Us Economic War Aims: Main Lines Of Approach

Im waiting for someone to ask me how I find some of this stuff. You cant find a lot of it in the Google, that's for sure. Well, you can now cause I put it there. Haha.

 

Ok. How do you find this stuff?

 

It was a very sound point being as we cannot know what would have happened without American interference but we certainly know what has happened with American interference. They interfered in Iran in 1953 and that led nearly 30 years later to the revolution and the rise of an Islamic state there. Now if the Americans did not interfere there then what may have happened? We could now have a democratic Iran.

That is just one example and I think anyone with even a basic grasp of history could present many others.

 

Beginning with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 untill last year I followed my instincts and started reading a lot of books and USG documents because the major media wasnt answering my questions, only creating new ones. So I would go to the bookstore or library and do research or buy or check out the books. Then I would fact check the author's footnotes. So for example, I got this statement by the CFR and the State Department from a book by Noam Chomsky:

That's the only part of the documents he quoted in his book. So I looked at where he got that information and then typed that sentence into the Google Book search and the Council on Foreign Relations documents popped up just as he said, but then that revealed a lot more of the contents in the documents cause you could see it in the search so I copied what I could see.

I also extended my reach into the documents by copying and pasting the sentences that were cut off into the search and then the other half of the sentences and more were revealed. Ive done this with a lot of other information as well.

It's unfortunate that there is a lot other important information that is simply unavailable on the internet. Most of it was available at one time but has been pulled for some reason, which means I cant use it to make a case cause I cant link to the source. An author may cite it but I cant use them as a source to support my argument cause certain people will use that as an excuse to dismiss it.

 

This seems obvious. Instability leads to less dependable flow of resources. Promote stability and sympathetic leadership. Use military force only when it promotes stability and/or sympathetic leadership. I don't see anything cryptic about this, its normal international policy for almost every nation on earth. "Propaganda" is mostly nationalistic central truths (not outright lies) designed to create acceptance for unavoidable and regrettable actions.

 

That's an awful lot of spin. USG documents constistantly show that the term, "stability" is the codeword for obedience. A country is stable if the government is following orders, even if they're murdering and torturing tens of thousands of people, with US backing in most cases.

 

Latin America was forced to accept what was called the Economic Charter for the Americas, that would "eliminate economic nationalism in all its forms":

These rules were to be enforced and applied elsewhere as well.

A CIA National Intelligence Estimate warned of the threat of pressures of social and unrest and nationalism and the trend toward nationalist regimes that are responsive to the popular demands of the depressed masses of the population:

Well, none of that is acceptable. The first beneficiaries of the development of a country's resources should be US investors, their counterparts elsewhere, and their local associates: they have a prior claim on the human and material resources of the service areas.

This was the conclusion of a prestigious study group of the study group of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, which warned that the primary threat of so called "New Nationalism", "Communism" or what Washington now refers to as "Radical Populism" is:

 

"Radical Arab Nationalism" = Instability

US policy is to use force if necessary to maintain control of Persian Gulf oil because it gives it a "strong bargaining position."

There is "Petroleum Policy of the United States," Memorandum of U.S. Department of State, April 11, 1944, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1944, Vol. V ("The Near East, South Asia, Africa, The Far East"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, pp. 27-33. An excerpt (p. 30):

The Memorandum identifying "Arab nationalism" as "inimical to Western interests" is N.S.C. [National Security Council Memorandum] 5801/1, "Statement By The National Security Council Of Long-Range U.S. Policy Toward The Near East," January 24, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII ("Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 17-32. An excerpt (pp. 18, 20-22, 31):

The reference to using Israel as a counterweight to "radical Arab nationalism" is in a declassified policy paper prepared by the National Security Council Planning Board commenting on the Memorandum. See "Issues Arising Out of the Situation in the Near East," July 29, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII ("Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 114-124 at p. 119 (the exact words are:

 

Then again, General Mitchell was also not the only one who was talking about Japan starting the war with an air attack.

Marine Major Earl Ellis was doing the exact same thing, back in the 1920's. He even went as far as to predict that they would start it with an air attack on the US Navy Base at Pearl Harbor, and that the then lost art of Amphibious Warfare would have to be reinvented. And that the war would be a long one, of the US pushing West one island at a time.

And that for the next several decades after that, the major US involvement and wars would be in East China, including what was then Indochina.

And Homer Lea (died 1912) wrote a book called The Valor of Ignorance, which talked about a coming war with Japan. He described the invasion and conquering of the Philippines, as well as the importance of Hawaii in a comming future war. Both General MacArthur and his staff, as well as the General Staff of the Japanese Imperial Army paid close attention to this book, and both sides incorporated the lessons from the book into their war plans.

And there were others during that era that looked at our "ally" Japan with growing alarm. It was not General Mitchell alone.

Tell you what. Instead of just throwing an doing absolutely no research whatsoever, why not do a little research? Here, come on. Let me help you. It is not that hard at all.

First, let's research The Business Plot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot

Through this, we find out that it was the McCormack–Dickstein Committee.

Now we have the names, John William McCormack and Samuel Dickstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._McCormack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Dickstein_(congressman)

What are their backgrounds? Well, Congressman McCormak was the grandson of immigrants who fled the Irish Potato Famine. Son of a stone mason, he quit school in the 8th grade to work to support his family. He then was largely self-taught in law, and a strong supporter of FDR and the New Deal. He was an FDR supporter in all things, and later as Speaker of the House, he was fundamental in the Great Society of LBJ, as well as in fighting his own party to help pass the Civil Rights Acts. So it is highly unlikely that he would be in collusion with the plotters.

Congressman Dickstein was an immigrant, and born in Lithuania. From early on in his political career, he was alarmed at the rise of Fascism, and started the first committies to look into the NAZI Party, and groups like the German-American Bund. He was the key member to getting the McCormack–Dickstein Committee started, but took a back seat at his own request, because he was afraid that his being Jewish could cause some to claim he used his Jewish faith to not be impartial in the hearings.

And of course after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the files of the KGB showed that he was a paid informant of the NKVD. So I think we can discount the idea that he was a secret backer of theplot as well.

So what do we have as the members of your secret cabal? Well, certainly not the 2 people who investigated it, that's for sure. One was a life-long New Deal Liberal his entire career. The other was a Soviet spy. Neither one of these is likely to have wanted to see FDR replaced with a military coup, or to have backed anything even remotely like that.

This is what I mean over and over when I encourage people to do real research. Not just throw out meaningless nonsense. I research all my posts (I had even known about the Dickstein NKVD connection, but did not mention it then because it did not matter to the actual investigation). This is because I wanted to know who investigated General Butler's statements, to see if they were impartial. And not only were they impartial, everything about their histroy before and afterwards screams that they would if anything gone after such a plot with everything they had, if it existed.

So I will say once again what I constantly say. Research, research, research. Do not just throw out random accusations, then expect others to do it for you. And do independent research, multiple sources, and check the sources. This is what you should be doing.

 

Says the guy who just went to wikipedia. LOL. Horhey has done much more research than you did.

 

Are you serious? You're lecturing me about doing research? I spend 99.9% of my time here sharing the stuff I research and you come at me with this?

 

I could go back and look at our past debates and pick this statement apart. You have no shame.

 

How did he do research? He just claimed they were Fascists themselves.

Thank you for that remark though Junior.

 

It is obvious he has done more research than you just by going on all the links he has provided to many different and reputable sites. All you did was go to wikipedia and copy and paste and then complained that Horhey did not do any research. What a joke. Also you are the junior here, I am in my 60's and you are in your 40's. I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

 

Actually, I invite you to read through what I posted. You will find that I absolutely pasted nothing but the links. Everything I wrote was written by myself, useing material both from Wikipedia, as well as from other references.

You will find that for me to "copy and paste", is a very rare event. I invite you to go through my thousands of posts, you will find very few "copy and pastes", and almost every time I do I italicize it to show I am doing so.

However, that is different from Horhey, when 98% of his posts are nothing but Copy and Paste posts. So you are blown there. I invite you to go back through my posts here. Please show me how I copy and pasted anything. Please, show me the page that shows that I made any kind of Copy and Paste.

Please? Please?

And I do not call you "Junior" because of age, but as I have said before. I consider you "Horhey Junior", because your rebuttles are pretty much the same as his. Challenge you on something, you vomit up 10 tons of data, with almost no actual reference to what is being discussed at the time. The data can even conflict with itself, but that does not matter simply because it is all attacking the thing you want attacked.

No consistancy, no relevence, often times way off track and unverified. You simply flood us with a ton of data, seeming to think that validated your point.

So as I said, Horhey Junior. Or as I have been saying recently, Junior.

Nothing to do with your age.

Now before you go off again about more nonsense, how about a kind retraction as to the claim I "copy and paste". Because unless you can find where I did the Copy and Paste from, I think you are standing on absolutely nothing here. And I demand a retraction on such a slanderous lie.

 

Now you're critisizing me for copying and pasting evidence too much after you just lectured me about how I should do research and provide evidence before commenting on an issue. You really just did that.

 

Horhey you absolutely flood threads with long articles, jumping from one topic to another. Before anyone can really approach the issue you post 3 more and keep them coming. There's a reason why so many of your threads flame out so quickly and why you're responsible for 75% of all the posts in them. Pick an article or two and stick with it. Most people don't even bother trying to debate you because you're all over the place.

 

You seem to feel the need to run off in another direction when challenged. Horhey has done heaps of research for all his threads on this forum and he has also provided links to a vast amount of reputable sites then you roll up and say he has not done any research and then all you can manage is to post some links to wikipedia. It is very funny.

 

That is very funny coming from you. On the rape thread you were shown to be dishonest and not a very good researcher. That you tried to post up out of date stats just goes to show that you do not even stick to what you are telling others to do. The one thing I like about your posts kid is that you try hard but lack the analytical mind to check your own sources and you have been caught out many times now.

 

Copying and pasting article after article is not "research". In fact, most of your articles have little to nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.

This is a death manual.

No, it is not, read it.

Here is a long copy of actions by El Salvador.

Fine, that is not the US.

Here is a long article of actions in Nicuragua.

Fine, that is not the US.

Here is another report of actions in Guatamala.

Fine, that is not the US.

Here is another one saying how the manual is a death manual, a repeat of my first post.

No, it is not, read the actual manual.

Here is another report on El Salvador all over again.

That is not research. Research is where you look at things critically, comparing multiple sources until you can find an actual common linking thread that is as unbiased as you can make it. There is nothing critical in your posts, and their only linking thread is "the US is evil".

And it is like that in every thread you originate or participate in. As the old saying goes, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". And that is mostly what you do. And it is like this in every thread. Nothing original, just more vomits of some (largely undocumented) allegations from decades ago.

And most of them are just repeats of previous discussions that you vomited up in the past.

And Junior, it all goes back to your own belief. Just because you reject my references (which you do every time automatically), that does not mean they are not good references, nor are they not valid. You simply reject them. This is what goes back to "critical thinking".

When I enter a debate topic here, I do not consider it an argument or a fight. It is a debate. And this may shock you, but sometimes I even debate opposite of what I really believe. This is because I discuss things based on facts, not my own personal opinion. I do not take it personally, and do not let my own belief get in the way.

Recently, I was in a debate about abortion. I find it repugnant on a personal level, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is and should remain be legal. This is something that many in here seem totally unable to comprehend. They get so mixed up between "belief" and "fact", that unless the fact agrees with their belief, it is automatically rejected out of hand.

Disagree with my references, fine. That does not make them invalid references as long as they are topical. All to often, Horhey's are not. They wander all over the board, and are not only repetative, they are all over the board and do not discuss the topic at hand.

Me on the other hand, I do not "copy and paste" my references. And I still have not had an apology for the claim that I do that (where is that evidence BTW Junior?).

 

Please stop the US military apologist rubbish. It is clear to everyone except you that America has spent all its history robbing and murdering for money. Horheys research goes further than anything you have ever presented. You always write really long posts with little actual content. All the places named above were states where the US government was involved in fermenting coups and training death squads. The evidence is so overwhelming that only a complete joker would deny it.

 

Did they really? It seems that your own links disprove what you are stating. Let's have a look.

From your link.

In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims.[1] In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.[2] No one was prosecuted.When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee "purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true" and "It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated."[8]

 

If you actually bothered to read what I show you would see that they are all related to the topic. If I disagree with someone's comments, of course Im going to offer more evidence to support my counter argument.

Point out one article or document Ive shown here that has nothing to do with the topic.

And that reason is because you are unable to challenge the case Ive made. What are you supposed to say? I suppose you can counter it with far right wing spin but then you'll just look silly like TBryant.

Wow..

 

If I can find the articles or documents on this issue I'll start a thread on it.

 

Checkmate..