Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What really was the "Cold" war??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I've been mulling over this ofr quite some time, and to be honest it may all be nothing. But, here goes...
May 1945, Nazi Germany is no more. Finally, after millions of deaths, the total devastation of entire regions of Europe and the near genocide of a whole ethnic group Europe is now free of the yoke of Naziism.
Into this power vacuum step the United States and The Soviet Union.
Both gained superpower status becasue fo their war with Germany, both are cultures with deep ties to the Illuminati (American ties are possibly more distant but it makes sense to beleive that Lenin, Trotsky and others were part of a bigger plan), and so now, for all intents and purposes, the two rule the world.
But despite rhetoric, threats, saber clashing and even the threat of a nuclear confrontation (Cuba 1960's), nothing of major import happens directly between the West and the Soviet Union.
Instead what happens is...

The United States declares war on Communism, resulting in the fiasco with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the birth of the intelligence communities spying on our own populace. Of course, all in the name of National Security
North Korea, a client state of the USSR, invades South Korea. The United States and the UN move forces in to aid the South. Soviet supplied Red China sends massive amounts of manpower to stem the UN tide. War ends in a draw, effectively Asia is now under the influence of both the US and USSR
Under the guise of fighitng Communism the CIA wages secret wars in Latin Amercia, hundreds of thousands die, the CIA takes control of the drug trade, KGB and CIA operatives have working trades and secret agreements with drug lords in exchange for political interests in said nations. US and USSR now control Latin Amercia
The US provides arms and training to the Isreali military, the USSR sends advisors and amssive amounts of arms shipments to the Mid East. Time and again the Arabs and Isrealis clash but no decisive battle is fought. The US and USSR gain control of the Middle East.
The US forces its way into the Vietnamese civil war, the USSR does the same. Although forced to withdraw from Nam due to political pressure not military, the US makes billions on drugs and defense contracts due to the VietNam war, the USSR gains control of yet more proxy nations.
The USSR forments dozens of bloody wars in Africa (Rhodesia, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia) in the meantime making billions off of arms contracts with unscrupulous warlords. The US overtly ignores it, but secretly CIA and mercenaries infiltrate region and ensure a from of "stability" by their actions. Again, the US and USSR grow more powerfull.

Eventually the USSR lost the game, their country imploded, mostly through gross beauracratic neglect and woefully improper spending habits which bankrupted the Soviet treasury. Ever since the US has been waging a proxy war to pick up the pieces dropped by the former Soviet Empire, and we're succeeding. I submit this...
The Cold War between the US and the USSR was a well orchestrated sham by members of a cabal consisitng of Intelligentsia, Illuminati, Industrialists and high level beaurecrats who saw the oppurtunity to rule the world through the guise of "rhetorical war"
Could it be that the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union was actually seen as a bad thing in the West? Was the vacuum they left behind a thing to be feared because it meant a certain level of global control had been lost by the ones ion true control?
One must admit, the instant Nazi Germany surrendered, the grab for world domination began, as did the gradual demise of our civil liberties.

Comments, flames, opinions welcomed.
(Yes, I'm going to start a thread!!!)




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
The Cold War was a state of political and military rivalry between the west and the east, not just the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And without it, there would be many things that we would not have today, such as satellite communication and weather engineering devices. It was a great fall for the industries of both sides when the wall came down. They all lost vast amounts of money, if that's what you're getting at.

Whether it was a sham or not all depends on your view of the thing. Personally, I don't think it was. (Cuba 1960's) wasn't just some little blow-up that didn't matter in the large scale of things. It revolutionized the way the east and the west saw the war, fake or not. People believing, at least, the war was real stationed actual nuclear warheads on Cuban soil, and a nuclear weapon was actually ordered to be launched during the crisis.

You say the Illuminati and others initiated the war. I don't claim to be an Illuminati buff, but to what end did they start it for? To make massive amounts of money? The person who started the Cold War was in my humble opinion President H. Truman, with his Marshall Plan after WWII that gave every country in Europe two options. Side with the United States, or don't. After a v. quick search I learnt he was involved with the Masons, but I'll let the rest of the speculation be handled by other ATS members.

How did these Secret Societies use the war for their benefit?
I'm sorry, but where are these Illuminati rulers now? [color=#cccccc]Im gonna get flamed for this for sure


[edit on 1/2/2006 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW


The United States declares war on Communism, resulting in the fiasco with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the birth of the intelligence communities spying on our own populace.

Under the guise of fighitng Communism the CIA wages secret wars in Latin Amercia, hundreds of thousands die, the CIA takes control of the drug trade, KGB and CIA operatives have working trades and secret agreements with drug lords in exchange for political interests in said nations. US and USSR now control Latin Amercia


Time and again the Arabs and Isrealis clash but no decisive battle is fought. The US and USSR gain control of the Middle East.
The US forces its way into the Vietnamese civil war, the USSR does the same.

Although forced to withdraw from Nam due to political pressure not military, the US makes billions on drugs and defense contracts due to the VietNam war, the USSR gains control of yet more proxy nations.
The USSR forments dozens of bloody wars in Africa (Rhodesia, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia) in the meantime making billions off of arms contracts with unscrupulous warlords. The US overtly ignores it, but secretly CIA and mercenaries infiltrate region and ensure a from of "stability" by their actions. Again, the US and USSR grow more powerfull.



I have to say I disagree with your interpretation and narrative of events. I was an adult, politically active in that time-period. Were you? Not that your presumed youth invalidates your political conclusions; but rather, that you may have missed some important nuances left out of your (left-leaning) school history books.

Specifically:

1. USSR had promised that it would not absorb the baltic states directly into the SU if they "got" Poland, and would allow free elections. Instead, once the American people were celebrating peace, the tanks rolled in.

2. It turns out that the soviets didn't suddenly "get" US nuke secrets in the late 40's. They'd had spies at Los Alamos during WWII. They were planning for the eventual world-conquest, with the American built A-bomb.

3. The SU didn't support Vietnam. It was Purely Chinese. Same with North Korea.

4. The Cuban missle crisis was real. People quit going to work and school for 10 days, and just stayed home to watch TV. Cuban and US Jets were shooting it out over US and Cuban airspace.

5. The major drug market for heroin has always been the USA; but that market didn't emerge until the later half of the 1960's. So "CIA profits" were not a cause of vietnam. More of an effect.

6. You should really go back and read up on the McCarthy/HUAC proceedings. Not watching a Hollywood movie of it. You want the truth? McCarthy said a bunch of hollywood was commie. They said no. He called for hearings. It got ugly. Then one of the subpeoned hollywood execs, a man named Elia Kazan started saying that practically all of hollywood bigshots were communist party members.

Nobody has every accused him of lying, mind you. But they said he was a horrible traitor (?) who gave in to the witch-hunt atmosphere, and gave McCarthy power. In truth, the facts themselves are what gave McCarthy power. The Wikipedia article on Kazan is heavily "dry-cleaned" so as not to point up that hollywood really was full of communist party-members. Otherwise, no scandal. Kazan never worked again, and was given an Oscar once he was dead (!)

The wikipedia article, and the oscar tribute have both edited history to say that hollywood communists were blacklisted, when the opposite is the case--the anti-communist whistleblowers themselves were blacklisted or given horrible film roles, including SAG chairman Ronald Reagan. . . .

7. Most Americans have no clue (media blackout) that a number of our Allies during the cold war had Soviet agents in the very top of their governments. Canadian member of parliament Fred Rose. The personal secretary of Wili Brandt, the West German Chancellor. I remember, as late at 1985, when the head of West German intelligence, Hans-Joachim Tiedge, was exposed as a Soviet Spy, and defected to the iron curtain

My point is this: Despite a white-wash by the socialist media that surround you, the truth is that the Soviet Union was a grave threat to both the United States and the whole of Western civilization.

Younger people are ignorant of Kruschev's UN speech, taking off his shoe and pounding it on the podium, pointing to the USA representative to the UN and shouting "We will bury you!!!"

You believe what you are told:

That the only thing you have to fear is . . . the government itself.

.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
whats so bad about communism, its such double standards, i dont agree with the way capalists work but i dont go to war on them. anyway technically has there ever been true communism or are we talking about the selfish i want power off shoots , stalinism, leninism to some degree. im not to fresh on china tho i should be. anyway communism , done properly isnt a goverment type . seeing society, perceptions, ecomics, in the eyes of communists everythings needs to be changed ,,

the cold war i find is similar to the war on terror , america gets you scared takes your freedom and you pay it even more of your salary, , the endless cycle of fear and hate that america spins, wheres the dream man....i was in college today in my @understanding society @ lesson and one of the reasons which im being teached is capitalism is around because nothing else is available, and another good one was "its the best which is available", my response to the teacher, is why not make a new one,

i will never understand society.....



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I truly didn't mean to cone across as a leftist, it just seems that way by what I said.
I can only interpret history through my young eys (25) and what I see is that during the cold war many profited.
I firmly beleive the USSR was a real threat, they weren't the good guys. But I think it's not just coincednce that we never fought a standing war.
Whether we want to admit it or not, if they (USSR) wanted to they couold have plowed under NATO in West Germany in only a few weeks. Be honest, had it not been the Red colussus, Nazi Germany never would have lost WWII.
I see too many coincidences in history to not take notice. It seems to me that ever since the wall fell and Gorbachev resigned, the West and the US in general have been scrambling to try to pick up the pieces and to regain strict control over the world.
Honestly, I'd rather we ruled the world than China.
As far as North Korea went, the Soviets did supply them with arms and even fighter pilots during the war, true only Chinese troops engaged US forces as far as outside Communists went, but I was under the impression that the Soviet Union built up North Korea heavily before the war for the very reason of maintaining complete control over the whole of Korea.
I understand a little better now McCarthy. I do beleive however that what he got involved with created a state of fear (warranted or not) and many innocent people were jailed or harrassed.
And it's pretty obvious hollywood is a bunch of far leftists, come on now.
And the Soviet Union had agents in this country big time.
There was a book written by the former head of the KGB (forgot the name of the damn book, have to search for it) and he claimed that the Soviet Union actually tried to generate a second American Civil War based on race by utilizing agents in both the KKK and for MLK! He even went so far as to say that the Black Panthers were and still are a creation of the KGB!!

[edit on 1-2-2006 by SpecAgentDW]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness

whats so bad about communism . . . anyway technically has there ever been true communism

the cold war i find is similar to the war on terror , america gets you scared takes your freedom and you pay it even more of your salary,

i will never understand society.....




You say it wasn't so bad.

You ever go through Czech or Hungary when they were still communist? In Hungary, they had "oven police." The apartment would set the temp on about 50 degrees farenheit. Then, people would use the oven, with the door open, to heat their apartment. So the govt set up "oven police" to pop in with no warrant and see if your oven was hot and you were using up the proletariats' gas. So people would make bread dough and set it out. If there was a knock from the floor below you, you knew the oven police were on the way up!---throw the dough in the oven!!!!

Let's see. The sausage in capitalism is red with flecks of white. I remember seeing sausage that was white and flecked with red in Czechistan.

What's so bad about Communism? Well, for one thing, it is receding so quickly that you never got to read Solzhenitsins' "Gulag Archepelago."

As far as "ideal" communism, the problem is that it assumes an elite can direct society better than the marketplace can. That even if people are willing to pay an extra dollar for the few loaves of bread in a store, that the commisar says you cannot raise the price; so the first people (all party members) get food, and the others go hungry, even when they had money.

See, an open market, like an auction, or the stock exchange, etc, is a way of determining what a CROWD is willing to pay for an item. And the price changes with their mood and their hopes and fears for the future.

In a communist model, central planners are supposed to decide. What you end up with is a factory that makes one kind of shoe, and no one wants to wear it. But they meet their quota, so there is no recourse.

The key to capitalism is not the chance to get rich, despite Gordon Gecko telling us that 'greed is good.' The real power of Capitalism is The Freedom to Fail. If you make shoes that hurt people's feet, you'll go broke and be replaced by someone who makes nice cheap shoes, even if they happen to be from the Philippines or China. The real problem with the US is not that it is "too capitalist." On the contrary, big business is buying govt power to protect itself from the freedom to fail. In other words, the problem with America is that it is drifting away from capital and towards a statist fascist economy driven by an elite (owners) who don't pay for their own failures. If anything, America is not capitalist enough!

But I agree with your final sentence.

.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW

I can only interpret history through my young eys (25) and what I see is that during the cold war many profited.



Yes, profit is the reward in the capitalist system for doing a good job. And back in the cold war, a lot of Americans did an outstanding job, whereas their soviet counterparts less so. Hence this board is hosted with the Roman alphabet, rather than Cyrillic.

The cold war was real. No one had a handle on it. Not the illuminati, not the devil himself. No one.

My best friend in high school (class of 85) and I both got talked to by the navy (we had outstanding physcis scores on a college entrance test.) "Don" took the bait and wound up playing "Scotty" on big subs until about 1996.

He still won't talk about the classifieds. But he and his drinking buddys Will talk about playiing chicken with russian subs at full speed underwater, and veering away at the last second. Or maybe even "kissing ivan."

I asked about specific incedents. He told me that the russian sub that surfaced off Sweden in the 80's was not an accident, "at least not a russian one."

Ditto for the american sub that surfaced and wrecked a "fishing boat" near hawaii.

ALthough he was civilian by the time of the Kursk, he voiced serious doubts about whether it was an accident. Same with the thrasher and scorpion.

I might be wrong. Have been before. But, as an avid conspiracy buff, I say the war was deadly serious, and the human race was on the verge of self-imposed extinction.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I never presume to be an expert at anything, I'm only 25 and have a hell of a lot to learn in life.
dr. Strangecraft, I must say I 've learned lots since reading your replys to my thread and I give you heartfelt thanks. I still beleive that there may have been a greater hand at work to forment some sort of global control, but Communism had to be defeated.
TO the poster who wanted to know what was so bad with Communism, think about this.
Communism is a system of control. The equal distribution of wealth can only occur if there is someone powerfull enough to FORCE it to occur. Capitalism simply states that if you work hard enough, enter the right market fields for oyur talents, you can go anywhere.
Capitalism is reward for work done with the reward beign based on the amount of work, effort and level of work you've done. (IE managers, overseers and the like get paid more than laborers for the simple fact that they have the knowledge and expertise to handle the affairs of others.)
Communism means that no matter how hard you've worked, you will only receive a dole like anyone else.
There is no reward with Communism. The greatest lie ever is that all men are equal. No were not! I can't play basketball as well as Ben Wallace, therefore I'm not his equal. Even though I ama rabid military history buff, I'll never be as good a general as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Erwin Rommel or George Patton. I'm not their equals. I'm taller than most people, God granted me the genetics to squat 405 pounds, many people aren;t my equal in that arena.
Communism is a nice sounding system, but in the real world has no basis in reality.
It's hard to be objective and to really think things like the cold war and communism through when you live in a country whose media is rabidly left wing.
The older I get the more conservative I become simply because IT MAKES SENSE. It simply exists in the real world. You can be touchy feely or cold hard anylitical, truthfull, brutally honest.
I still beleive that there may have been some sort of high level agreement somewhere to at least take advantage of world events, but I am no longer trusting of the arguments that the US is evil, corrupt and so forth.
Certainly we have many ills in our nation, but that doesn't mean I want to go out and burn an effigy of W.
One of my high school buddies is a Marine door gunner in a Super Huey operating near baghdad. He took part in the operations around Fallujah.
Part of me wants nothing more than to be at his side, damn what everyone else thinks.
But medically, I can't join, even in times of war.
I'm glad there are those who are knowledgable enough to educate me on this web site. To you go my heartfelt thanks.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I'm always happy to fuel someone else's paranoid castles-in-the-air.

A seminal book you've probably never heard of, even on this forum is called.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

It was written in 1971, on the heels of a much milder anti-communism pulp called None Dare Call It Treason. About how the state department and educational establishment were eaten up with reds.


None Dare Call It Conspiracy was the closest that "Illuminati Theory" ever got to being mainstream. In it, Gary Allen concludes that the Rockefellers (Then the world's richest Western Family) were in bed with the Politburo. You can read about a young Rockefeller who took his wife on "honeymoon" to moscow during the Cuban Missle Crisis, if I recall.

He claimed that Communism was a tool of the Super-rich, and was manipulated by them as a way of taking over the west at the same time they had an enemy to blame.

Seriously. you'll love it.

.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
but we are all equal because we are life, how can life be unequal, how can one mans life be worth more than another man, full stop
still i beleive communism will come about , its just not communists time yet, plus i still dont think technology is ready forr true communism, or marxism as you will

the reds(soviets) were dangerous only cuz they used communism to gain power, where as if they used it for change, perhaps things would be different.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness
but we are all equal because we are life, how can life be unequal, how can one mans life be worth more than another man,


I think the poster meant that, while all humans are of equally intrinsic worth, they have unequal abilities. Demanding equal outcomes from all individuals (a mind-set frequently found among socialists) is a denial of human individuality and personal excellence. I took that to be the poster's point.



still i beleive communism will come about , its just not communists time yet, plus i still dont think technology is ready forr true communism, or marxism as you will


Why would technology make a difference? If communism is the best ordering of human society, why do you need a certain tech level? Humans relate to each other in stereotypcial ways, regardless of technology. I am certain they have schoolyard bullies in Somalia, just like they do in Suburban Los Angeles. If communism is going to protect the workers from being exploited, then you shouldn't need phasers or teleporters to implement it.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This is my opinion and it's probably flawed, but I'll post it at its present state anyway.

I think the Soviet Union was very bad. They were oppressive to their people and that's never right. However, I think the United States also built up propaganda about them to gain support against them. Now, some of that propaganda was intended for Soviet countries but found its way back to America and became "fact" here as well.

If I recall correctly, there was a newly appointed CIA director who came in with some of these "facts" and called a meeting on how to deal with them only to be told by his people that they had created them as propaganda.

I'd also like to note that while I think the Soviet Union and all other large practical applications of Communism have been very bad, I don't think Communism in itself is bad. It works very well in certain settings - ones where the people under it are all willing members that can leave at any time.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
I don't think Communism in itself is bad. It works very well in certain settings - ones where the people under it are all willing members that can leave at any time.


Where is this place?


Honestly, I think the ideals espoused by Marx sound very nice. The problem really boils down to the fact that there is no way to reward people for co-operating, without "paying" them or giving them something they want." The idea that people should give their labor without any particular reward, is, in my opinion, a fairly good definition of slavery.

The second problem is that the state claims to serve the people. Yet in the name of serving the people collectively, it ruins the lives of countless individuals. Individual men and women end up subservient to the instution that purportedly serves them. That's a great definition of opression.

A third problem is rooted less in the ideals of communism than it is in the outlook of statists everywhere, whether fascist, socialist, communist, whatever. This is the idea that an elite of central planners knows what is best for you. They forget that, as soon as they punch out and go home at the end of the day, they are "just citizens" like you and me. Marxism presupposes a vast, state-controlled economy. And I believe that any economic planner, even a genius or a computer, is less adept at setting prices than you and I are, working with the rest of society in an unchained marketplace.

The desire for equal prosperity is not evil in and of itself. The problem is, you have to take so many "moral shortcuts" on the road to perfection, that you end up oppressing the invdividuals you supposedly serve.

And that problem, at its core is philosophical rather than technical.

.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
technology is so needed and im not talking bout lasers or phasers i just mean, better technology for self suffience and prosperity (im poo at spelling) right now were in a phase of complete consumerism, we need everything and now, once we realise this is a problem im sure social perception will change and with it technology or im just hoping 2012 will end it.

every1s a cog in the system just becuase some1s a bigger cog doesnt mean the smaller cog is less valuble, because its needed as a whole.my spin on things but lanuage is subjective im sure someone will teear it apart

oh and capitalism isnt the right to fail

its the right to charge(money) anyone for anything....thats what it is



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
dr_strangecraft: That place is small communities like artist colonies where people work together to do the neccessary things to keep the community running, then are free to work on their projects. Perhaps that's not technically communist, I don't know.

And it's on the internet in places like Wikipedia and its sister sites. Everyone contributes with no reward other than the knowledge that the information they're helping get out there is furthering humanity. It's not slavery because you don't have to do it if you don't want to and you can leave the site whenever you want.

I don't think it will ever work on a nationwide level, however.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I never meant to imply by my previous post that human beigns aren't all intrinsically valued by their creator, I merely meant to say that not everyone can do the same things, therefore to expect everyone to be on the level as everyone else is unrealistic and quite honestly unfair.
By the way, don't worry about beign poo at spelling, I am too.
I have actually heard of the book none dare call it conspiracy, but I have never seen it even in used book stores.
I have a formulating theory (which actually contradicts the theory I used to start this very thread. Live and learn, grow wiser, sometimes opinions change) that states that alot of the current anti-American and far elftist ideas beign shouted from the rooftops is a conspiracy in and of itself. A conspiracy to make this nation weak so as someone else may destroy it.
No better way to smite your enemy than to make him doubt his own actions, and I see that all the time.
However, I still hold to my beleifs that those like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds and Illuminati have used world events like the cold war to bring about a "form" of one world rule.
I may be wrong but thats why I signed on to ATS. To learn.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness
better technology for self suffience and prosperity . . . .

. . . we need everything and now, once we realise this is a problem im sure social perception will change and with it technology or im just hoping 2012 will end it.

oh and capitalism isnt the right to fail

its the right to charge(money) anyone for anything....thats what it is



Funny you say that technology is what delivers prosperity, since (once again) technology and prosperity both come most to capitalist countries.

Japan has extremely limited natural resources. And yet they are one of the richest. Switzerland is another. Did communism make them high-tech and prosperous? no. Capital did.




oh and capitalism isnt the right to fail . . . its the right to charge(money) anyone for anything


Well, No communist state has ever outlawed money; they use it, too!

If you honestly think about it, most people will see that capitalism is a (sometimes brutal) way of sorting out the enterprises which serve the public from those that do not. The problem with communism, one more time, is trying to engineer society from the top down, instead of letting it blossom like a dynamic organism, on it's own terms.

.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
dr_strangecraft: That place is small communities like artist colonies where people work together to do the neccessary things to keep the community running, then are free to work on their projects. Perhaps that's not technically communist, I don't know.

And it's on the internet in places like Wikipedia and its sister sites. Everyone contributes with no reward other than the knowledge that the information they're helping get out there is furthering humanity. It's not slavery because you don't have to do it if you don't want to and you can leave the site whenever you want.

I don't think it will ever work on a nationwide level, however.


No, it's not communist.

But I'm right there with you.

You know, if you talk about the usefulness of capitalist market systems, people these days read a lot of propaganda into your views.

I believe that the most important things in life have absolutely nothing to do with money or markets, free or otherwise. Collective behavior often shows humans at their best.

Funny that you would mention artist communes. My wife & I and some friends have been reading up on "co-housing," which is collective living without all the socialist OR financial profit trappings.

I am a religous person, and am into "collective behavior" in a big way. I think that collectives like the Red Cross, Catholic Charities, The Salvation Army, the United Methodists, Baptists, et al. did most of the real work of saving lives in Hurricane Katrina. Not FEMA, and not some sort of govt contractors. Not walmart or the electric companies, although they donated in big ways.

I don't think EVERYTHING can be reduced to a market auction. On the other hand, you were talking about free associations, one of the cornerstones of economic liberty. People can join wikipedia, contribute or leave on their own. They can also decide to leave and market their services if it serves them.

So, I don't worship money. Money is just poker chips, ways of keeping score on who owes what to whom. But some things cannot be tagged and measured. Other things must be. Like whether a doctor should practice medicine or go golfing. If he wants to buy things, he'd better start treating patients. Not have a govt clerck tell him he's met his quota for the day.

Why do I post here? because I like it, and it's free. I'm not here to make a profit. But I still value it nonetheless.


.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I can't help but notice dr-Strangecraft that your avatar is from the movie "The Big Lebowski", I love that movie.
Okay...moving on.
In the attempt to steer this thread back toward conspiracy ( I love getting in trouble) I have a simple observation.
Since the Cold War saw so many limited actions between client states of the West and the Communists, how come in the only two major conflicts our nation was directly involved in (Korea, Vietnam) our military was so hampered by politicians?
Why did we have to follow strict rules of engagement and follow boundary lines for maneuver forces when this so clearly aided Communist forces in both wars.
The US Senate and the State Department who both contributed to these ridiculous boundaries on military action (in my mind, indirectly contributing to higher US casualties) were made up of members of the Council On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commision.
The CFR and TRICOM have had powerfull members in very high offices ever since the 1920's. Is it not feasible that these men and these two groups were somewhat behind not just the hampering of US war efforts during actual conflicts, but who also stood to gain from limited war. (High profits from defense industry, necessary restriction of certain societal elements IE more power to the powerful)
It's not hard to research and to find the links between long standing European Royal Family links to Secret Societies and to those same ancestral links in the Soviet Union. After the rise to power of Lenninism in Russia, many of these men who served under the Czar transferred over to work for the new regime, maintaining the link between the Western European Illuminists and the Eastern societies.
Although I will never say that the US was evil in fighting Communism or that this nation as a whole is a bad nation, I still cannot beleive that there aren't those in power then and now who would willingly use tragedies such as wars and natural disasters to profit themselves either financially or through the garnishment of more power.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW

how come in the only two major conflicts our nation was directly involved in (Korea, Vietnam) our military was so hampered by politicians?
Why did we have to follow strict rules of engagement and follow boundary lines for maneuver forces when this so clearly aided Communist forces in both wars.



Now, once you start talking specifics, I start to really Rant

Again, Truman's name pops up. You probably know that MacArthur wanted to invade mainland china if necesarry, and use a "nuclear demonstration" if that was needed to convince the reds that the USA meant business. Truman fired him and sent him home; thus sending the exact opposite message: That it was problem-solvers that truman wouldn't tolerate. Red Hordes, however, were welcome.

MacArthur and Patton were two of America's greatest military minds. Both of them were stifled by politicians and not the enemy. Both of them were the primary source of allied victories in their theaters, and outspoken concerning the Red Menace.

Truman is the same one who sold us out at Potsdam, and gave half of Europe into the hands of the one Murderer who has exceded Adolph Hitler; and that was Joe Stalin.

So there, I'm right with you.

Pointless defeats.

Can we talk about Kissinger now?

Google his name with communist spy, and see what pops up . . . and this is the man who made our "deal" with Ho Chi Minh for us to withdraw "with honor" from Vietnam.

.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join