NeoCons have Washington nervous

[Lanny_MacDonald]

A god read from a trusted paper who sees a the NeoCon threat to America and the world. Wait, maybe I'm not that fringe after all?

Imperial Dreams

You might have to register, but it is worth the read.

[RougeUnderoos]

There was an article in the Economist last month (I found a link, but it'll cost you $2.95 to read it) about some troubles with this bunch.

"Daddy Warbucks" (no pun intended) Conrad Black's problems are apparently bad news for the whole team. The war makes them all look bad (though of course they blame it on the Army) and there is some infighting going on. Some magazine called "National Interest" apparently has a running feud between some guy name Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer.

This is a line that I thought was good -- "Iraq looks less like a beachhead for democracy than a failed state in the making, and the war less like a brave idea than a brainwave of think-tankers without military experience".

It's by some guy named Lexington and it's called "Yesterday's men, and tomorrows".

He also says they are a clever lot and even if they get dumped by George, they won't be going away.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 08:24 PM
A god read from a trusted paper who sees a the NeoCon threat to America and the world.# Wait, maybe I'm not that fringe after all?

Imperial Dreams

You might have to register, but it is worth the read.

I thought this stuff was never in the mainstream media? Given your argument this morning, how could I pass that up? Rupert Murdoch owns the Chicago Sun-Times but this is the alternative voice that Chicagoans can read if they choose.

In fact, as numerous indicators attest, the neocon group around the president is already readying for the next step: to force the U.S. to take on Iran as well as Iraq, and perhaps then Syria.

"Take on" can mean a lot of things, including multinational economic pressure of the kind already building against Iran.

This particular columnist is saying "all out war," then is so stretched for ideas he derives a rather fanciful scenario which actually requires Iran to invade Iraq and confront USA forces, rather than Americans going into Iran, all the result of an Israeli air strike.

Doesn't that make IRAN the imperialist war mongers!!??

I would also point out that American ground forces might be stretched but they would be in precisely the spot the Iranians would allegedly attack while facing the full weight of the under-utilized American air force.

There might be nothing more unifying for Iraqi's than seeing Iranians pouring over the border.

Isn't the columnist guilty of the very scare tactics the Democrats accuse the Bush administration of using in this campaign when it says America will be less safe with Kerry as President?

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Just for fun...

http://www.cfr.org/pub7317/max_boot/bush_c...ion_on_iran.php

Anyway, that Tribune article paints a pretty scary picture. Don't know if it's true or not but it seems reasonable.

Personally, I don't think George will start another war. There are other people around than just these neo-cons, aren't there? Where the hell is his father?

If Iran actually did attack the US, they'd get smoked pretty quickly. The US wouldn't be alone for long methinks if this happened -- there have been rifts, but the traditional allies are still the traditional allies. The Russkies would probably get involved as well. Just look at a map and you know that an attack on US soldiers is going to draw all kinds of countries into it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 15 2004, 08:58 PM
I would also point out that American ground forces might be stretched but they would be in precisely the spot the Iranians would allegedly attack while facing the full weight of the under-utilized American air force.

I guess there are two perspectives on this scenario. Sure the massively superior US forces would be in an excellent position to defend Iraq from invading Iranians, but on the flip side, we've basically added a conventional war on top of an unconventional one. I doubt it would fill Iraqis with pride to see Americans defending them from their (or Saddam's) mortal enemies.

US forces would probably be pretty demoralized if they had to face a new, overt threat. Or, maybe they'd be happier, fighting a conventional conflict instead of counter-insurgency? (assuming Iraqis stopped attacking US forces... Big assumption).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I thought this stuff was never in the mainstream media?

Gee Cow, again, ONE article and the mainstream media is all over it! You're hilarious. Again, consider the number of papers that completely ignore the information and take their marching orders from, ahem, elsewhere. You'll notice a whole stream of articles from mainstrem sources who deliver this exact same message? No, they're too busy writing articles that paint the Iraq invasion as a righteous cause.

""Take on" can mean a lot of things, including multinational economic pressure of the kind already building against Iran."

Sure, and these people are just so intune with giving "multinational economic pressure" a chance. That's rich.

"This particular columnist is saying "all out war," then is so stretched for ideas he derives a rather fanciful scenario which actually requires Iran to invade Iraq and confront USA forces, rather than Americans going into Iran, all the result of an Israeli air strike.

Doesn't that make IRAN the imperialist war mongers!!??"

No, it means they are following the United States' lead of using the "first strike" capability. Christ, are you really this naive? Why the hell do you think the US is building 14 military bases, all of them capable of landing every plane in the American arsenal? Peace keeping? Math skills that poor?

"There might be nothing more unifying for Iraqi's than seeing Iranians pouring over the border."

I highly doubt that the Americans are going to see a massive amount of support swelling up should the Iranians attack. Especially if it is spurned by an Israeli bombing in Iran. You want to talk about unification? That would do it for Arabs everywhere. What, do you think for a second that Arabs all over the Middle East are not watching the US very closely and just waiting for them to make a move elsewhere? You want to talk about a flashpoint for Arab aggression. An Israeli involvement in anything outside of their own borders and you're going to see this situation explode.

You will notice that the "Coalition Against Evil-Doers" has but one Arab nation. Think about that. Kuwait is the only one on board in this litte escapade in the Middle East. Doesn't give me much confidence that the Arab nations are in favor of Americans being where they are. To put it politely, the Americans are sitting ducks if the Arabs unite. You think that the Iran hostage crisis was ugly, imagine those poor soldiers there that will be left to fight their way out. just who would come to the American's defense? Who would help them with their supply lines? No one. The worst thing that could happen would be for Israel to follow through on its threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities as it would hang the Americans out to dry.

"Isn't the columnist guilty of the very scare tactics the Democrats accuse the Bush administration of using in this campaign when it says America will be less safe with Kerry as President?"

Possibly. But this has some foundation behind it. The Republicans are trying to scare people by saying that the terrorist will strike if the Democrats are elected. That's bullsh*t, the terrorists will strike no matter who is in power. This is an ideological issue, not an issue focused on politcal parties. The Democrats, and their more diplomatic approach to things, might be more capable of building a real coalition to deal with the issues. But that is here nor there and is not of importance to this discussion. What is of importance is the belief structure of the NeoCons in power and what they believe is crucial to the success of their plans. The fact that they say they need to be able to engage forces in multiple theatres of war in their manifesto it lends creedence to the belief that they will follow through on such a plan. If you don't believe its necessary, don't print in your Mein Kampf.

Frankly, this columnist is doing what a lot of those who have been watching the PNAC are doing, and that's sitting back shaking their heads hoping they don't get another four years to push their plan forward. These guys are nutty enough and committed enough to their cause that they would follow through on their plans. But hey, you can call it fearmongering if you want, just like it was fearmongering to say that the Americans were going to invade Iraq without reason.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 15 2004, 09:28 PM
Just for fun...

http://www.cfr.org/pub7317/max_boot/bush_c...ion_on_iran.php

Anyway, that Tribune article paints a pretty scary picture. Don't know if it's true or not but it seems reasonable.

Personally, I don't think George will start another war. There are other people around than just these neo-cons, aren't there? Where the hell is his father?

If Iran actually did attack the US, they'd get smoked pretty quickly. The US wouldn't be alone for long methinks if this happened -- there have been rifts, but the traditional allies are still the traditional allies. The Russkies would probably get involved as well. Just look at a map and you know that an attack on US soldiers is going to draw all kinds of countries into it.

Nice to see another PNAC connected "think tank" toss in their two cents. Same type of garbage was said before going into Iran. It ain't looking pretty, as you said.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 10:04 PM

Gee Cow, again, ONE article and the mainstream media is all over it! You're hilarious.

Since you took a dump on yourself once again how could I pass it up? You continually start threads saying these articles don't exist then you turn around and produce them in blizzards in other threads. Then you get caught and try to explain it away with a wave of the hand.

What am I supposed to do? Not hit a home run? You can't have it both ways.

No, they're too busy writing articles that paint the Iraq invasion as a righteous cause.

No, they probably don't want their names attached to a hairball idea like Iran sending fixed formations over the border to attack a concentrated American formation, supported by overwhelming air power no less, in Iraq. That's called common sense, of which this particular author is apparently in short supply.

If you were to produce an opinion that Iran will be sending ground to air shoulder-fired missiles to Iraqi insurgents to negate the effect of American helicopters - as the Americans did the Russians in Afghanistan - I would give it serious thought. Its not an unlikely scenario.

But this? Desperation city. Wow.

Sure, and these people are just so intune with giving "multinational economic pressure" a chance. That's rich.

Yeah, they got lots of spare troops for these wacky schemes of yours. Oh wait, this time the war will come to THEM according to you. Well, that makes things a lot easier its true. AND, as a bonus, the Americans still get the blame.

Nicely wrapped in a bow for Christmas.

I highly doubt that the Americans are going to see a massive amount of support swelling up should the Iranians attack.

I can see the headlines now: "Iran Invades, Pulse Of Iraqi Populace Fails To Rise"

Wow. Nice planet you got there. They'll fight one invader but not the one they really fear.

Iran comes in, America uses the excuse to bomb whatever's left of Iran's nuclear capability then it bombs to smithereens whatever Iran might be sending over the border. When the three fanatical Iranians still living finally reach an American soldier he blows them away.

Then the Iranian mullah's are kicked out of office by an already agitated public.

Bring it on.

No, it means they are following the United States' lead of using the "first strike" capability.

So. . . . . if the Americans invade first that makes them Imperial War Mongers? If the Iranians engage a first strike they're . . . . "first strikers?"

Christ, are you really this naive? Why the hell do you think the US is building 14 military bases, all of them capable of landing every plane in the American arsenal? Peace keeping? Math skills that poor?


Well, they already have MAJOR air bases at two isolated ex-Iraqi air force sites in the western part of the country. For one thing. And bases in Kuwait and Qatar. And aircraft carriers if need be. I'm sure Turkey wouldn't stand in the way of using its American base in the event of an Iranian invasion of Iraq. I can see the Saudi's going buggy-eyed at the Iranian menace that much closer to them. Oh, and America has air bases in Afghanistan as well, which happens to border Iran.

The most obvious use of 14 refurbished, pre-existing and isolated former Iraqi army military installations, which is what they are, is to withdraw from the populated areas of the country as the Iraqi's assume ownership of their own security.

The flaw in your logic, so obvious you could drive a Mac Truck through it, is that 14 new bases simply means 135,000 guys already there have different tents than the ones they're in now, rather than the massive escalation from the present scenario you seem to be intimating.

These guys are nutty enough and committed enough to their cause that they would follow through on their plans. But hey, you can call it fearmongering if you want, just like it was fearmongering to say that the Americans were going to invade Iraq without reason.

You and I sat in this forum on Sept. 11, 2001 and talked of the coming invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. . . . . just like everyone else in cyberworld that day. Lookee that!! It happened!! We didn't even have to write a policy paper on it. Are you and I fearmongers?

Further, you've already conceded in this forum your PNAC scenario's most probably wouldn't have seen the light of day without the impetus of 9/11, a President we both readily agree that was weak on foreign affairs and an administration that was accused in the 9/11 report of being too disinterested in events going on around it.

Now you're trying to tell us someone is goofy enough to invade Iran . . . . no, wait a second, now you're telling us someone in IRAN is going to be goofy enough to send fixed formations to attack Americans in Iraq. And then you're going to blame it on the American neo-cons when the Iranians get smoked.

That's hilarious.

I said on Sept. 11, 2001 Afghanistan and Iraq would be invaded, just as you did (even though you didn't like the idea). And I've said since then those will be the last major LAND engagements for American forces for the next 25 years.

That's where you and I differ.

We will see.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 15 2004, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 15 2004, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 10:04 PM

Gee Cow, again, ONE article and the mainstream media is all over it! You're hilarious.

Since you took a dump on yourself once again how could I pass it up? You continually start threads saying these articles don't exist then you turn around and produce them in blizzards in other threads. Then you get caught and try to explain it away with a wave of the hand.

What am I supposed to do? Not hit a home run? You can't have it both ways.

No, they're too busy writing articles that paint the Iraq invasion as a righteous cause.

No, they probably don't want their names attached to a hairball idea like Iran sending fixed formations over the border to attack a concentrated American formation, supported by overwhelming air power no less, in Iraq. That's called common sense, of which this particular author is apparently in short supply.

If you were to produce an opinion that Iran will be sending ground to air shoulder-fired missiles to Iraqi insurgents to negate the effect of American helicopters - as the Americans did the Russians in Afghanistan - I would give it serious thought. Its not an unlikely scenario.

But this? Desperation city. Wow.

Sure, and these people are just so intune with giving "multinational economic pressure" a chance. That's rich.

Yeah, they got lots of spare troops for these wacky schemes of yours. Oh wait, this time the war will come to THEM according to you. Well, that makes things a lot easier its true. AND, as a bonus, the Americans still get the blame.

Nicely wrapped in a bow for Christmas.

I highly doubt that the Americans are going to see a massive amount of support swelling up should the Iranians attack.

I can see the headlines now: "Iran Invades, Pulse Of Iraqi Populace Fails To Rise"

Wow. Nice planet you got there. They'll fight one invader but not the one they really fear.

Iran comes in, America uses the excuse to bomb whatever's left of Iran's nuclear capability then it bombs to smithereens whatever Iran might be sending over the border. When the three fanatical Iranians still living finally reach an American soldier he blows them away.

Then the Iranian mullah's are kicked out of office by an already agitated public.

Bring it on.

No, it means they are following the United States' lead of using the "first strike" capability.

So. . . . . if the Americans invade first that makes them Imperial War Mongers? If the Iranians engage a first strike they're . . . . "first strikers?"

Christ, are you really this naive? Why the hell do you think the US is building 14 military bases, all of them capable of landing every plane in the American arsenal? Peace keeping? Math skills that poor?


Well, they already have MAJOR air bases at two isolated ex-Iraqi air force sites in the western part of the country. For one thing. And bases in Kuwait and Qatar. And aircraft carriers if need be. I'm sure Turkey wouldn't stand in the way of using its American base in the event of an Iranian invasion of Iraq. I can see the Saudi's going buggy-eyed at the Iranian menace that much closer to them. Oh, and America has air bases in Afghanistan as well, which happens to border Iran.

The most obvious use of 14 refurbished, pre-existing and isolated former Iraqi army military installations, which is what they are, is to withdraw from the populated areas of the country as the Iraqi's assume ownership of their own security.

The flaw in your logic, so obvious you could drive a Mac Truck through it, is that 14 new bases simply means 135,000 guys already there have different tents than the ones they're in now, rather than the massive escalation from the present scenario you seem to be intimating.

These guys are nutty enough and committed enough to their cause that they would follow through on their plans. But hey, you can call it fearmongering if you want, just like it was fearmongering to say that the Americans were going to invade Iraq without reason.

You and I sat in this forum on Sept. 11, 2001 and talked of the coming invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. . . . . just like everyone else in cyberworld that day. Lookee that!! It happened!! We didn't even have to write a policy paper on it. Are you and I fearmongers?

Further, you've already conceded in this forum your PNAC scenario's most probably wouldn't have seen the light of day without the impetus of 9/11, a President we both readily agree that was weak on foreign affairs and an administration that was accused in the 9/11 report of being too disinterested in events going on around it.

Now you're trying to tell us someone is goofy enough to invade Iran . . . . no, wait a second, now you're telling us someone in IRAN is going to be goofy enough to send fixed formations to attack Americans in Iraq. And then you're going to blame it on the American neo-cons when the Iranians get smoked.

That's hilarious.

I said on Sept. 11, 2001 Afghanistan and Iraq would be invaded, just as you did (even though you didn't like the idea). And I've said since then those will be the last major LAND engagements for American forces for the next 25 years.

That's where you and I differ.

We will see.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I don't think it's all quite as far-fetched as you think. An Israeli attack on Iran is not going to be met with smiles and sunshine and you gotta know that they are a little itchy with the Yanks and their preparations to stay permanently.

This is interesting...
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Artic...2004Askari.html

Wow. Nice planet you got there. They'll fight one invader but not the one they really fear.

Wait a second, are you trying to say that Iran is the enemy the people of Iraq really fear, and America is in second place? That doesn't sound right to me. I read somewhere today that a whole lot of exiled Shias (like 2 million) returned from Iran after Saddam got dumped. Both countries have a Shia majority. Neither country is particulary large-western-occupying-army welcoming. They could easily be on the same page re: American occupation.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 16 2004, 01:12 AM
I don't think it's all quite as far-fetched as you think. An Israeli attack on Iran is not going to be met with smiles and sunshine

I don't think it's going to be met with a formation attack right into the wheelhouse of the American military in Iraq either!!!

It would give an excuse for American air power to be used over Iran itself and any elements of the Iranian attack would be destroyed out of hand by vastly superior air power.

Where's the upside for Iran? I certainly see lots of downside.


and you gotta know that they are a little itchy with the Yanks and their preparations to stay permanently.

Did they stay "permanently" in Saudi Arabia? Come to think of it, wasn't it neo-cons who pulled USA troops out of Saudi Arabia?

In the end, already ordained in the new Iraqi constitution I believe, is a roughly pre-determined 55% Shia majority via democratic vote which the chief poobah al-Sistani is trying to get lifted to a higher percentage.

In other words, Iran doesn't have to do anything but allow an election to happen to get a Shia led government in Iraq. It would surprise no one if the Iranians are taking the common sense approach of maneuvering behind the scenes with agents provocateur to get certain candidates elected.

Then again, free and fair elections might set a bad example for Iran's mullahs.

Second, with Mucky al-Sadr seemingly for real this time in stopping the shooting and joining the political process, the lingering rebellion from Iraqi's might be largely Sunni based. The Shias know they're going to be the majority in government.

Third, its simply obvious the USA can't permanently station 135,000 troops in Iraq. They're already strained to the limit.

If the Americans had their druthers, you would see what you're seeing in Afghanistan, which also borders Iran, troop levels varying between 10,000 and 20,000 depending on the circumstance, located in easily defensible, isolated bases well out of sight. Its probably no coincidence the bases being refurbished in Iraq are also out of sight/out of mind kinds of places.

If you're talking about "long-term" in Iraq, longer than three years supporting the law and order movement, then I could see that. Is Iran raising a major stink about 20,000 Americans on their other border in Afghanistan? Not really.

The issue with Iran is its nuclear program. Some speculate its already too far gone, too decentralized, for the Israeli's to surprise anyone or actually do much too it anyway.

Most likely the solution is diplomatic. As with North Korea, its probably the only avenue left.

My thoughts.

Wait a second, are you trying to say that Iran is the enemy the people of Iraq really fear, and America is in second place?

The issue was: "If Iran sent four divisions of troops, armour, etc, across the border, how would Iraqi's react?" My answer was: "Probably not well."

Iraqi's might not want to be ruled by Mullahs any more than Iranians like it right now.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Cowperson said:
I don't think it's going to be met with a formation attack right into the wheelhouse of the American military in Iraq either!!!

Yeah you are probably right, but it's going to be met with something. Put yourself in their place for a minute. If the Israelis attack them and the Yanks are right next door, what would you think is coming next? If you think you are going to get hit anyway then it's only reasonable to go for it, no? When would they have a better chance to actually have a chance?

Where's the upside for Iran? I certainly see lots of downside.

I see lots of downside as well, but like I said above, maybe they only see downside anyway. Who knows? Not us.

Did they stay "permanently" in Saudi Arabia? Come to think of it, wasn't it neo-cons who pulled USA troops out of Saudi Arabia?

I don't know. How long were they in Saudi? Okay, maybe "permanently" is too strong a word, but they are going to in Iraq for a hell of a long time, so it's the same difference. Let's give a conservative estimate of 10-20 years. I'd say that sounds permanent enough.

In the end, already ordained in the new Iraqi constitution I believe, is a roughly pre-determined 55% Shia majority via democratic vote which the chief poobah al-Sistani is trying to get lifted to a higher percentage.

In other words, Iran doesn't have to do anything but allow an election to happen to get a Shia led government in Iraq. It would surprise no one if the Iranians are taking the common sense approach of maneuvering behind the scenes with agents provocateur to get certain candidates elected.

Remember though, all this election stuff looks like a sham even to me. Things haven't changed. They still hate America. Any election they run through is going to be eyed with a healthy dose of skepticism. The fanatics and even the regular people aren't going to be thinking "well, the Americans did promise %55 Shia majority so we are in good shape".

Iraqi's might not want to be ruled by Mullahs any more than Iranians like it right now.

Yeah, they might not want to be ruled by Mullahs. There is no question though that they don't want to be ruled by America. Which one would they think "the lesser of two evils"? I don't know either, but I'm sure they won't be taking up arms with their new American overlords.

[badnarik]

lanny you are out of control.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Stated by Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

I finally found the GOP mission statement for this election....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by badnarik@Oct 16 2004, 06:41 AM
lanny you are out of control.

Thank you, nicest thing anyone has said to me in weeks. I agree, and its GREAT to be out from under the control of the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media.

BTW... anyone see Bill Maher's show last night? The Rev. Jesse Jackson alluded to the same thing (media mind control). Guess he's another looney on the fringe too.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 16 2004, 01:40 PM
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Stated by Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

I finally found the GOP mission statement for this election....

Goering made the comment in a private conversation with a prison pyschologist and not at the trial. It's from a book by the pyschologist and not in the trial transcripts.

The conversation, including comments from Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist:

Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some
poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some
say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."

The quote was circulated by anti-war activists during the Vietnam War as well and is being regurgitated lately.

Was Goering saying what a poli-sci prof once told a class of mine, that "75% of the people are chronic know-nothings and shouldn't be allowed to vote?"

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 17 2004, 01:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 17 2004, 01:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 16 2004, 01:40 PM
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Stated by Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

I finally found the GOP mission statement for this election....

Goering made the comment in a private conversation with a prison pyschologist and not at the trial. It's from a book by the pyschologist and not in the trial transcripts.

The conversation, including comments from Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist:

Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some
poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some
say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."

The quote was circulated by anti-war activists during the Vietnam War as well and is being regurgitated lately.

Was Goering saying what a poli-sci prof once told a class of mine, that "75% of the people are chronic know-nothings and shouldn't be allowed to vote?"

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Regardless of the where, what he said is what is going on.

[Agamemnon]

Thank you, nicest thing anyone has said to me in weeks. I agree, and its GREAT to be out from under the control of the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media.

Lol, good one

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 17 2004, 12:06 AM
Regardless of the where, what he said is what is going on.

Interesting you would say that in a thread that starts with a Democrat writer saying outright that a vote for Bush will lead to an attack on USA forces.

I would agree both sides are saying the USA will be less safe if the other is elected.

Also, Germany wasn't attacked by anyone. The USA was attacked on 9/11, even if you don't view that as an impetus for the reaction to Iraq.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 17 2004, 04:40 PM
Also, Germany wasn't attacked by anyone. The USA was attacked on 9/11, even if you don't view that as an impetus for the reaction to Iraq.

Cowperson

I thought Germany claimed self-defense against Polish incursions, didn't you bring that up before Cow?

Just yankin your chain :P

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 17 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 17 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 17 2004, 04:40 PM
Also, Germany wasn't attacked by anyone. The USA was attacked on 9/11, even if you don't view that as an impetus for the reaction to Iraq.

Cowperson

I thought Germany claimed self-defense against Polish incursions, didn't you bring that up before Cow?

Just yankin your chain :P [/b][/quote]
Yes I did. I thought of including it in my post above but . . . . . it's not relevant since one attack was fake and the other was real.

I could have said Goering was a rather stupid, self-involved, butt-kisser and hardly someone to be quoted on a weighty matter but then I thought, you know, someone might have a clever retort to that.

Cowperson