by trades." American military forces in 77 countries today are there for the same purpose as those raiding parties from the imperial cities of Europe in the Middle Ages, control resources, control technology (monopolize industrial technology) and control markets--all through "controlling the rules of unequal trade."
A quick restructuring to equal trade would mean immediate loss of wealth produced by--and properly owned by others. It would also mean a drastic drop in living standards for the imperial centers of capital and open revolt of their citizenry now facing starvation and impoverishment. Thus, the emergence of conscientious leaders in powerful nations with a sincere interest in the well being of people in other societies is a rare occurrence. Right by the philosophical books on diplomacy and statecraft, reality requires leaders to care for their own even as millions--or even billions--of other people are impoverished by their "grand strategies" (financial, economic, legal, and military), "realpolitiks," "containments," "economic warfare," and "financial warfare."
Twentieth century military power, financial warfare, and carefully structured patent and trading laws eliminate the comparative power of the resource-wealthy world today. The impoverished, but resource wealthy, world is the countryside for today's imperial centers of capital. Power struggles between city-states had intrigues, alliances, balance-of-power, and preponderance of power foreign policies identical to those of modern nations and empires. The destruction of another society's capital to protect markets substituted "plunder by raids" with "plunder by trade." Instead of appropriating another's wealth directly, societies learned to accomplish this through the proto-mercantilist policies of making others dependent and laying claim to their wealth through unequal trades.
The powerful and cunning had learned to plunder by trade centuries ago and societies ever since have been caught in the trap of those unequal trades. Once unequal trades were in place, restructuring to equal trade would mean the severing of arteries of commerce which provide the higher standard of living for the dominant society and collapse of those living standards would almost certainly trigger open revolt, The world is trapped in that pattern of unequal trades yet today.[url][/url] | | | | Saint | | Posted: Mon May 27, 2002 4:35 pm Post subject: |
| Some of our chaps must be getting pretty bored out there, can't we find them someone to fight? That's what they went there for after all, some of our finest combat troops, to fight the enemy, so they and we were told at least.
Why don't we all have a collection and buy a bulk supply of knuckle-dusters so they can deal with the Americans first?
Says a lot for a war when this sort of thing needs to be printed so that people don't forget there are British military personal out there trying to do a job that is almost impossible. It happens in every time we work together, the slagging off, but I'd rather hear some news that's worth actually hearing though. Got to love those Americans haven't you, such wit, and yes, that is sarcasm:
A WAR OF WORDS Brit fury as US graffiti mocks 'trash' marines
From Tom Newton Dunn Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan
A POISONOUS war of words has broken out between US and British troops in Afghanistan.
Hundreds of obscenities on the walls of portaloos at Bagram airbase sneer at the failure by "Euro trash" marines to capture or kill al-Qaeda, and rubbish Britain and the Royal Family.
And the marines come in for more criticism of their "disappointing" performance in the US forces magazine Stars and Stripes.
British troopers have hit back with their own graffiti, mocking that their allies are only good for guarding the loos.
Smarting that the Americans have seen action while the British have been cheated of a fight, one furious marine said last night: "Who the hell do they think they are criticising us? It's disgraceful.
"We've come here to help them and don't expect abuse for it if it doesn't work out as hoped.
"There's a lot of bad feeling about this. The Yanks had better watch their step - and their mouths - or we'll close them."
Army spokesmen from both sides tried to play down the spat. It follows a row over the replacement of marine commander Brigadier Roger Lane amid claims that his men's three fruitless missions have been "over-hyped".
A senior military source said: "This is the last thing we need."
The marines share the Bagram portaloos with the US 10th Mountain Division and the 101st Airborne Division. Referring to a four-day operation against al- Qaeda by the US in March which left eight soldiers and hundreds of enemy dead, one jibe says: "No wonder the Brits lost their empire.
"Where were the Brits during (Operation) Anaconda? Not getting shot up, that's for sure."
Another says: "We realised how much England sucked and created our own country.
"Here's an idea - how about I give you a spoon so you can eat my ass, EURO TRASH BITCHES."
A third mocks: "We don't have a fake monarchy, we don't have an empire, we don't obsess over stupid Royals. PS, Prince Charles is a f****** w*****, and all his sons are drug-addicted t**ts."
With an arrow pointing to a hole in another portaloo wall, further graffiti sneers: "Here's some p***y for the Brits. No Brits here anyway, all out hiding."
A marine has retorted: "Good luck guarding the toilets for us - it will take all 3,000 of you to guard them while we're away."
Another Brit hits back by referring to an incident in the War of Independence: "Yeah, but who burnt down the White House? The Royal Marines." Graffiti is widely seen as a barometer of relations between the two sides.
Tensions were inflamed by Stars and Stripes criticising the marine operations Condor, Snipe and Ptarmigan, saying: "All have failed to engage the enemy."
An article said: "Condor has so far failed to locate any Taliban or al-Qaeda. That's disappointing, considering officials believed there was a substantial force of enemy fighters in the area.
"Snipe (a particular target for mockery as a snipe-hunt in America means a wild goose chase) ended after two weeks of searching. Ptarmigan turned up terrorist facilities, documents and anti-aircraft ammunition - but no al-Qaeda."
The magazine also carried interviews with US personnel jealous at being left at Bagram while the marines swept the mountains. One US private asks: "Why the marines, and not us? That's what we're here for."
Brits at Bagram took revenge yesterday by pointing out that the latest mission by US troops also ended up empty-handed. It was a raid on a compound in southern Afghanistan to arrest men suspected of killing a colleague in an ambush. No enemy were engaged.
A marine spokesman said of the Stars and Stripes articles: "Comments like that are born out of frustration. Everybody wanted to engage al-Qaeda."
A US Army spokesman added: "Soldiers complain about everything."
General Tommy Franks, who commands all coalition troops, said he was "extremely happy" with the efforts of the marines.
But Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin said the Stars and Stripes comments underlined how the Government had "mishandled" presentation of the marines' deployment.
Lib-Dem Paul Keetch added: "The public will wonder why an article seems to be critical of British services risking their lives in the wake of a terrorist attack on the US homeland."
-CANADA is withdrawing its 800 ground troops from Afghanistan in July or August, blaming worldwide military commitments. Four of its soldiers were killed last month in a US bombing blunder.
 (alt+p)
 (alt+p)
 (alt+p)
 (alt+p) | | | | Saint | | Posted: Mon May 27, 2002 8:37 pm Post subject: |
| This is interesting, note the date:
13:02 2001-08-09
MILITARY LEADER OF NORTHERN ALLIANCE AGREED TO LAY DOWN ARMS IF THE TALIBAN FOLLOW HIS INITIATIVE
Ahmad Shah Masood, military leader of the Northern Alliance, agreed to lay down arms if the Taliban followed his initiative and agreed to hold universal elections in the country under the wing of the UN and the OIC /Organisation of the Islamic Conference/, a RIA Novosti correspondent reports from Pakistan quoting the SANA agency.
"The Taliban claim that the cease-fire will put an end to the military conflict in Afghanistan. So let's lay down arms and hold elections, Masood suggested. We are ready to take any steps under the UN and the OIC supervision in the interests the Afghani people." According to the Afghani leader, the Taliban keeps claiming they are supported by the people. So it would be quite natural of them to fall in with the idea of elections, which would legally elect the government of the people's representation.
At the same time, the military leader of the alliance claimed that the military action in the country continued only due to the Pakistani support of the Kabul regime. If there were no such support, the war would have stopped within four months, Ahmad Shah Masood stated.
At the same time, Islamabad claims no military support to the Taliban. First, Islamabad agreed to have the UN monitoring group on its Afghani border. But then Islamabad confirmed that some of its citizens illegally crossed the border and fought within the Taliban movement by their own will.
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2001/08/09/12137.html | | | | msteffan1 | | | | admin | | Posted: Thu May 30, 2002 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
No apologies required. Links are very good (let someone else carry the database loading). Full articles (with images to boot) make my life entertaining. Keep the links coming.
If anyone has a really big article (stop that!) they want posted send me the link or document by mail and I'll create a drop page on the server to host it. Otherwise, can people please try to keep their postings to three or four chapters. I thank you.
:hugh:
_________________
Contact help@itszone.co.uk if you require support or wish to draw attention to any illegal messages or activity taking place in any of the forums. YOU MUST BE AGED 18 OR ABOVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS FORUM. | | | | msteffan1 | | Posted: Fri May 31, 2002 4:20 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
Good page on civilian casualties in Afghanistan Figures included etc.
Did you know that it took two days for the Coalition to declare air supremacy over Afghanistan...?
Took two days to work out nothing was coming up at us.
The Royal Air Force have been doing their bit too..11TH February..
Bagram airbase..an aging Shukov? rusting and no engine...was marked down as a kill for someone...The ejector seat apparantly was still operational...and didnt want it being fired off on the airbase...So the old screwdriver technique was deemed to be over the top slightly...so we blew it up...There was a real concern it could be used by the enemy or vandals as they call em now... Paint a crescent on my plane Biggles..Ive got one..Tallyho.. | | | | msteffan1 | | Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:23 pm Post subject: |
| Just to go with the thread title.
This guy explains more what war can be..not the gung ho Sun paper headline of Gotcha when sending a ship to the bottom.
War for most people is one short sharp violent noisy bloody and scary moment.
Colin Davison was my closest buddy in the Corps at the time of his death. I have a wealth of memories - some good, some bad of our times in 45 Cdo together. I was with him when he was killed, and I attempted in vain to treat his wounds; this was my first experience of death and truly my saddest. I have since seen much violence, and death in combat situations, but this action changed my life beyond comprehension.
Some things to remember:
Colin was a Lance Corpral, which he was very proud to be.
'George' (Colin) was a Geordie lad with all the humour that this culture of Englismen inherit at birth. He was as wild at heart as you would expect a young fit bootneck to be. Often in pub brawls, usually at his own initiation and which he usually won, (nothing to be proud of!) he moved from Arbroath to Plymouth in 1973. This was mainly to do with his frustration and need to move on. He had big plans in the Corps and he was fully intending to spend his full 22 yr career in the Royal Marines. He often forced his point of view on me about promotion and the need to gain rank as he wanted to be a Sergeant Major. I usually laughed at him, but he was extremely proud of how much he could drink and still run like an athlete.
George was engaged to Sally shortly before departing Down South; he moved out of our shared flat in Plymouth to be with his girl and to begin a new, grown-up life. Sadly those dreams were torn apart by a bomb into Ajax Bay on 27 May 1982. I watched the life drain out of him as I deparately tried to tend to his wounds; a few people ran past our sangar and looked in horror as they saw the desprate state we were in. Curly Burnet was wounded in several places, Gerry Watt was very badly wounded with a semi-amputated leg; Danny Mudge was in total shock as he had lost his arm, and Sy Cragg was wounded badly in both hands.
I was scratched but in reality unscathed. I helped as much as I could to treat everyone in those horror-filled moments. A young matelot - from Med Squadron I think - and who I will always be indebited to, crawled into our sangar and began treating everyone as best he could. He was the one who uttered the words: "Leave him mate, he's gone!" I could not comprehend the situation, but obeyed and went on to treat the rest of the wounded...
I will never forget my wild, wild mate and I feel he has given me more in humanity than I ever gave him in friendship. George actually said while we sat in the trench waiting for an attack that he didnt feel he was coming back from this one. But he added that I could have all of his Arctic socks!! I never took the socks. I still miss him stacks.
Ronnie Dunnett
Mne Dunnett P037316J | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:46 pm Post subject: Big Brother (He ain't MY relation) |
| This article has been rescued from the web. Let me explain. The web site hosting this article has a little surprise in store for those who stumble across it. When visiting the homepage you get a friendly message advising you that, due to your visit, you may now be under 'surveillance'. This is no joke. To save you having to tolerate uninvited guests at your web browsing session here is the offending article - unedited but with the Nazi code additions removed.
"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" - MLK
/media/terror1.htm
Thanks to you know who from AOL for providing the link. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
