The Real Damage From Vietnam

[General Patton]

35 years after a traitorous b*stard known as Daniel Ellsberg leaked top secret information about U.S. escalation of the Vietnam War to the New York Times, we are seeing the result and impact of a major Supreme Court decision on our Defense Department's ability to wage war and employ effective war-time propaganda. Daniel Ellsberg was disillusioned when he learned that the Defense Department had been over-inflating enemy body counts as just one method to further involve the U.S. in a South-East Asian war. Because of his disagreement with the Administration and Robert McNamara's policy of concealing the truth from the American people, Ellsberg decided to photocopy and leak information from United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense to members of the senate and the press. After failing to convince members of the senate to release excerpts of "The Pentagon Papers" on the senate floor where senators can not be tried for information given, he turned the stolen information over to the New York Times. The Times had started running the series when Attorney General John Mitchell and the Nixon Administration had won an injunction until the issue could be heard in court. The issue concerned the press publishing classified information that was detrimental to the national security. The damage had been done, and the counter-culture had succeeded in courting a reputable employee of the Department of Defense to join their cause and ignore the prospect of criminal penalties to further fan anti-war sentiments throughout the nation by using the Pentagon's own classified information as a tool. The Supreme Court found that the press was protected by the 1st Amendment, and had the right to publish this material even if it had been obtained illegally and its content would remain detrimental to the national security. However, Daniel Ellsberg was not immune, and had gone underground within the hippie movement to avoid prosecution. By the time he was being brought to justice, the Nixon Administration's controversial break-ins, some of which were conducted to bury Ellsberg in the court's had won him a mistrial. The Watergate Controversy was responsible for the freedom of a guy who should be spending a life in prison for espionage, theft, and conspiracy. These events further fueled the anti-war and the drug counter-culture and went further than any one act to erode public sentiment in the U.S. regarding our involvement in Vietnam. The liberals and communists had won a huge victory that would forever have an impact on the way wars our conducted by our Department of Defense. The communists had succeeded in undermining both the U.S. military and intelligence apparatuses, had turned the tide of public support, had been key in effectively destroying a sitting administration, and found growing support among the nation's youth that would continue to have an impact upon generations to come.

When American's were addressed by President George Bush to alert us that we were fighting a campaign to repel Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard from Kuwaiti oil fields, the same liberal lemmings who had been so successful in their disruption of the Vietnam War immediately marched to the streets chanting, "no blood for oil". When the Republican Guard had been decimated, orders were given to stop destroying Iraqi military targets on the "Highway of Death", because of fear for a public relations nightmare spawned by an emboldened press with no loyalty to U.S. interests. Furthermore, talk about removing Saddam Hussein from power was effectively stifled when the Administration decided that going beyond the mandate of the coalition would turn public sentiment against the war because CNN and others had started running stories about a power vacuum.

When events in Mogadishu unfolded the liberal media repeatedly ran the footage of our Army Ranger's bodies being desecrated in the streets by backward people with disdain for western culture. The American people's ability to take casualties and fight a war had been further eroded. Terrorists groups were emboldened by this fact and decided that they would be able to wage an asymmetrical style of war against the U.S. while using our own media against us. Future attacks on our federal buildings, our embassies, and our naval vessels ensued, while the media worked hard to dub these acts as criminal and not deserving of a full military response. Our government, which had been increasingly intimidated by the presses ability to make or break military success, followed suit and did very little.

When September 11, 2001 rolled around we were caught off guard because the press had ignored the fact that our military, intelligence, and law enforcement bureaus had been effectively emasculated by the Clinton Administration in favor of stories that attacked the 4th Amendment, extolled the virtues of environmentalism, and exaggerated an everlasting age of peace and prosperity that we were suppose to be living in as a result of the end of the Cold War. However, it looked like things were about to change. We had an enemy that we could all agree was hostile to the U.S. and was deserving of a swift military reaction. How would the press be able to minimize our need to go to war given the nature of our enemy and the attack that we had just survived? Would the quislings in the media spin this one to promote their anti-American Agenda? This seemed like a complete impossibility because the nation appeared to be united that we must destroy a monstrous enemy that uses acts of terrorism to level the playing field. If the American public were unable to take military casualties, then surely over 2000 civilian deaths would convince them that war was necessary. There was no question. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the press has found a way and succeeded in inventing the kinds of questions that will work to their ends.

Yes, the press remained silent and towed the line of the American people for several months, even sitting back quietly while we invaded Afghanistan. However, once the prospect of a second war with Iraq was mentioned and the liberal elite found that we would be going against conventional European wisdom on the matter they started trying to undermine the war effort, once again. This time they tried to make direct comparisons between the Iraqi situation and Vietnam. Was this dreaming on their part? Did they want to further increase their power and prove to themselves that they had more power than the three sitting branches of the United States government? Did they want to use an Iraq war to continue undermining both the U.S. military and intelligence apparatuses, turn the tide of public support against a war that many Europeans didn't support, effectively destroy a sitting administration, and continue to strengthen support among the nation's youth? No, it wasn’t dreaming. They had already proved it possible over 30 years ago, and we are seeing another attempt by them now. Are we seeing the continuation of an attempted communist revolution in this country? Has it been occurring for some time? If so, how do you stop it when the press is driving the charge?

One method that I believe that our current government is using is very similar to what transpired in the build up to the Vietnam War. However, there are some important differences. What the Pentagon is doing now is almost the inverse of what was seen during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Daniel Ellsberg was disillusioned by over-exaggerated body counts of our enemies and the underreporting of civilian and U.S. military casualties. The fact that the Vietnam War was the first televised war didn't help sentiments at home when viewers whose sons where active over-seas were allowed to watch the carnage in prime-time, in front of their dinner plates. I believe our government is underestimating and underreporting the number of enemy dead, allowing the press and liberal blogs to over-report civilian deaths, and using actual military deaths to turn a squeamish public against the war, while blocking out hard hitting news about what is actually occurring on the war front. In a sense, I believe that our government is taking a hands off approach out of fear for the press. The best that they can hope to do is underreport enemy body counts and minimize the effect of the press by keeping them away from key maneuvers until after they have been completed. Our news has been sanitized so the American viewer does not have to be disrupted by the war effort and can continue about their daily lives with minimal annoyance about the dire enemy that we face. Who wants to witness a beheading of a civilian by those like Al-Zarqawi? However, the media is allowed to report from Iraq to a certain extent, but they choose to remain focused on stories that benefit our enemies, effectively falling victim to the Al-Quad handbook, becoming propagandists for our enemy on a larger scale than Al-Jazeera could hope to accomplish. They use collateral damage to convince us that a necessary war is wrong. They use human rights and Muslim organizations as mouthpieces for them. They use the American people's lack of a stomach for casualties as a device to convince us to give up our attempts. All of this with the complicity of our own press who has gone beyond reporting valid criticism about how the war is being fought and won, to becoming willing and useful tools of our enemy with invalid and irresponsible reporting focused on how this war should be abandoned and lost. Unfortunately, our government and Defense Department is powerless to do anything but try to underreport the number of enemies that we are actually killing because they fear what the press will do if they report actual figures on the amount of enemy dead, because they fully understand who our press is working for, yet they remain powerless to stop them because of a liberal victory during the Vietnam era. Our government is forced to remain silent in an attempt not to infuriate a press that has gone above and beyond in their sedition. Our government, its people, and its ability to wage war have been severely compromised by a new Bolshevik movement that is occurring right hear in the United States with funding and support from foreign governments and hardcore Islamic fundamentalist. How long can we withstand such an assault as a nation? How long will it be before we react and start charging political enemies with the seditious acts that they engage in on a daily basis? How long before Islam is realistically recognized as the threat that is poses and its accomplices are rooted out and jailed, including members of the press?

In short, I believe that the Pentagon should reevaluate their policy on dealing with the press and the types of war reporting that they allow. Perhaps they should fund their own news agency and produce stories that increase support for the war, while blocking out verminous, America-hating, liberals that love to accuse our troops of murder and leak top-secret information that undermines our ability to find those who seek to destroy us. The congress should be in the process of enacting an new-fangled alien and sedition act to deport foreign nationals who foster hatred for the west and charge Americans who help them. I have the feeling that CNN and the New York Times might be out of business if that were to occur.

[Zero]

Doesn't the sign say no Fascists?

Hide it better buddy.

[PRC-UTE]

You lost badly in Nam, get over it, Nationalist.

[Abolish Communism]

Well that was weird.

[Marx_was_right!]

Vietnam was an evil war. Any support of it is reactionary. You are therefore a reactionary.

PS Patton was an evil NAZI like guy who bashed hospital patients because he thought they were being cowards. He and his US ilk slaughtered millions of civilians in that imperialist war.

[greymatter]

It always confuses me how flag-waving conservatives can come out against freedom of the press and government transparency. Aren't these things really important in a "democratic" society? It seems to me that you don't support freedom or democracy, but militaristic fascism.

[General Patton]

Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!

[Zero]

Use rational thought kthx.

Site name: www.revolutionaryleft.com
Once again: www.revolutionaryleft.com
A third time: www.revolutionaryleft.com

Revolutionary, as in revolution. Change. Different system. Abolishing Capitalism.


Originally posted by "Google's Define:Revolution"
A revolution is a relatively sudden and absolutely drastic change. This may be a change in the social or political institutions over a relatively short period of time, or a major change in its culture or economy. Some revolutions are led by the majority of the populace of a nation, others by a small band of revolutionaries. Compare rebellion.

www.REVOLUTIONARYleft.com

Do you understand now? Or do I have to repeat myself.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Your 'ideas' are moaning about losing in Vietnam (or rather not admitting you lost and moaning about being defeated by american newspapers? :blink: ).

I don't see how the left are cowards, I've bashed a few fascist heads in my time. ;)

[Dimentio]

General - Conservatives are funny, and American conservatives are even more funny. You come here and believe that all people would agree with you when you are presenting your "facts". They may very well be true, but I, as well as many other here, do not care.

You see, I am a European - an anti-American European. Not because I have something against the US people, but because I would like to see NATO dismantled and an independent Europe born. It ain't anything personal.

[theraven]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+Jul 4 2006, 09:01 AM--> (PRC-UTE @ Jul 4 2006, 09:01 AM)
General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Your 'ideas' are moaning about losing in Vietnam (or rather not admitting you lost and moaning about being defeated by american newspapers? :blink: ).

I don't see how the left are cowards, I've bashed a few fascist heads in my time. ;) [/b]
of course you have..just only on message boards...and probably really more of a "in your imaginan" kinda thing...

and serpant: if NATO is dessembled then kiss your social welfare plans goodbye. you do relieze the only reason you've been ablet o get them for so long was because you sat under americas military umbrella.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Right. The left is made up of some of the finest minds, some of the most recognised philosophers and theorists and is gravited to by a lot of people of a more intellectual bent. as for 'cowardly' pfah hahahahahaha, you do know about the various armies that have been united under the banner of leftist ideas who have thrown back reactionary invaders or overthrown corrupt systems right? Hell even on a micro level we have the black bloc, the antifa, RASH and any number of brave people ready to fight for what they believe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 4 2006, 02:13 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 4 2006, 02:13 PM)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:01 AM

General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Your 'ideas' are moaning about losing in Vietnam (or rather not admitting you lost and moaning about being defeated by american newspapers? :blink: ).

I don't see how the left are cowards, I've bashed a few fascist heads in my time. ;)
of course you have..just only on message boards...and probably really more of a "in your imaginan" kinda thing...

and serpant: if NATO is dessembled then kiss your social welfare plans goodbye. you do relieze the only reason you've been ablet o get them for so long was because you sat under americas military umbrella. [/b]
It appears you've been living under a rock for some time. The USSR and the Warsaw Pact do not exist any more. Hence NATO is a dinosaur.

[theraven]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jul 4 2006, 03:06 PM--> (NoXion @ Jul 4 2006, 03:06 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:01 AM

General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Your 'ideas' are moaning about losing in Vietnam (or rather not admitting you lost and moaning about being defeated by american newspapers? :blink: ).

I don't see how the left are cowards, I've bashed a few fascist heads in my time. ;)
of course you have..just only on message boards...and probably really more of a "in your imaginan" kinda thing...

and serpant: if NATO is dessembled then kiss your social welfare plans goodbye. you do relieze the only reason you've been ablet o get them for so long was because you sat under americas military umbrella.
It appears you've been living under a rock for some time. The USSR and the Warsaw Pact do not exist any more. Hence NATO is a dinosaur. [/b]
NATOs use has expanded otuside of its original intent.

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 4 2006, 03:19 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 4 2006, 03:19 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:01 AM

General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Your 'ideas' are moaning about losing in Vietnam (or rather not admitting you lost and moaning about being defeated by american newspapers? :blink: ).

I don't see how the left are cowards, I've bashed a few fascist heads in my time. ;)
of course you have..just only on message boards...and probably really more of a "in your imaginan" kinda thing...

and serpant: if NATO is dessembled then kiss your social welfare plans goodbye. you do relieze the only reason you've been ablet o get them for so long was because you sat under americas military umbrella.
It appears you've been living under a rock for some time. The USSR and the Warsaw Pact do not exist any more. Hence NATO is a dinosaur.
NATOs use has expanded otuside of its original intent. [/b]
You want to back that up with some facts?

Anyway, I don't agree with you that Europe needs NATO. But aren't those social-welfare programs the ones conservatives like you want to destroy anyway? That internal threat seems bigger than any imagined need of NATO.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:19 PM
NATOs use has expanded otuside of its original intent.
But for what? It's useless against terrorism, which does not have a home country. It's a white elephant.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 4 2006, 02:13 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 4 2006, 02:13 PM)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:01 AM

General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Your 'ideas' are moaning about losing in Vietnam (or rather not admitting you lost and moaning about being defeated by american newspapers? :blink: ).

I don't see how the left are cowards, I've bashed a few fascist heads in my time. ;)
of course you have..just only on message boards...and probably really more of a "in your imaginan" kinda thing...

and serpant: if NATO is dessembled then kiss your social welfare plans goodbye. you do relieze the only reason you've been ablet o get them for so long was because you sat under americas military umbrella. [/b]

and serpant: if NATO is dessembled then kiss your social welfare plans goodbye. you do relieze the only reason you've been ablet o get them for so long was because you sat under americas military umbrella.

Don't misspell my user name. That is insulting.

I am not for the keeping of the nation-states or the traditional welfare system, and the USSR is gone, hence, no need for NATO. I prefer the US as an ally against the USSR, but RF and PRC as allies against American influence in Eurasia.

I am for the establishment of a strong European entity which could become a counterweight to the US and eventually establish a European technate. I do not let the politics of yesterday dictate my goals, and neither quasi-moralist idiocy on international levels.

States, and other kinds of powers [corporations, religious sects, etc] does not have any friends, they have interests.

[theraven]

Don't misspell my user name. That is insulting.


aight serpy


I am not for the keeping of the nation-states or the traditional welfare system, and the USSR is gone, hence, no need for NATO.

nato no longer exists to restrain the USSR, it is instead more of a close alliance of western coutnires


I prefer the US as an ally against the USSR, but RF and PRC as allies against American influence in Eurasia.

so you prefer facist russia and china to the USA?

[Zero]

You know Raven, you might be taken more seriously if you used a Speak `n Spell...

or at least looked over your post after making it.

[Goatse]

General Patton? Wasn't he the anti-semitic American general who ordered his troops to shoot Italian prisoners?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:47 PM



Don't misspell my user name. That is insulting.


aight serpy


I am not for the keeping of the nation-states or the traditional welfare system, and the USSR is gone, hence, no need for NATO.

nato no longer exists to restrain the USSR, it is instead more of a close alliance of western coutnires


I prefer the US as an ally against the USSR, but RF and PRC as allies against American influence in Eurasia.

so you prefer facist russia and china to the USA?
The western world is an alliance of the cosmopolitan bizniz people, and in Europe, people are generally more hostile towards them than in the US. If NATO was destroyed, most European countries would become more socialist, and hence more adapted for technocratic transition.

I prefer an alliance with the second strongest power against the strongest, or against the adversary who's demise may give Europe the biggest independent benefits. So yes, I am for the moment positive towards the Eurasian alternative. If we are talking geostrategy and we for a moment hypothesises that Papua New Guinea - inhabitated by head-hunting cannibals who practices ritual sacrifice of humans, incest and tribal warfare for fun, would be a superpower or a regional power tomorrow, and we had some interests of power balance in that region, I would be open for cooperation with them.

The US has done the same thing, for example with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and with Saddam in Iraq, as well as with the Mullahs from Iran. I do not condemn the US, so why condemn my choice?

[Guerrilla22]

nato no longer exists to restrain the USSR, it is instead more of a close alliance of western coutnires

Not just Western countries. Many former Eastern Bloc countries are now members, which is goes contrary to a promise Reagan made to Gorbachev in the 80's that NATO would not expand to Eastern Europe. I wouldn't call NATO close knit either, France refuses to particpate miltarily in any NATO mission nad is trying to circumvent NATO by propping a EU rapid respose force, and then there's Turkey and Greece, both NATO members who have come on the verge of going to war with each other numerous times over the years.

[Sense-A]

this guy says that liberals are running the media. However I see it as the opposite. All the media powerhouses are defending the Iraqi war!

Why wouldn't arabs attack USA embassies and navy ships in their region of the world?! Would we not attack arab navy ships if they entered our coasts and ports? Would we not attack arab embassies in our country? Arab immigrants had a few alliances that were dismantled inside our borders when every arab immigrant became a suspect after 9-11.

The American youth are different from you. The American youth are still innocent. Your public education system was setup to turn us into faithful never-second-guessing national loyalists. However its failing. Because the American youth is wise to know that murdering and hate and imperialistic attacks in foreign lands only breed further murdering and hate. You love your republicans so much tell them to stop war-mongering and to actually do some diplomatic duty, some real politicking, negotiating, compromising, discussion with foreign leaders instead of ultimatums and cocking pump shotguns and pointing uranium war missiles! And the most ironic and hypocritical thing is most of them claim to be Christians!! Must be a long time since they actually read the Bible and its peaceful teachings.

if the liberals are "elite" as you described them then why are the republicans in power in every branch of the USA government?

"The fact that the Vietnam War was the first televised war didn't help sentiments at home when viewers whose sons where active over-seas were allowed to watch the carnage in prime-time, in front of their dinner plates."

If war is too ugly for the American public then the American public shouldn't be at war! War is UGLY! the American public needs to understand this. They are paying for this devestation, if they can't handle seeing people die then they need to find a better solution. I'm sure you'd like to annihilate the entire Arab country and never have to see blood-spill or hear the cries of innocent people. In my opinion there is little to NO media coverage in Iraq or Afghanistan. The American public is totally nieve to what is really going on. FILM IT! Let the American people, people like my best friend's mother who works at a missle artilery plant outside of D.C. see what her daily work accomplishes overseas. Death and destruction.

The Best thing YOU and your daddy George W. Bush can do is under-report ALL the casualties from both sides of the war. Because every death is a loss to humanity. You are pitting humanity against humanity. I value every single human life as a loss. That is the difference between us.

CNN is definately defending the war in my opinion. The New York Times has probably been the bravest of all the major medias, but even they give in to the threats posed by the ever-more fascist government a little more day by day. It sounds like you just want to do away with freedom of the press. Well congratulations because freedom of press IS DISAPPEARING. Thankfully freedom of speech still exists and self-righteous patriots like yourself can still defend murder and destruction on the internet.

[theraven]

The western world is an alliance of the cosmopolitan bizniz people, and in Europe, people are generally more hostile towards them than in the US. If NATO was destroyed, most European countries would become more socialist, and hence more adapted for technocratic transition.


wtf do you mean by bizniz? are you just using short hand or making some sort of joke? and what the hell do you mean people in europe are generally mmroe hostile torwards them? people in europe are msot of them. Nato being destroyed would not make european countires more socalist, it would make thme less, because they would have to actually adopt thier own defense.


I prefer an alliance with the second strongest power against the strongest, or against the adversary who's demise may give Europe the biggest independent benefits. So yes, I am for the moment positive towards the Eurasian alternative. If we are talking geostrategy and we for a moment hypothesises that Papua New Guinea - inhabitated by head-hunting cannibals who practices ritual sacrifice of humans, incest and tribal warfare for fun, would be a superpower or a regional power tomorrow, and we had some interests of power balance in that region, I would be open for cooperation with them.

siding with Russia and China would be foolish for several reasons

1) Unlike America, Russia and china have no ideoglical attachment to Europe.
2) America would be a good ally because we have no interast in harming them. Russia at the very least probably wouldnt mind having easterun europe back
3) russia and china are going to be at each others throats in 20 years, then you'll have to pick sides. again with america you never have this issue.

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers




The US has done the same thing, for example with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and with Saddam in Iraq, as well as with the Mullahs from Iran. I do not condemn the US, so why condemn my choice?

its not the morality that bothers me, its simple logic.

[Ander]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 3 2006, 11:42 PM
The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
It's funny that you say that because the Viet Cong were leftists. And as far as I can see, they kicked your asses the fuck outta Vietnam. :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:36 AM

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?
the US military is having no troubel with the actual figthing of the insurgents, its the pacification as a whole thats problematic. this is a probelm any army would have. we would do far better in a traditioanl war.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 5 2006, 03:58 AM--> (theraven @ Jul 5 2006, 03:58 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 03:36 AM

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?
the US military is having no troubel with the actual figthing of the insurgents, its the pacification as a whole thats problematic. this is a probelm any army would have. we would do far better in a traditioanl war. [/b]
They're having no trouble fighting the insurgents? So why haven't they eliminated them yet, if they pose no problem?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jul 5 2006, 04:02 AM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jul 5 2006, 04:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:58 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 03:36 AM

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?
the US military is having no troubel with the actual figthing of the insurgents, its the pacification as a whole thats problematic. this is a probelm any army would have. we would do far better in a traditioanl war.
They're having no trouble fighting the insurgents? So why haven't they eliminated them yet, if they pose no problem? [/b]
individually they have never had the problem. the problem is they use hit and run and the most effective strategy to destoy such a system invovles extreme meausers the US is not willing to use. much like vietna actually.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 5 2006, 04:04 AM--> (theraven @ Jul 5 2006, 04:04 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by thera[email protected] 5 2006, 03:58 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 03:36 AM

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?
the US military is having no troubel with the actual figthing of the insurgents, its the pacification as a whole thats problematic. this is a probelm any army would have. we would do far better in a traditioanl war.
They're having no trouble fighting the insurgents? So why haven't they eliminated them yet, if they pose no problem?
individually they have never had the problem. the problem is they use hit and run and the most effective strategy to destoy such a system invovles extreme meausers the US is not willing to use. much like vietna actually. [/b]
Right, which is why the US can't deal with guerrilla warfare. Its only a matter of time before the uS pulls out of Iraq, disgraced and defeated just like Vietnam, then dumbasses like Gen patton will make ridiculous claims that "we could have won...blah blah blah" for years to come.

[Dimentio]

The US could very easily pacify Iraq. It is "only" to put half of the population in concentration camps and kill ten civilians every time a US soldier is killed, but I do not believe that the US got the guts to do that.

And yes, the EU is weak, but the reason why is that the European establishment lends to the US. If the US is moved from the equation, the EU must comply to a Franco-German axis, something which is positive.

Nation-states, as well as the western culture, are bound to become a relic of history. The new Europe would be based on pagan egalitarian, almost proto-celtic ideals.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:29 AM


The western world is an alliance of the cosmopolitan bizniz people, and in Europe, people are generally more hostile towards them than in the US. If NATO was destroyed, most European countries would become more socialist, and hence more adapted for technocratic transition.


wtf do you mean by bizniz? are you just using short hand or making some sort of joke? and what the hell do you mean people in europe are generally mmroe hostile torwards them? people in europe are msot of them. Nato being destroyed would not make european countires more socalist, it would make thme less, because they would have to actually adopt thier own defense.


I prefer an alliance with the second strongest power against the strongest, or against the adversary who's demise may give Europe the biggest independent benefits. So yes, I am for the moment positive towards the Eurasian alternative. If we are talking geostrategy and we for a moment hypothesises that Papua New Guinea - inhabitated by head-hunting cannibals who practices ritual sacrifice of humans, incest and tribal warfare for fun, would be a superpower or a regional power tomorrow, and we had some interests of power balance in that region, I would be open for cooperation with them.

siding with Russia and China would be foolish for several reasons

1) Unlike America, Russia and china have no ideoglical attachment to Europe.
2) America would be a good ally because we have no interast in harming them. Russia at the very least probably wouldnt mind having easterun europe back
3) russia and china are going to be at each others throats in 20 years, then you'll have to pick sides. again with america you never have this issue.

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers




The US has done the same thing, for example with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and with Saddam in Iraq, as well as with the Mullahs from Iran. I do not condemn the US, so why condemn my choice?

its not the morality that bothers me, its simple logic.
With the bizniz people, I mean the establishment. Most of them do not identify with anything else than their social class, which is international. But there are some of them which I support, and that is for example Gerhard Schroeder, not because I like him but because that he is for a European-Russian alliance. I am not against a stronger European military, actually I consider it to be a precondition for a European superpower.

I am not a socialist.

It is actually a good thing if Europe would have to chose side between Russia and China, a opportunity we won't have with NATO, since that could strengthen our position. We could use China to balance Russian influence in western Europe.

Theoretically, we could accept Russian influence and possible annexation of Belarus and eastern Ukraine, while we take guarantees for the Baltic states, Finland, western Ukraine. But it is more important that we give the Russians [and the Chinese] control of central Asia.

Then, when we chose side, we should probably chose China, since they do not have any geostrategic interests in Europe.

The reason why Europe is weak is mainly because the US prefer it that way and push for atlanticist powers like UK and Turkey to join the EU. Actually, the core of EU should be composed of France, Germany, northern Italy, Austria and the BeNeLux.

Well, I am not after keeping the western world as a united bloc. In fact, I am against the western civilisation.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jul 5 2006, 04:28 AM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jul 5 2006, 04:28 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:58 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 03:36 AM

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?
the US military is having no troubel with the actual figthing of the insurgents, its the pacification as a whole thats problematic. this is a probelm any army would have. we would do far better in a traditioanl war.
They're having no trouble fighting the insurgents? So why haven't they eliminated them yet, if they pose no problem?
individually they have never had the problem. the problem is they use hit and run and the most effective strategy to destoy such a system invovles extreme meausers the US is not willing to use. much like vietna actually.
Right, which is why the US can't deal with guerrilla warfare. Its only a matter of time before the uS pulls out of Iraq, disgraced and defeated just like Vietnam, then dumbasses like Gen patton will make ridiculous claims that "we could have won...blah blah blah" for years to come. [/b]
the chance we will pull out is 100%. (except maybe a military base or two we lease), but we are defintly gong to pull out. thats kind of a given. It will not be in disgrace liek vietnam, which had the military been allowed to fight properly would never have been lost.


With the bizniz people, I mean the establishment. Most of them do not identify with anything else than their social class, which is international. But there are some of them which I support, and that is for example Gerhard Schroeder, not because I like him but because that he is for a European-Russian alliance. I am not against a stronger European military, actually I consider it to be a precondition for a European superpower.

ok-goodbye welfare state. see how that goes over with the voters.


I am not a socialist.
right then...


It is actually a good thing if Europe would have to chose side between Russia and China, a opportunity we won't have with NATO, since that could strengthen our position. We could use China to balance Russian influence in western Europe.

they'd probably ignore you.


Theoretically, we could accept Russian influence and possible annexation of Belarus and eastern Ukraine, while we take guarantees for the Baltic states, Finland, western Ukraine. But it is more important that we give the Russians [and the Chinese] control of central Asia.

because we all know how great those russian garuntees are...


Then, when we chose side, we should probably chose China, since they do not have any geostrategic interests in Europe.

they don't yet anyway....


The reason why Europe is weak is mainly because the US prefer it that way and push for atlanticist powers like UK and Turkey to join the EU. Actually, the core of EU should be composed of France, Germany, northern Italy, Austria and the BeNeLux.

the US would much prefer europe pull its own weight in NATO, the US just accepts that they don't. we dont' force peopel not to put troops up...

Well, I am not after keeping the western world as a united bloc. In fact, I am against the western civilisation.

hahahahhahahahah

so what are you fore?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 5 2006, 11:05 AM--> (theraven @ Jul 5 2006, 11:05 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:58 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 03:36 AM

simply put america is a more stable and positive ally. If europe were actualy advancing int he world and posed a serious chance at being a major power I'd agree with you, but europes future (in its present condition-sans some uniting leader a la caesar or napoleon) is that of either many waring states, or one weak loose confederation that will be dependnt on other powers

What if the EU decides to boot American influence off the continent and form its own rapid response force, thus making NATO irrelevent?

Plus, I think you're over estimating the power of the US military. They can't even defeat a few untrained insurgents, using primitive weapons in Iraq, what if the uS actually had to fight a nuclear power like China?
the US military is having no troubel with the actual figthing of the insurgents, its the pacification as a whole thats problematic. this is a probelm any army would have. we would do far better in a traditioanl war.
They're having no trouble fighting the insurgents? So why haven't they eliminated them yet, if they pose no problem?
individually they have never had the problem. the problem is they use hit and run and the most effective strategy to destoy such a system invovles extreme meausers the US is not willing to use. much like vietna actually.
Right, which is why the US can't deal with guerrilla warfare. Its only a matter of time before the uS pulls out of Iraq, disgraced and defeated just like Vietnam, then dumbasses like Gen patton will make ridiculous claims that "we could have won...blah blah blah" for years to come.
the chance we will pull out is 100%. (except maybe a military base or two we lease), but we are defintly gong to pull out. thats kind of a given. It will not be in disgrace liek vietnam, which had the military been allowed to fight properly would never have been lost.


With the bizniz people, I mean the establishment. Most of them do not identify with anything else than their social class, which is international. But there are some of them which I support, and that is for example Gerhard Schroeder, not because I like him but because that he is for a European-Russian alliance. I am not against a stronger European military, actually I consider it to be a precondition for a European superpower.

ok-goodbye welfare state. see how that goes over with the voters.


I am not a socialist.
right then...


It is actually a good thing if Europe would have to chose side between Russia and China, a opportunity we won't have with NATO, since that could strengthen our position. We could use China to balance Russian influence in western Europe.

they'd probably ignore you.


Theoretically, we could accept Russian influence and possible annexation of Belarus and eastern Ukraine, while we take guarantees for the Baltic states, Finland, western Ukraine. But it is more important that we give the Russians [and the Chinese] control of central Asia.

because we all know how great those russian garuntees are...


Then, when we chose side, we should probably chose China, since they do not have any geostrategic interests in Europe.

they don't yet anyway....


The reason why Europe is weak is mainly because the US prefer it that way and push for atlanticist powers like UK and Turkey to join the EU. Actually, the core of EU should be composed of France, Germany, northern Italy, Austria and the BeNeLux.

the US would much prefer europe pull its own weight in NATO, the US just accepts that they don't. we dont' force peopel not to put troops up...

Well, I am not after keeping the western world as a united bloc. In fact, I am against the western civilisation.

hahahahhahahahah

so what are you fore? [/b]
I am for the establishment of a new civilisation based on anarcho-communist ecologist ideals, in Europe, with the technocratic design as a foundation. That would mean that we must move away NATO and temporarily turn to Asia. I am not for any permanent security arrangements under the current world order.

The welfare states has proven inefficient since they rely on the price system. The technocratic system is vastly superior to that, especially if we get access to a full resource chain.

And no, China is courting Europe right now with cooperation treaties. An Eurasian alliance would first turn America irrelevant and then Russia. What Europe need in order to become a world power is energy, everything else, we could make out of scratch in about 10 years.

But first, we must irritate the Americans so much that they either pull out of NATO, or to make the defense organisation collapse in itself.

[theraven]

I am for the establishment of a new civilisation based on anarcho-communist ecologist ideals, in Europe, with the technocratic design as a foundation. That would mean that we must move away NATO and temporarily turn to Asia. I am not for any permanent security arrangements under the current world order.


You can't create a "new civilizaiton" without destroyign the old one. and to do so usually requires a massive catastrophe. so unless your going to induce a second dark age the chance of making a profoudn sudden change from a wsetern civilizaiotn to whatever neo pagan technocratic fantasy land your imagining is nil.


The welfare states has proven inefficient since they rely on the price system. The technocratic system is vastly superior to that, especially if we get access to a full resource chain.

the price system exists because of commodities. if you figure out how to produce unlimited supplies your ssytem will work, but as of yet we have no such ability, hence the price syste is the only logical method


And no, China is courting Europe right now with cooperation treaties. An Eurasian alliance would first turn America irrelevant and then Russia. What Europe need in order to become a world power is energy, everything else, we could make out of scratch in about 10 years.

how would a euraisn aallaince make america irrelevant? your going to writer off two whole cotinents, one of which posses the largest economy and military in the world? are you on crack? and do you really think China will choose Europe over the US?


But first, we must irritate the Americans so much that they either pull out of NATO, or to make the defense organisation collapse in itself.

lets bite the hand that feeds us..

[Dimentio]

Yes, I believe that there will be a need for a technocratic movement, and with the technology and production capacity today, we have the ability to provide all people with access to an abundance exceeding their physical ability to consume.

China has all reasons to chose an alliance with a new Europe over an alliance with the US since the US and China are partially on collision course. Moreover, the amount of capital in an area is not a sign of "most wealth". According to logic thinking, resources are wealth. If the US can solve it's debt problem and pacify central Asia, then it may continue to be the world's leading power.

Read Brzezinski.

[theraven]

Yes, I believe that there will be a need for a technocratic movement, and with the technology and production capacity today, we have the ability to provide all people with access to an abundance exceeding their physical ability to consume.

generally when humans have an abudance greater then their abilty to consume they reproduce at a higher rate thus negating the gains.


China has all reasons to chose an alliance with a new Europe over an alliance with the US since the US and China are partially on collision course. Moreover, the amount of capital in an area is not a sign of "most wealth". According to logic thinking, resources are wealth. If the US can solve it's debt problem and pacify central Asia, then it may continue to be the world's leading power.


except what does china gain by allying with europe, especially since europe is a weak disunited entity unable to even have its constitution ratified in france.


Read Brzezinski.

what about him?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:37 PM

Yes, I believe that there will be a need for a technocratic movement, and with the technology and production capacity today, we have the ability to provide all people with access to an abundance exceeding their physical ability to consume.

generally when humans have an abudance greater then their abilty to consume they reproduce at a higher rate thus negating the gains.


China has all reasons to chose an alliance with a new Europe over an alliance with the US since the US and China are partially on collision course. Moreover, the amount of capital in an area is not a sign of "most wealth". According to logic thinking, resources are wealth. If the US can solve it's debt problem and pacify central Asia, then it may continue to be the world's leading power.


except what does china gain by allying with europe, especially since europe is a weak disunited entity unable to even have its constitution ratified in france.


Read Brzezinski.

what about him?
Brzezinski have stated that US has a profound national interest to dominate Eurasia, since Eurasia is the epicentre of the world.

Growth curves does look so in agrarian regions, but when you have a modern society, they will stagnate. Malthus was wrong.

China wants to ally with anyone who have money and sufficient territory. And yes, Europe is weak today, and that is why I want a stronger EU, even if that mean temporary neoliberalism.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 4 2006, 02:42 AM
Geez, I offer you people something to think about and possibly debate and this is all you can muster. It's true. The left are more cowardly and illequiped in the realm of ideas than I originally gave them credit for. Pansies!
Yes, you are right that people should react on your topic in-depth. I'll give it a try.

America pretends to be a democracy (let's not discuss whether it is so or not). A democracy has to serve the people. People vote, and then the president decides on behalf of the people. The president should not act as an elected dictator for 4 years, and therefore there is the trias politica. Checks and balances should keep the US a healthy democracy, and should balance the very big power one single person has. One of the most powerful checks and balances is the media. The media should report independently and inform the public. The media should inform the public on as much cases as possible, this means also war.

Waging a war is one of the biggest decisions a president could ever take, and therefore the checks and balances should keep doing their work as good as possible. Remember, this is all to serve the public, as should be in a healthy democracy. What you practically propose, is to restrict these media to cover certain stories. In whose interest is this? In the presidents interest, in the governments interest, in the Pentagons interest. It is not in the public interest, because it is in the publics interest to be informed as good as possible, so the people can decide the best which of the two parties they choose the next election.


In short, I believe that the Pentagon should reevaluate their policy on dealing with the press and the types of war reporting that they allow.

But what is your point really? News reporting is best when criticizing as much as possible. It is all in the interest of the people and democracy. Imagine that you would live in a stalinist society, and the government would restrict press freedom, what would you think of it? Dictatorial, right? You only have this opinion because you think your view on the whole thing is superior to the view of certain media.


Perhaps they should fund their own news agency and produce stories that increase support for the war,

Funding an own news agency is possible, but what news would be given to the public. Not any news that is negative. This means a pure propaganda channel.


while blocking out verminous, America-hating, liberals that love to accuse our troops of murder and leak top-secret information that undermines our ability to find those who seek to destroy us.

Why do you call them America-hating. When being critical at a governing, you hate America? I call that a patriottic irrational non-argument.

And they do not 'love to acccuse', rather they try to find information and then report it to the people. What should they do then, just don't report it and help the government. When children are raped and killed in Iraq, should they be silent because it is best for the current US government? Do you think people should know the truth or not?


The congress should be in the process of enacting an new-fangled alien and sedition act to deport foreign nationals who foster hatred for the west and charge Americans who help them. I have the feeling that CNN and the New York Times might be out of business if that were to occur.

How do the NY Times and CNN help to spread hate about the west? And by that law you have in your mind, do you think people who hate the west should be deported or punished? It isn't different than stalinism then.

What do you believe in? In democracy, the truth, the right to be informed for the people. Or in the interest of a right-wing government, government propagand, covering the truth? In my opinion the second, but try to prove me wrong.

[theraven]

Brzezinski have stated that US has a profound national interest to dominate Eurasia, since Eurasia is the epicentre of the world.


can you cite where brzezinski said this? because frankly im can't take yoru wrod


Growth curves does look so in agrarian regions, but when you have a modern society, they will stagnate. Malthus was wrong.

growth curves look liek that in a lot of places, you can't use the western urban center as yoru basis.


China wants to ally with anyone who have money and sufficient territory. And yes, Europe is weak today, and that is why I want a stronger EU, even if that mean temporary neoliberalism.

hahaha so why are you into a strong eruope? are you european?

messijs-to respond to your theme, the media is not a branch of government, and cannot be treated as such. during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
That is completely and totally wrong.

It is not in the "intrest" of the people to cover their eyes in a blanket of lies. It is in the intrest of the people to report the full story, pro or con.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:00 PM
mesijs-to respond to your theme, the media is not a branch of government, and cannot be treated as such. during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
Please argue WHY it is in the interest of the people that the media is censored and people do not know the truth?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Zero+Jul 5 2006, 06:24 PM--> (Zero @ Jul 5 2006, 06:24 PM)
"theraven"
during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
That is completely and totally wrong.

It is not in the "intrest" of the people to cover their eyes in a blanket of lies. It is in the intrest of the people to report the full story, pro or con. [/b]
No, its not. because fi that were so then we wouldn't be abel to keep secrets from the enemy, and thus we would lose. and losing is not in the interast in the people.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:00 PM

Brzezinski have stated that US has a profound national interest to dominate Eurasia, since Eurasia is the epicentre of the world.


can you cite where brzezinski said this? because frankly im can't take yoru wrod


Growth curves does look so in agrarian regions, but when you have a modern society, they will stagnate. Malthus was wrong.

growth curves look liek that in a lot of places, you can't use the western urban center as yoru basis.


China wants to ally with anyone who have money and sufficient territory. And yes, Europe is weak today, and that is why I want a stronger EU, even if that mean temporary neoliberalism.

hahaha so why are you into a strong eruope? are you european?

messijs-to respond to your theme, the media is not a branch of government, and cannot be treated as such. during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
I guess that the "Global Chessboard" exists at your local library. Borrow it. The whole book is practically about that theme. But you seem to be very unenlightened.

Yes, I am a European. I do not identify with the country in Europe I am living in, but with Europe as a supraregion.

And growth curves are basically the same on the countryside when a country has reached a certain level. Of course the world population is too big anyway, but it will eventually stabilise in the 50;s.

[Dimentio]

The Raven is right when it comes to censorship. A nation at war [it's not a matter if the war is justified or not] have no right to leak military plans since that would endanger the operations. Of course, wars are crazy endeavour out of scarcity mentality.

That does of course not make the journalists into traitors. They are just following the American way of making money.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:50 PM
The Raven is right when it comes to censorship. A nation at war [it's not a matter if the war is justified or not] have no right to leak military plans since that would endanger the operations. Of course, wars are crazy endeavour out of scarcity mentality.
Leaking military plans is maybe not such a good thing. But presenting facts such as the number of people dying and so on should be an enshrined RIGHT of journalists. Censorshiop like Gen. patton is suggesting would have us all sit quietly twiddling our thumbs believing our glorious and bullet proof troops were killing thousands of bad insurgants while being showered with flowers by the civilians they're not killing; a fantasy world constructed by a government to keep the war going whilst their own soldiers are being constantly killed and civilian deaths are mounting. As for war being bourne out of the scarcity mentality: there I agree wholehertedly with you.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Serpent+Jul 5 2006, 08:30 PM--> (Serpent @ Jul 5 2006, 08:30 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 06:00 PM

Brzezinski have stated that US has a profound national interest to dominate Eurasia, since Eurasia is the epicentre of the world.


can you cite where brzezinski said this? because frankly im can't take yoru wrod


Growth curves does look so in agrarian regions, but when you have a modern society, they will stagnate. Malthus was wrong.

growth curves look liek that in a lot of places, you can't use the western urban center as yoru basis.


China wants to ally with anyone who have money and sufficient territory. And yes, Europe is weak today, and that is why I want a stronger EU, even if that mean temporary neoliberalism.

hahaha so why are you into a strong eruope? are you european?

messijs-to respond to your theme, the media is not a branch of government, and cannot be treated as such. during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
I guess that the "Global Chessboard" exists at your local library. Borrow it. The whole book is practically about that theme. But you seem to be very unenlightened.

Yes, I am a European. I do not identify with the country in Europe I am living in, but with Europe as a supraregion.

And growth curves are basically the same on the countryside when a country has reached a certain level. Of course the world population is too big anyway, but it will eventually stabilise in the 50;s. [/b]
I am sorry I am not framaliar with the guy you based your views on world strategy. oh well. and I was hoping for somehtinf internet based

also you are a rare person. Most europeans seem to associate more wiht their country (see they rejected the constituion)

stablise in the 50's?? what???

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 5 2006, 10:31 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 5 2006, 10:31 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 08:50 PM
The Raven is right when it comes to censorship. A nation at war [it's not a matter if the war is justified or not] have no right to leak military plans since that would endanger the operations. Of course, wars are crazy endeavour out of scarcity mentality.
Leaking military plans is maybe not such a good thing. But presenting facts such as the number of people dying and so on should be an enshrined RIGHT of journalists. Censorshiop like Gen. patton is suggesting would have us all sit quietly twiddling our thumbs believing our glorious and bullet proof troops were killing thousands of bad insurgants while being showered with flowers by the civilians they're not killing; a fantasy world constructed by a government to keep the war going whilst their own soldiers are being constantly killed and civilian deaths are mounting. As for war being bourne out of the scarcity mentality: there I agree wholehertedly with you. [/b]
During the early 1950;s, 15.000 Soviet soldiers where killed in terror acts in eastern Europe. Occupation means killed soldiers. And the American people had the opportunity to oust Bush in 2004 [even though that would'nt have ended the war].

The fun thing is that most Americans actually lose on the existence of the American empire.

I guess that wars would be more easy to start in thirty years when droids have replaced infantry.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:47 AM
During the early 1950;s, 15.000 Soviet soldiers where killed in terror acts in eastern Europe. Occupation means killed soldiers. And the American people had the opportunity to oust Bush in 2004 [even though that would'nt have ended the war].

The fun thing is that most Americans actually lose on the existence of the American empire.

I guess that wars would be more easy to start in thirty years when droids have replaced infantry.
I know that war means casulties and occupations mean killed soldiers, I was just saying that casualty statistics should be available to the people (not militray plans, that would eb cretinous). Yeah its a shame about the voting habits of the american people impsoing that fuckwit on us for another 4 years.

What the hell do you mean 'lose on the existence of the american empire'?

Lets hope they don't replace infantry with droids before a revolution, it would be much harder to fight the droids than humans that can defect.

[Dimentio]

It is mostly the international clique of business people - the jetset - who wins on the existence of the informal American colonial empire, while the majority of the American people loses both jobs, their social security, their blood and their local neighborhoods due to the empire. In fact, prince Hazzan ibn Fallahud in Riyadh earns more within the framework of the empire than John Johnson in Milwaukee or Wisconsin.

All nations overrate the losses of the enemies and underestimate their own losses, otherwise, the populace would lose support for the war. That is especially dangerous if the nation was invaded. But that is not the case in Iraq, which is an illegal colonial war.

The Iraq war is almost as "patriotic" as the French occupation of Algeria, or even less [since 3 million French lived in Algeria in 1958].

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 5 2006, 11:49 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 5 2006, 11:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:30 PM

[email protected] 5 2006, 06:00 PM

Brzezinski have stated that US has a profound national interest to dominate Eurasia, since Eurasia is the epicentre of the world.


can you cite where brzezinski said this? because frankly im can't take yoru wrod


Growth curves does look so in agrarian regions, but when you have a modern society, they will stagnate. Malthus was wrong.

growth curves look liek that in a lot of places, you can't use the western urban center as yoru basis.


China wants to ally with anyone who have money and sufficient territory. And yes, Europe is weak today, and that is why I want a stronger EU, even if that mean temporary neoliberalism.

hahaha so why are you into a strong eruope? are you european?

messijs-to respond to your theme, the media is not a branch of government, and cannot be treated as such. during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
I guess that the "Global Chessboard" exists at your local library. Borrow it. The whole book is practically about that theme. But you seem to be very unenlightened.

Yes, I am a European. I do not identify with the country in Europe I am living in, but with Europe as a supraregion.

And growth curves are basically the same on the countryside when a country has reached a certain level. Of course the world population is too big anyway, but it will eventually stabilise in the 50;s.
I am sorry I am not framaliar with the guy you based your views on world strategy. oh well. and I was hoping for somehtinf internet based

also you are a rare person. Most europeans seem to associate more wiht their country (see they rejected the constituion)

stablise in the 50's?? what??? [/b]
1. Brzezinski was security advisor to both Carter and Reagan and bin Ladin during the 70;s and 80;s. He knows what he is talking about, and he is a supporter of America. Another geostrategist which represents European interests is Emmanuel Todd. You could wiki them.

2. Most Europeans are mostly afraid - and rightly so - that the Lisbon process would deprive them from their welfare states.

3. Even in countries like Tchad and Niger, human growth curves have been reduced during the last generation. Most likely, the world population would stabilise on 9 billion people in around 2050.

[theraven]

1. Brzezinski was security advisor to both Carter and Reagan and bin Ladin during the 70;s and 80;s. He knows what he is talking about, and he is a supporter of America. Another geostrategist which represents European interests is Emmanuel Todd. You could wiki them.

I knew who Brzenzinski was before, I just have never read his work.


2. Most Europeans are mostly afraid - and rightly so - that the Lisbon process would deprive them from their welfare states.

I am sure thats part of it, However you cannot deny nationalism is a factor.


3. Even in countries like Tchad and Niger, human growth curves have been reduced during the last generation. Most likely, the world population would stabilise on 9 billion people in around 2050.

You are assuming things keep gong as they have the past 50 years, neglecting the possibilty for major wars, natural disaster or political upheavel.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 5 2006, 06:52 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 5 2006, 06:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:24 PM

"theraven"
during war time certain restrictison must be held, because of the intereast of the people.
That is completely and totally wrong.

It is not in the "intrest" of the people to cover their eyes in a blanket of lies. It is in the intrest of the people to report the full story, pro or con.
No, its not. because fi that were so then we wouldn't be abel to keep secrets from the enemy, and thus we would lose. and losing is not in the interast in the people. [/b]
Nobody says that the media should report war tactics, or places where missiles are stationed, or the names of secret agents and such.

But the media should be able to cover slaughters like in My Lai and Iraq, and should be able to report about mass deceiving by a government.

Don't you think so too?

I'm also waiting for the response of the topic poster.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:11 PM

3. Even in countries like Tchad and Niger, human growth curves have been reduced during the last generation. Most likely, the world population would stabilise on 9 billion people in around 2050.

You are assuming things keep gong as they have the past 50 years, neglecting the possibilty for major wars, natural disaster or political upheavel.
Such events tend to decrease populations, not increase them.

[theraven]

Such events tend to decrease populations, not increase them.

temporrarly, however generally humans increase more thne the previous losses. Wars are espeicaly prone to this.



Nobody says that the media should report war tactics, or places where missiles are stationed, or the names of secret agents and such.

But the media should be able to cover slaughters like in My Lai and Iraq, and should be able to report about mass deceiving by a government.

Don't you think so too?

I'm also waiting for the response of the topic poster.

I am no fan of the government in general, however on defense it is generaly better for the press not to produce enemy propaganda. in all wars there are murders of innocnets and other such problems., it is best not to publicize yours on the hoem fornt itll after the war as it serves as enemy propaganda.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:37 PM

Such events tend to decrease populations, not increase them.

temporrarly, however generally humans increase more thne the previous losses. Wars are espeicaly prone to this.



Nobody says that the media should report war tactics, or places where missiles are stationed, or the names of secret agents and such.

But the media should be able to cover slaughters like in My Lai and Iraq, and should be able to report about mass deceiving by a government.

Don't you think so too?

I'm also waiting for the response of the topic poster.

I am no fan of the government in general, however on defense it is generaly better for the press not to produce enemy propaganda. in all wars there are murders of innocnets and other such problems., it is best not to publicize yours on the hoem fornt itll after the war as it serves as enemy propaganda.
In whose interest is this? Assume that non of the massacres will be reported, that the hate against US in Iraq is not reported, that it is said that insurgents are defeated everyday, then there would be a glorious view of the war. The US population is very positive about the war and will vote for the next republican president. This process would be against democracy. A democracy is at it's purest when voters can make an unbiased vote. Their vote is highly biased in this case and is only because false coverage of a war.

And the duty of the press is always to report unbiased, everything they notice. If you say that these things could be used for enemy propaganda, you're right. But this isn't a reason that things shouldn't get reported. Because what you do then is making purely American propaganda. Another thing is that it doesn't matter anymore what mistakes you make, because it doesn't get reported anyway.

Don't you think it is the right of the US people to judge the merits of the government unbiased?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Mesijs"
Don't you think it is the right of the US people to judge the merits of the government unbiased?
Apparently not :rolleyes: .

[theraven]

In whose interest is this? Assume that non of the massacres will be reported, that the hate against US in Iraq is not reported, that it is said that insurgents are defeated everyday, then there would be a glorious view of the war. The US population is very positive about the war and will vote for the next republican president. This process would be against democracy. A democracy is at it's purest when voters can make an unbiased vote. Their vote is highly biased in this case and is only because false coverage of a war.


I am not saying their shoudl be lies about the war, and our war dead will be reported as a matter of course, What i mean is not having a new story every week of this or that "human rights violatin" this only feed the enemy. another major factor is the same attention and outrage is rarely exprssed to the enemy


And the duty of the press is always to report unbiased, everything they notice. If you say that these things could be used for enemy propaganda, you're right. But this isn't a reason that things shouldn't get reported. Because what you do then is making purely American propaganda. Another thing is that it doesn't matter anymore what mistakes you make, because it doesn't get reported anyway.

Nothing with the possible excludion of raw statstiscs can be deemds unbiased. to deny the media is alway sbiased in some way is foolhardy. journalists are NOT obliged to report everything they notice, and must always keep in mind (especily when concerning a war)


Don't you think it is the right of the US people to judge the merits of the government unbiased?


i checked the consitution-not there.


Apparently not rolleyes.gif .

Indeed its not

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:10 PM

In whose interest is this? Assume that non of the massacres will be reported, that the hate against US in Iraq is not reported, that it is said that insurgents are defeated everyday, then there would be a glorious view of the war. The US population is very positive about the war and will vote for the next republican president. This process would be against democracy. A democracy is at it's purest when voters can make an unbiased vote. Their vote is highly biased in this case and is only because false coverage of a war.


I am not saying their shoudl be lies about the war, and our war dead will be reported as a matter of course, What i mean is not having a new story every week of this or that "human rights violatin" this only feed the enemy. another major factor is the same attention and outrage is rarely exprssed to the enemy


And the duty of the press is always to report unbiased, everything they notice. If you say that these things could be used for enemy propaganda, you're right. But this isn't a reason that things shouldn't get reported. Because what you do then is making purely American propaganda. Another thing is that it doesn't matter anymore what mistakes you make, because it doesn't get reported anyway.

Nothing with the possible excludion of raw statstiscs can be deemds unbiased. to deny the media is alway sbiased in some way is foolhardy. journalists are NOT obliged to report everything they notice, and must always keep in mind (especily when concerning a war)


Don't you think it is the right of the US people to judge the merits of the government unbiased?


i checked the consitution-not there.


Apparently not rolleyes.gif .

Indeed its not
Lies would have the same effect as not covering certain stories. Where do you draw the border? Would you restrict certain papers and news stations to cover stories?

The voter can only decide when hearing as much as possible - so also the stories about human right violations. People can only truly judge the Iraq War when they also know about Abu Ghraib and Haditha. People can only fully judge the Vietnam War when also knowing about My Lai.

You want to restrict one of the primary rights of the people: freedom of information. You also want to restrict another major right: freedom of press.

Of course, media will alway pick certain stories, and do not report everything. But they shouldn't be forced so.

What I meant with the last question, is that people should judge a president on as much information as possible. When the administration of the same president restrict the information to let the president looks better than he is, this is censorship for propagandistic purposes.

So again, why is this good for the people? You're taking away fundamental rights from them.

[theraven]

Lies would have the same effect as not covering certain stories. Where do you draw the border? Would you restrict certain papers and news stations to cover stories?




The voter can only decide when hearing as much as possible - so also the stories about human right violations. People can only truly judge the Iraq War when they also know about Abu Ghraib and Haditha. People can only fully judge the Vietnam War when also knowing about My Lai.

why? again all those things did was show the enemy we were weak, had little resovle and engraged them more.


You want to restrict one of the primary rights of the people: freedom of information. You also want to restrict another major right: freedom of press.


I am not aware of any freedom of information right clause. freedom of the press has always come with the obvious limit of not betraying the nation in war time, this includes not giving the enemy copious amounts of ammo. Also it is not the reporting of haditha and abu grahb i object to per se, its the obsession with it. they were constnatly talked about and made it major themes. THAT is what was betrayl.


Of course, media will alway pick certain stories, and do not report everything. But they shouldn't be forced so.

when they are doing so counter to national interasts...


What I meant with the last question, is that people should judge a president on as much information as possible. When the administration of the same president restrict the information to let the president looks better than he is, this is censorship for propagandistic purposes.

So again, why is this good for the people? You're taking away fundamental rights from them.

and i repeat-because it is les in their interast for their country to be defeated then it is for the new york times to get another pulitzer

[Zero]

It's not in their intrest to get involved in a war in the first place, for both sides. If the rich cocksuckers in the corporate elite want some more resources, the people should not, and will not pay with their lives for this.

[Sense-A]

Well I question the entire modern USA voting process. Especially since it is entirely electronic by now. And both elections came down to the last state. One state which was run by George Bush's brother Jeb. And the other state which had inorganization of its voting. And I must mention that it is electoral vote, not populate vote. So the electoral college does not reflect the total number of votes.

I am scared that many Americans think similarly to this General Patton character. Practically begging to give away their 'bill of rights'