It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Going to War, Goering Style

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
You, of course, discount the very real possibility that 9/11, the Anthrax Attacks, and maybe even subsequent terror attacks, could well be a 'red cell' scenario run amuk. You're familiar with Dick Marchenko and Team Six's 'rogue warrior' ops? You know, 'red cell'.


I do not completely discount the possibility in so far as to think it imposable or 'above' my country. Believe it or not, although I am about as patriotic an American as you will ever come across, I am not so naive as to think such a scenerio is completely out of the realm of possabilities - just that in this particular case, from everything I have read, it just doesn't make sense, especially from your angle of the military industrial complex being behind it. In all honesty, I see the oil angle as much more realistic, although still false.



Where do you stand on the creating Bin Laden angle? You don't seem to buy into that, either.


I buy into the US having been responsable for his training and backing during the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, but thats where it ends for me.



I take it, then, you won't be going along with the "Fight Club" analogy.


I haven't heard it, and I'd love to hear it - though I can't promise I'll agree.




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   


I feel like the MIC took the movie "Fight Club" to heart, and is duking it out with its own alter ego, while all the tough guys stand around going, "Hey! let me try that!"


That's the "Fight Club" analogy.


I can't help getting the impression that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the MIC was casting about for another cash cow to milk, and hit on the idea of a never ending global war on terrorism as the final solution to their needs. It is all just too well packaged and tailor-made to fit any other way. Like you said, they could pull it off, too.

On the surface, we have a polarizing cause, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." The terrorists are connected to fanatical (Islamic as opposed to our Christian) extremists who got their training from us and their money from the Saudis, and there seems to be an endless supply of them complete with car bombs and civilian atrocities. Do you see how at some point it all becomes circular, like a dog chasing its tail? We claim the moral high ground, but behind the scenes we are creating our own enemies.

We keep invading, they keep terrorizing, the ante keeps rising on both sides, and I ask again, who profits? They blow things up and we rebuild them over and over again. Its all about the process. Is this what they call "nation building"? I call it dangerous meddling at a time when we should be cleaning our own house and becoming secure from within.

Sun Tzu again, "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppotunity of defeating the enemy."

and,

"Thus it is in war that the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory is won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

Sage words from a master of the art.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
and wishes I'd go away. Don't worry, the day is getting closer.


I'm not trying to say that it's O.K. to stifle dissent.

But if you lived through the 1960's. . . .

You remember watching the media "choose sides," first against a Democrat president (Johnson), and drum him out of office for his conduct of Vietnam. I know that Walter Kronkheit is seen as a journalistic hero today because the media writes its own history. But some remember "Walter Concrete" running down each and every decision LBJ made, denigrating every word he spoke and even every silence he kept.

Nixon, who'd already lost to a Democrat, was easily elected because he pledged to get us "out of Vietnam." He had a plan, and said it would take years. The media and the moderate Left said, "at least he has a plan. . ."

And then, as soon as he got in office, the started drumming him out of it, too. When he'd given in to the liberal agenda in the first place. Watergate was wrong, but it is the sort of thing whole administrations resort to when they feel surrounded and attacked. Remember, Nixon didn't act alone. Everyone in the executive branch felt just as "under attack" as "tricky Dick" himself did.

A lot of us remember Hannoi Jane Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft gun and aiming it at the skies where American planes flew. Younger Americans don't even know who she is, but every Vietnamese youngster does . . .

What I'm saying is, the history books and specials on TV talk about the courage of the peacenicks in the 60's. They delete episodes like the riots in Watts and the Democratic National Convention, which was as much of a Debacle in its day as Hurricane Katrina is in ours, except that the Chicago riot was CAUSED by instigators who wanted to disrupt America's democratic process in the name of "peace."

I'm thumbing through my copy of Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book!" which was a yippie guidebook for rebeling against America. On every page, you can read about how America is evil, and deserves to be "embarrased."

My point is this. I am old enough to remember when dissent ripped this country apart, when it hobbled our foreign policy, when it invited our enemies to attack us.

(None of you probably remembers when Arab extremists merely hijacked planes instead of ramming them into things . . .)

I wouldn't for the life of me stifle your precious right to throw poop at the flag. And I have no doubt that all non-liberals are the cave-dwelling neaderthalls you portray them to be. But I understand why a lot of people get uptight when they see people shouting about the evils of the government, and feel like "here we go again."

Of course, I'm sure that you'll say you wouldn't hate Bush & Co if they weren't so evil.

But that's what Al Quaida says, too.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I don't hate Bush, and this thread has nothing to do with Bush, other than its his watch at the post. He is fun and easy to bash, I must admit. If he had tried to go against the grain, I'm sure he would have gotten the same treatment Kennedy did.

Again, I believe a noble cause has been twisted to serve corrupt masters and provide ill-gotten gains paid for in the blood of our children.

That said, wouldn't it be poetic justice if Hanoi Jane played Cindy Sheehan in the made-for-TV, straight to DVD version of "Camp Casey goes to Washington"?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unfortunately, we have obviously NOT learned from our mistakes and are doomed to repeat them. History is repeating itself. It's clear to some and not so clear to others.

History does not repeat itself, there are only coincedences, comparisons, and similarities. The use and saying of "History repeats itself" is an inaccurate cliche'. What is clear, is that you, as with others, are not aware of this.

Anyone with the time can go through past historical quotes or sayings to find and fit any message that one might wish to bring forth today. Doing so and then introducing a topic labeled as Going to War, Goering Style is one such attempt to do just that.





seekerof



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Actually, the quote lead off a Harpers Notebook article I read a couple years ago, and it stuck with me. When I saw the FDR quote starting off another Notebook piece this morning, I did take the time to find a link to the Goering quote, but the idea for this thread has been within me, needing expression, for some time now. I admit the thread title is somewhat inflammatory, but hey, that's my style. I need your attention to try and get my point across.

I am not throwing poop at the flag, I am standing between the flag and those who would drag it through the excrement of their own misbegotten self-interest to fly it to their own nefarious ends from the soiled parapets of their stolen redoubt, and don't you forget it.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
May be slightly OT, but another Eisenhower quote can't hurt. Eisenhower was there. He saw the military-industrial complex, that was summoned for World War 2, in its first years in its new, peacetime incarnation (not much different from the old incarnation.)



Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

[edit on 26-9-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

I am not throwing poop at the flag, I am standing between the flag and those who would drag it through the excrement of their own misbegotten self-interest to fly it to their own nefarious ends from the soiled parapets of their stolen redoubt, and don't you forget it.



As long as YOU don't forget that you're not the only person convinced of the rightness of his own cause; that just because someone differs with you doesn't make them an unthinking ignoramus. Freedom of dissent cuts both ways.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   


Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.


Nothing against old Ike, but he was really using rhetorical flourish here.

After all, it was an American, Robert Parker Parrott, who developed the "Parrott Gun," the first reliable rifled cannon.

www.cwartillery.org...

His "arsenal of democracy" was the West Point Foundry, which, although it was a government-owned facility, was subcontracted to 'a private corporation.' Here again, it a republican administration that oversaw the merger of military and corporate endeavors. And in the process, blowing thousands of young southerners to smithereens.

In small arms, the best example is probably Colt.

This has actually been going on since the time of Hammurabi.

an excellent study of government, technology, and the 1000 year-old arms race is

The Pursuit of Power : Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000 by William McNeill

www.amazon.com...

No hate for Ike, but surely he knew better when he was acting like the convergence of the "iron triangle" of govt, army and business was something new. He was enough of a historian to know better.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I think Eisenhower's speech isn't so much on looking at the military-industrial complex as a single case model, or the history of it, but in the huge leap in magnitude Eisenhower witnessed. The arms industry of the civil war, indeed no arms industry in history, matches in scope what happened post WW2. It's not so much the triangle itself, its the power that gained during that period (and retains today.) You are probably correct that it was old news to him, though, but I can't blame him for making the warning regardless


[edit on 27-9-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I am making the counter-argument. The "military-industrial complex" has driven western civilization for a thousand years; in many periods, it has been much more blatant than it is today.

And I think the Civil War is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

Are you aware for instance, that Lincoln had 5000 democratic party leaders arrested in the state of Maryland, that he shipped them off to "camps" in New York, where they were held without bail and without being charged until the end of the war?

He argued that Maryland was in danger of joining the succession, in which case the nation's Capitol would be totally surrounded by successionist territory. So he arrested every voice of organized dissent.

Nothing in modern US history compares, not even during the depths of WWII.

As America has become progressively more of a world power (or "empire," depending on your terminology), it has needed to expend more and more of its GNP on arms production.

What I'm saying is, this is the ground-state of western capitalism. It was this way in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, when Edward I built the largest catapult the world had ever seen, for his invasion of Scotland. He named it "God's Own Sling."

If anything, we have more of a civilian economy today than we did when Ike made his "military industrial" neologism. Of course, he was speaking among the wreckage of WWII and Korea.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
That's the "Fight Club" analogy.


I can't help getting the impression that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the MIC was casting about for another cash cow to milk, and hit on the idea of a never ending global war on terrorism as the final solution to their needs. It is all just too well packaged and tailor-made to fit any other way. Like you said, they could pull it off, too.


Except that the facts don't support your theory. Before Clinton had left office, he had already planned a DoD budget increase from 262 billion in fiscal year 1999 to 319 billion in FY2005. Source

Now, that was under Clinton, who in military circles is best known for ripping the heart out of everything he could when it came to budgets (and moral for that matter, but that is a whole other topic in it's self).

Now, fast forward to 2000. Bush is now in office, and is an obvious defence hawk. He vowed to bring Reagans vision of a national missle defence shield to fruition. He vowed to increase both the budget and the size of the military. Cheney himself was the secretary of defence.

So, it would be reasonable to expect a substantial increase in DoD funding. Now, if the MIC knew this was coming, as even the casual political observer would, why then would they want a war? They were already going to get roughly the same money they are getting now with the war.

I think a misconception here is that a war brings about more buisness for defence companies. This is not necessarily true. It is true that the military must replenish the munitions they use, but this money was already earmarked for the same defence contractors in the form of procuring new weapon platforms.

Take one of the better known contractors - Lockheed-Martin. They got the USAF contract to develope the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) in the 80's, and it is just now coming into service. Originally, the US airforce wanted over 700 of the 100 million dollar a pop planes (now known as the F/A-22 Raptor).

These numbers were slashed to about 350 as of a few years ago due to smaller requirements. However, because of the cost of this war, that number has been further reduced to 250 aircraft. Thats 10 BILLION dollars that Lockheed lost - and in the long term it will be much more then that because every upgrade program that is done to the aircraft will be performed on fewer airframes. Now, they will probably make up a bit of the difference because the USAF will need to replenish it's suply of munitions like the GBU-31 JDAM, but they would have probably made more money without the war.

Also, one must consider that the DoDs budget is now preoccupied with things such as higher advertisement to help recruiting, combat pay, and logistical expenses.

In fact, it would be better for the MIC to avoid a war such as the one in Iraq and TWOT, at least IMO (and perhaps when I have more time I will look into this). These wars are not the ones that bring in huge profits - it's the ones where the nation it's self is under dire threat, such as WWII. When the whole nation is working in unity on war for it's survival, then it is very profitable. But under conditions like these, it is simply redistributing funds that were already theirs.

IMO, the best thing the MIC could have done from a conspiracy point of view would be to promote the cold war II against China. That would actually make sense. They could use Bush and his hawkish mentality to bridge the period untill China became a clearer threat (which we can already see happening today). Of course they would be absolutely correct in promoting China as a threat to US national security and intrests.

In the mean time however, the MIC could be spending all those DoD dollars on developing NEW (read more expensive) weapons systems, which need all NEW spare parts, and NEW munitions. That would set them up nicely when China became a real threat, as they could see orders for these weapons go from marginal (such as the current Raptor procurment) to substantial.

Anyway, that is enough rambling from me for the night...



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Those are great theories and suppositions, but that's not how I see things work in my reality.

For instance, massive budget cuts and downsizing can now be added to the list of reasons why the MIC needed a war to tide them over until China looms. Don't forget, it takes an imminent threat to spur the kind of R&D investment you speak of, the 'plowshares into swords' mentality. Just feeding the beast gets hard to justify.

In fact, I think without a clearcut global threat like TWOT, the MIC wouldn't be able to justify even a Clintonesque budget, and hey, some of that money might go to maintaining infrastructure, like levees for instance, or really leaving no child behind, or addressing the one in twelve who live in poverty in America. You know, things like that, instead of bombs and guns. Ike's little history lesson has come to pass, and the MIC needs to be reined in.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by Dr. Strangecraft
As long as YOU don't forget that you're not the only person convinced of the rightness of his own cause; that just because someone differs with you doesn't make them an unthinking ignoramus. Freedom of dissent cuts both ways.


Agreed. That is what makes this country so great. E pluribus, unum. Yes! We need to get the checks and balances back into proper place, IMO they are way out of whack, before the wheels come off again.

We are all free to voice our own opinions within certain reasonable limits, and we all have an obligation to come to a reasonable compromise with others that helps move the group forward.

The voice of reason must be recognized and realized.

edit latin spelling

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
History does not repeat itself, there are only coincedences, comparisons, and similarities. The use and saying of "History repeats itself" is an inaccurate cliche'. What is clear, is that you, as with others, are not aware of this.


[sarcasm]
Thanks for setting me straight on that. I should have U2U'd you first to check and see if history can repeat itself or not. I should have checked to see if I was right or wrong, because clearly I'm wrong. What a dipstick I am!

[/sarcasm]

The thing is, I don't believe in coincidence. Or at least very rarely. And when two situations have so many similar points or we seem to be living the same thing over again, there comes a time when I just can't dismiss it as 'coincidence'. Keep telling yourself it's just a coincidence. I don't care, but I disagree. And I am not wrong or 'inaccurate'.

Clichés are clichés because they're true most of the time. That's how they get to be clichés .



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I want to add some recent developments that support my theory on what may be going on in this country.




But Rumsfeld said the government would likely address again the question of "lead responsibility" for the Defense Department in disaster response. He noted that the issue was critical not only in responding to a natural catastrophe but also to a terrorist attack, because reliance on local authorities has been the basis of emergency planning in both cases.


Some Urge Greater Use of Troops in Major Disasters




Di Rita said Rumsfeld has not made recommendations to Bush, but among the issues he is examining is the viability of the Posse Comitatus Act. Di Rita called it one of the "very archaic laws" from a different era in U.S. history that limits the Pentagon's flexibility in responding to 21st century domestic crises.


Viability of the Posse Comitatus Act

Wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one fills up first.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Those are great theories and suppositions, but that's not how I see things work in my reality.

For instance, massive budget cuts and downsizing can now be added to the list of reasons why the MIC needed a war to tide them over until China looms. Don't forget, it takes an imminent threat to spur the kind of R&D investment you speak of, the 'plowshares into swords' mentality. Just feeding the beast gets hard to justify.

In fact, I think without a clearcut global threat like TWOT, the MIC wouldn't be able to justify even a Clintonesque budget, and hey, some of that money might go to maintaining infrastructure, like levees for instance, or really leaving no child behind, or addressing the one in twelve who live in poverty in America. You know, things like that, instead of bombs and guns. Ike's little history lesson has come to pass, and the MIC needs to be reined in.


The thing is, these aren't theories on my part, they are facts. Go look at the DoD budget your self.

To say that the MIC wouldn't be able to keep Clintons proposed budget is rediculous - they were the smallest budget allowences by percentage Since WWI! You are looking at total dollars instead of looking at percentage of aavailable dollars. As it stands right now, with a 400+ billion DoD budget, the US is average in the world for the percentage of it's budget that is used on the military.

Frankly speaking, you have a couple of things completely missunderstood, such as saying that there was down sizing and budget cuts in the military budget. That is patently FALSE. Since Bush came to office, Budgets were INCREASED - and this was before the war on terror.

You may WANT those dollars to go to levees and such, but the simple facts are that war on terror or not, the DoD was going to be getting roughly the same money as they are now. The difference is, how it was going to be used. Bush had called for his presidency to be used as a time for the military to aquire leap ahead technologies.

Now, what do you think that requires? Extreme R&D spending of course. The DoD was licking it's chops when Bush came to office. The reason was, his presidency represented a unique time for them - a time when they had no rival but cold war level budgets. Thus, they could throw money at any pet project theyt saw fit.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Frankly speaking, we disagree on several issues. You have your take on the facts to support you, and I have mine. I don't believe I am misunderstanding the facts as I see them, and neither, obviously, do you.

That's ok. The truth about all this will eventually come out. I can wait until then for a final decision on who's right or wrong. I refuse to accept your premature judgment of my pov at this point. Believe me, I want to end up wrong about this, but I just don't think I will.

Peace to you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join