# Memorial Day, Remember our Gangsters?



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/05/21/memorial-day-hoax-paul-craig-roberts/

Maybe, I'll start a controversy. The link contains the whole article. Do you agree or disagree with this general's speech?



> We are told that the war dead died for us and our freedom. US Marine General Smedley Butler challenged this view. ..... "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
> 
> I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then weâll fight. ....... I wouldnât go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
> 
> ...


I can see this being correct especially recently. One can argue that WW2 was needed to stop the NAZI threat, although I have alway felt if the U.S. had not gotten into WW1 there wouldn't have been a world war 2. If American business men had not helped Hitler he could not have been able to wage war, and if IBM had not helped him he could not have killed 6 million Jews. So is Memorial Day a Hoax like the title of the article I quoted? Are we honoring the deaths of non-thinking gangster muscle men?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

You can end a war instantly, all that is necessary is to surrender. Beat your swords into plowshares and you can plow in peace, for those who still have swords. 

Wars are ALWAYS fought for power and power comes from money. Look at the American Revolution. What do you think it was about? It was about money. The colonist wanted to keep more of what they made and the crown wanted to keep taking it from them. WWI? Same thing just with more nations and more money involved. WW2? Yep, Germany, Japan and Italy wanted more power/money and the evil governments with more than those three had (France, England, USSR, China, USA et al) refused to give it to them therefore they felt the need to take it. 

Why is this? Because without power/money you can have no real freedom. Most people don't view living a substance life style where you depend totally on making do with what you can produce yourself as freedom.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

watcher said:


> Why is this? Because without power/money you can have no real freedom. Most people don't view living a substance life style where you depend totally on making do with what you can produce yourself as freedom.


Wow, so let me get this straight, freedom doesn't come from "making do with what you can produce yourself"? So power and/or money makes you free? So what your saying is freedom is being able to take money or wealth from some one else. So according to you, your saying that any thief who steals your things is really just struggling towards freedom.



> 1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
> 
> 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
> 
> 3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I can't begin to tell you how disgusted I am with the article, and the person who wrote it.

Good men and women were injured, maimed, and died doing what they believed in, whether people like general butler believed in it or not.

To put something like this up for our consideration just prior to Memorial Day doesn't speak well for you either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> Wow, so let me get this straight, freedom doesn't come from "making do with what you can produce yourself"? So power and/or money makes you free?


Power makes you free because without power you are at the mercy of those with power. 




BlackFeather said:


> So what your saying is freedom is being able to take money or wealth from some one else.


Sort of see above. Having the ability to take wealth from another doesn't not mean you will use that power. 




BlackFeather said:


> So according to you, your saying that any thief who steals your things is really just struggling towards freedom.


Not exactly but sort of. Would you say that the American Revolution was a struggle towards freedom? Not when you think about it did we not 'steal' the colonies from England? In colonist eyes they were fighting for their freedom, in the King's eyes they were nothing but thieves trying to take something from him.

The bigger point is without the power to prevent the thief from taking your things you have no freedom or what freedom you have will be lost to those with power. History has shown us this over and over.


----------



## Muskrat (Sep 4, 2005)

General Smedley hasn't refused his general's retirement pension and benefits, has he? 

And he as an officer didn't just shuffle money, did he? How many of those young men and women did he order to die in his climb up the ranks? 

I don't see any acceptance of responsibility here. He was doing what "they" told him to do and had no idea he as a General was doing what? 

What a crock.


----------



## Muskrat (Sep 4, 2005)

Wait a minute. The speech was from 1933. The quote seems to mix that speech with current comments on Clinton and Obama.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Just because he is a general doesn't make him not a fool. All veterans have and opinion and most of them stink.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2015)

Muskrat said:


> General Smedley hasn't refused his general's retirement pension and benefits, has he?
> 
> And he as an officer didn't just shuffle money, did he? How many of those young men and women did he order to die in his climb up the ranks?
> 
> ...


Read up on him you might learn something,, he is dead for one and was a hero of his time. He also thwarted a military coup against Roosevelt that was partially confirmed by congress after the fact. Sometimes it takes awhile to see the light,,,some never do.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Muskrat said:


> General Smedley hasn't refused his general's retirement pension and benefits, has he?
> 
> And he as an officer didn't just shuffle money, did he? How many of those young men and women did he order to die in his climb up the ranks?
> 
> ...



I think he quit drawing his pension! Read the article a bit closer.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we&#8217;ll fight. .......


This guy was in the Military? He could not be more out of touch.

A massive half-world-large 3rd Reich Army, or some humungous Communist China force, finally shows up at our door and we are just supposed to let the "American spirit" prevail, and fight with just whatever weapons we happen to have? 

I'm not a Military genius, but if I was going to fight a war, I think I'd rather fight it to win, by destroy someones else s country, rather than my own.

The "racketeers" always do well. but there is always something in it for the rest of us, too.


----------



## Muskrat (Sep 4, 2005)

Mea culpa. I made an assumption that the post contained the relevant information. The part about the One Percenters confused me but then I'm easily confused. 

Ignore all my comments.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> Read up on him you might learn something,, he is dead for one and was a hero of his time. He also thwarted a military coup against Roosevelt that was partially confirmed by congress after the fact. Sometimes it takes awhile to see the light,,,some never do.


General Smedley was part of the popularist isolationism that was the political opinion of much of the US right until Pearl Harbor. Not of FDR, that liberal beloved President though. He diligently worked to drag the US into WWII before it was WWII. 
Not surprising and had a great deal of truth as the US has and does engage military action in support of commercial interests. Not original and part of the Depression emotional reactions.
But of course it turns out that nothing is as simple as Smedley and others would have it. It was convenient and popular to think this at a point when people blamed capitalism for their difficulties. And has been a flag to rally around by those whose thoughts are along the same lines. I mean - a general. Isn't that clear proof. One general out of thousands. If you are going to swallow whole, then there are far more "nuke 'em all" generals.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Whose interpretation are we allowed to use, if not our own? Reminds me of someone saying something callous or cruel and then when feelings are hurt their excuse is... I was just joking... 

One thing though, when someone lays down the life for you or comes back from war with a broken body or a broken spirit it is ungrateful not to recognize and APPRECIATE the sacrifice of their actions. 

There are many reasons why humans from all time periods and all countries have gone to war. Some noble some not. One thing though is a fact. Let a country be perceived as weak and not a worthy adversary another people or country will at some point try to challenge them and take what would like to possess.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2015)

light rain said:


> Whose interpretation are we allowed to use, if not our own? Reminds me of someone saying something callous or cruel and then when feelings are hurt their excuse is... I was just joking...
> 
> One thing though, when someone lays down the life for you or comes back from war with a broken body or a broken spirit it is a ungrateful not to recognize and APPRECIATE the sacrifice of their actions.
> 
> There are many reasons why humans from all time periods and all countries have gone to war. Some noble some not. One thing though is a fact. Let a country be perceived as weak and not a worthy adversary another people or country will at some point try to challenge them and take what would like to possess.


OK, your opinion is what it is, but if I disagree with killing millions of people in foreign countries and express it, I am suddenly the pariah. I happen to believe in a strong defense of our land mass, not institutionalized genocide for the profits of a few. I am sorry that you feel insulted that some feel killing our sons, daughters and country men for corporate/government greed is less than honorable. I have yet to see in my lifetime a war that did anything but lessen our freedoms at home. But the masses profess it is for our freedom. I would rather see our sons and daughters home, not dead in a foreign land.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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 greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Ozarks Tom said:


> To put something like this up for our consideration just prior to Memorial Day doesn't speak well for you either.


Cuz, that is when the article was published. I wasn't entirely sure what I thought about the article. I know most wars are fought for profits. Even the cartoon Orphan Annie, her adoptive father was called Daddy Warbucks. War for profit has been debated for along time. After thinking about this for a while, I feel bad for people who were drafted into war and those that died. They certainly deserve honor. Those who join voluntarily as a career, they did it by their choice, well if they die, it was the risk they were willing to take. If a war is fought solely for our defense then the deaths of that war are certainly honorable. If you join because your naive about what a war is about and end up supporting drug production or the like, like in Afghanistan, I'm sorry they didn't understand what they were getting into. Sometimes it seems to me that the military is an idol that you are supposed to worship without question. I still haven't resolved entirely what I think about this article, it seems to me more complicated than black and white, it has shades of gray.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I can relate to and agree with some of what he's said. Years ago my husband and I both wanted to encourage our sons to join up. But watching our govt spread our military around the world in such a nonsensical fashioned to pursue murkily explained agendas has completely turned us away from encouraging any of them to do so now.

I don't hold any individuals who were Mia, KIA, or injured during duty accountable for following orders. I don't fault them for trying to do honorable service. The propaganda machine is getting stronger to recruit every year, as I watch the pool of eligible recruits get smaller and smaller.

And, I don't think it's in poor taste to talk about it this weejend. After all, we're remembering how painful and destructive serving can be for individuals and their families. Is it in poor taste to honor their memory by saying, "citizens, be viligant and skeptical and discerning of when the war hawks get on their soap boxes. Be sure our people are risking their lives for the he right reasons."

I think that's a good way to not let their sacrifices be in vain.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

BlackFeather said:


> Cuz, that is when the article was published. I wasn't entirely sure what I thought about the article. I know most wars are fought for profits. Even the cartoon Orphan Annie, her adoptive father was called Daddy Warbucks. War for profit has been debated for along time. After thinking about this for a while, I feel bad for people who were drafted into war and those that died. They certainly deserve honor. Those who join voluntarily as a career, they did it by their choice, well if they die, it was the risk they were willing to take. If a war is fought solely for our defense then the deaths of that war are certainly honorable. If you join because your naive about what a war is about and end up supporting drug production or the like, like in Afghanistan, I'm sorry they didn't understand what they were getting into. Sometimes it seems to me that the military is an idol that you are supposed to worship without question. I still haven't resolved entirely what I think about this article, it seems to me more complicated than black and white, it has shades of gray.


Finally 50 shades of grey worth discussing.

I don't agree that those who volunteer knew what they are signing up for. Even contractors, the new faux military have been killed doing things they didn't expect. Remember, most of our military are not infantry, that expect to be engaged in battle.

I I know it will never happen, but I think the military should be mainly managed by the states. That would go a long way to pulling the power out of the pentagon lobbyists. If 50 governors and 50 states legislatures had total control in when their forces would engage in the national military agenda, we sure would have a lot more control over the catastrophic financial and human debts and losses we have experienced.

I think that would go a long way to actually securing our borders too.

Probably an idea that's pretty out there for some to here. But I'm an outta the box kinda gal


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I went to Wikipedia and read more about Gen. Butler. It left me with more questions than answers...


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

gibbsgirl, I don't understand why you liked my post. We agree on a few points but disagree on many other points. My father was career military and my husband spent over 8 yrs. in the military. 

My father hated Roosevelt and Eleanor and didn't much care for his offspring either. I agree us little folks are played like puppets for the gratification and benefit of a select few but to disparage the selfless sacrifice of the military and their families on Memorial Weekend is cold-hearted and just plain mean. It serves no purpose but to inflict pain. But of course the folks that did this knew EXACTLY what they were doing.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I liked your post. I guess you didn't like mine.

I guess if you find my posts were disparaging, then maybe I'm not communicating as I intended or maybe you just don't agree with some of things I've said.

I didn't write my posts trying to say I find your families service in the military somehow negative.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

People that want to be offended will usually find a way to do so!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/05/21/memorial-day-hoax-paul-craig-roberts/
> 
> Maybe, I'll start a controversy. The link contains the whole article. Do you agree or disagree with this general's speech?
> 
> ...


Why do we always have to make it about ourselves, with an added heaping helping of American guilt?

The world cannot do *anything* without our guilt-ridden and self serving assistance. 

Germany did not already have a well thought out plan in place?



> An example of the Weimar clandestine rearmament measures was the training and equipping of police forces in a way that made them not just paramilitary in organizational culture (which most police forces are, to one degree or another) but also well prepared to rapidly augment the military as military reserve forces, which the treaty did not allow. Another example was that the government tolerated that various Weimar paramilitary groups armed themselves to a dangerous degree. Their force grew enough to potentially threaten the state, but this was tolerated because the state hoped to use such militias as military reserve forces with which to rearm the Reichswehr in the future. Thus various Freikorps, the Stahlhelm, the Reichsbanner, the Nazi SA, the Nazi SS, and the Ruhr Red Army grew from street gangs into private armies.





> Some large industrial companies, which had until then specialized in certain traditional products began to diversify and introduce innovative ideas in their production pattern. Shipyards, for example, created branches that began to design and build aircraft. Thus the German re-armament provided an opportunity for advanced, and sometimes revolutionary, technological improvements, especially in the field of aeronautics.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_re-armament#Nazi_government_era

Pol Pot did not need an IBM tabulator, to kill 1.5 million Cambodians, many by being hit over the head with a hammer and their throats cut.

http://www.globenotes.com/travel-blog-entry/Cambodia/Phnom-Penh/882/Pol-Absolutely-Potty/


How bout those crazy Africans? Probably our fault too.



> From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.


http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_re-armament#cite_note-10


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2015)

"Why do we always have to make it about ourselves, with an added heaping helping of American guilt?"

I guess because we as a Nation choose to sacrifice our military and other countries hundreds of thousand civilians, attempting to force our version of freedom, truth and the American way. Maybe questioning unending wars and the erosion of freedom here at home does not settle well with the masses, no none wants to believe they were duped. I struggle with that daily because for the career I chose, so I do understand. Wishing you a Happy Memorial Day seems cruel and soulless so I will wish you a peaceful one.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> Cuz, that is when the article was published. I wasn't entirely sure what I thought about the article. I know most wars are fought for profits. Even the cartoon Orphan Annie, her adoptive father was called Daddy Warbucks. War for profit has been debated for along time. After thinking about this for a while, I feel bad for people who were drafted into war and those that died. They certainly deserve honor. Those who join voluntarily as a career, they did it by their choice, well if they die, it was the risk they were willing to take. If a war is fought solely for our defense then the deaths of that war are certainly honorable. If you join because your naive about what a war is about and end up supporting drug production or the like, like in Afghanistan, I'm sorry they didn't understand what they were getting into. Sometimes it seems to me that the military is an idol that you are supposed to worship without question. I still haven't resolved entirely what I think about this article, it seems to me more complicated than black and white, it has shades of gray.


As it is brought up perennially, forming as it does a handy dandy little piece of propaganda. The trouble is that the people who use it as such attach it anything and everything in ways that are simplistic and inappropriate. 
The title of this thread sent it down this road, the phrasing intending to provoke. At a time where others find significant, it's purpose was to disrupt.
And that is what is wrong. The actual idea is worth discussion but not at a funeral.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> "Why do we always have to make it about ourselves, with an added heaping helping of American guilt?"
> 
> I guess because we as a Nation choose to sacrifice our military and other countries hundreds of thousand civilians, attempting to force our version of freedom, truth and the American way. Maybe questioning unending wars and the erosion of freedom here at home does not settle well with the masses, no none wants to believe they were duped. I struggle with that daily because for the career I chose, so I do understand. Wishing you a Happy Memorial Day seems cruel and soulless so I will wish you a peaceful one.


However, you apparently know better than everyone else. And see all outcomes before they arrive. And safely put yourself on the side not chosen and therefore avoid guilt, which is too a part of the memorial of this date. 
Missing the point that it is not war which is memorialized but the sacrifice of neighbors, family and friends who were called. Take up the validity of the call on National Politician Day or National Freedom to Own an Iphone Day or even National Guilt Day.
It simply is not all about you.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> As it is brought up perennially, forming as it does a handy dandy little piece of propaganda. The trouble is that the people who use it as such attach it anything and everything in ways that are simplistic and inappropriate.
> The title of this thread sent it down this road, the phrasing intending to provoke. At a time where others find significant, it's purpose was to disrupt.
> And that is what is wrong. The actual idea is worth discussion but not at a funeral.


Exactly!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

If you want to discuss the military industrial complex and the morality and motivation of our wars in America that is cool and it has been done here. But dropping a bomb like this on a day that we remember everyone who served and died for their country and honor that sacrifice is completely inappropriate. 

Comments like this are nothing but offensive to those of us who have served and/or lost good decent people in service to their country. 



BlackFeather said:


> So is Memorial Day a Hoax like the title of the article I quoted? Are we honoring the deaths of non-thinking gangster muscle men?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> "Why do we always have to make it about ourselves, with an added heaping helping of American guilt?"
> 
> I guess because we as a Nation choose to sacrifice our military and other countries hundreds of thousand civilians, attempting to force our version of freedom, truth and the American way. Maybe questioning unending wars and the erosion of freedom here at home does not settle well with the masses, no none wants to believe they were duped. I struggle with that daily because for the career I chose, so I do understand. Wishing you a Happy Memorial Day seems cruel and soulless so I will wish you a peaceful one.


Sorry, but I believe the sacrifice, was just, even if the results of war, didn't always turn out the way we wished them to.

That's how war goes. You don't win every one. We did question war. The Vietnam war seemed like a good idea in the beginning. Remember how everybody in America was afraid of Communism? Well, it's did'nt work out and Americans spioke up to where it was ended, alas without a "victory". Stuff happens.

We could have done nothing and maybe today we could certainly be annexed as part of the 3rd Reich, or a massive Communist government.

Somehow I don't think that what our war dead would have wanted, regardless of the circumstance in which they perished.

I am not sad this weekend, I am proud, that there are Americans who were and are still willing to do what is perceived to be right.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2015)

Its is as it is and as long as wars and killing are perceived as a good thing I suppose my opinion will be looked upon with vile contempt. Shalom


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> Its is as it is and as long as wars and killing are perceived as a good thing I suppose my opinion will be looked upon with vile contempt. Shalom


I hate locking my doors, watching myself in public, taking off my shoes at the airport and dealing with endless account password and other security measures.

But, it's the nature of the beast.

Loving people would agree, that it would be great not to have war, but until that view is shared by everyone, there will be conflict, pain and suffering, by both those who_ win and lose_, even if that line is blurred.

We spent big money - we did not have, killed and was killed, just be become America. It would never have happened any other way.

Everything has it's price.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2015)




----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Dlmcafee, that was nicely put, and a good point I think.

I'm not going get stirred up by some comments here accusing some people of being revolting for posts on this thread.

It reminds me of the bullying that can go on when a mother-in-law gets into a tizzy and belittles her daughter-in-kaw for somehow attempting to be a blasphemous usurper for "celebrating Christmas wrong".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Sorry, but I believe the sacrifice, was just, even if the results of war, didn't always turn out the way we wished them to.
> 
> That's how war goes. You don't win every one. We did question war. The Vietnam war seemed like a good idea in the beginning. Remember how everybody in America was afraid of Communism? Well, it's did'nt work out and Americans spioke up to where it was ended, alas without a "victory". Stuff happens.


Vietnam was a dem policy of political war which started with Truman and which will always fail. When you cry havoc you let SLIP the dogs of war, you don't keep them on a leash. The conflict in Vietnam could have been over in less than a year if we had fought it as a war and not a political campaign. How long do you think Uncle Ho would have kept sending troops south if we had bombed every dam, power plant, rail yard, port, etc. he had? Or if we had ran an Arc Light type of bombing campaign on major cities in the north rather than the jungles of Laos.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Its is as it is and as long as wars and killing are perceived as a good thing I suppose my opinion will be looked upon with vile contempt. Shalom


I think killing those who are trying to harm you or others is a good thing. Would you not kill someone who was attacking you with a deadly weapon? Would you not kill someone who was attacking your neighbor with a deadly weapon?

North Korea attacked South Korea would it have been a good thing to just sit back and say "Oh well its not Americans who are dying." North Vietnam attack South Vietnam would it have been a good thing to just sit back and say "Oh well its not Americans who are dying."


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> Its is as it is and as long as wars and killing are perceived as a good thing I suppose my opinion will be looked upon with vile contempt. Shalom


I was under the impression the Bible was fond of war? Lots of commanded by God to annihilate other countries in there last time I checked.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2015)

watcher said:


> I think killing those who are trying to harm you or others is a good thing. Would you not kill someone who was attacking you with a deadly weapon? Would you not kill someone who was attacking your neighbor with a deadly weapon?
> 
> North Korea attacked South Korea would it have been a good thing to just sit back and say "Oh well its not Americans who are dying." North Vietnam attack South Vietnam would it have been a good thing to just sit back and say "Oh well its not Americans who are dying."


Stawman arguments can be fun but unproductive. I spent 26 years in a patrol car, if I can not protect myself or my neighbor it wont be for the lack of trying. I would not go to the middle east to kill people, not my concern, maybe its yours, go for it.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2015)

By the way I purposely avoided posting on your thread to simply give you respect for your feeling


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Two favorite holiday activities today were hearing john Wayne's pledge of allegiance broadcast on the radio today, and watching the old movie battleground on TV tonight with some of my kids.

Hope you're all finding a bright holiday spot in your day.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I was under the impression the Bible was fond of war? Lots of commanded by God to annihilate other countries in there last time I checked.


So as I expected your equating the Government of the US as G.d,,Nice red herring


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> So as I expected your equating the Government of the US as G.d,,Nice red herring


Are you Jewish or Christian? Need to know what bits of the Bible you actually believe in order to continue the discussion.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Are you Jewish or Christian? Need to know what bits of the Bible you actually believe in order to continue the discussion.


I follow the Torah my friend, although I find the question irrelevant


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Vietnam was a dem policy of political war which started with Truman and which will always fail. When you cry havoc you let SLIP the dogs of war, you don't keep them on a leash. *The conflict in Vietnam could have been over in less than a year if we had fought it as a war and not a political campaign.* How long do you think Uncle Ho would have kept sending troops south if we had bombed every dam, power plant, rail yard, port, etc. he had? Or if we had ran an Arc Light type of bombing campaign on major cities in the north rather than the jungles of Laos.


Well, It's always easy to _armchair quarterback_ war.

Would it really have all been over in a year? Whoever wants another world war, raise your hand! 




> The Chinese already had a history of working with the Viet Minh. Chinese communists and the Viet Minh had for several years provided each other with cover and material support during their struggles to control their countries. This relationship was particularly strong in border regions. Chinese communist forces often retreated into North Vietnam, to rest or prepare for further offensives. In return, the Chinese provided the Viet Minh with weapons, munitions and training. Beijing continued this assistance in the early 1950s, providing significant amounts of military aid to Hanoi, while also supplying North Korea during the Korean War (1950-53). Most Chinese supplies began in Kunming, Yunnan province, where they were transported to the Vietnamese border then carried down a narrow jungle track (the forerunner of the famous &#8216;Ho Chi Minh trail&#8217. - See more at: http://alphahistory.com/vietnam/chinese-and-soviet-involvement/#sthash.OyltSkKf.dpuf





> The Gulf of Tonkin incident and US combat involvement triggered an escalation in Chinese support. This came mainly in the form of equipment and construction. In 1965 Beijing sent several thousand engineering troops across the border, to assist in building and repairing roads, railways, airstrips and critical defence infrastructure. Between 1965 and 1971 more than 320,000 Chinese troops were deployed in North Vietnam. The peak year for this was 1967, when there were around 170,000 Chinese in the DRV. Their work on military installations naturally meant that Chinese troops were susceptible to heavy American bombing; an estimated 1,000 Chinese were killed in the North in the late 1960s. Beijing also supplied Hanoi with large amounts of military equipment, including trucks, tanks and artillery.
> _*
> The Soviets step in*_
> Soviet support remained lukewarm through the 1950s and early 1960s. The USSR supplied North Vietnam with information, technical advisors and moral support &#8211; but Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev preferred to limit his backing and keep the USSR at arm&#8217;s length from the unfolding trouble in Vietnam. Khrushchev, however, was removed as leader in October 1964, shortly after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The new Soviet premier, Aleksei Kosygin, was eager to consolidate his power and placate hardliners in the Soviet military. In November 1964 Kosygin sent a public message of support to the National Liberation Front (the NLF, or Viet Cong) and announced a visit to North Vietnam in the New Year. The Soviet leader arrived in February 1965, when he met with members of the Lao Dong Politburo and NVA commanders. They signed a defence treaty that would provide North Vietnam with both financial aid and military equipment and advisors. A public statement from the Kosygin delegation read:
> - See more at: http://alphahistory.com/vietnam/chinese-and-soviet-involvement/#sthash.OyltSkKf.dpuf


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


>


The perceived point of this, reminds of of the quote, when people complain about the American farmer.

"Don't talk with your mouth full!"


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2015)

"The perceived point of this, reminds of of the quote, when people complain about the American farmer." 

good for you, no empathy works well in our day and age.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> The perceived point of this, reminds of of the quote, when people complain about the American farmer.
> 
> "Don't talk with your mouth full!"


Don't talk with your mouth full reads to me as attempting to point out don't be exclusionary of support to a farmer.

I read the above caption on the picture as being inclusionary. In other words totally opposite of what I think your point was.

I thought it was meant to say remember these other casualties of war too, not only the military participants. Which I thought was a nice gesture. Wars are messy after all.

I guess i put it in the same category as when people say remember the loved ones of our service people too. Like how we honor gold star families and such with tokens of remembrance. I think those are nice gestures also.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Stawman arguments can be fun but unproductive. I spent 26 years in a patrol car, if I can not protect myself or my neighbor it wont be for the lack of trying. I would not go to the middle east to kill people, not my concern, maybe its yours, go for it.


Your view is shortsighted. For one thing take a few minutes and look around. How much stuff do you see that you would not have or be able to use if the middle eastern oil was cut off. Like it or not oil is the life blood of the US and the world. It has been that way for decades. I posted in another thread about how many men "died for oil" in WWII. 

Danger come in many packages. The invasion of Kuwait posed no direct threat of harm to the US but the threat to the international oil supply was a strategic danger.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> By the way I purposely avoided posting on your thread to simply give you respect for your feeling


Ok but I'm a big boy you don't have to worry about my feelings.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Your view is shortsighted. For one thing take a few minutes and look around. How much stuff do you see that you would not have or be able to use if the middle eastern oil was cut off. Like it or not oil is the life blood of the US and the world. It has been that way for decades. I posted in another thread about how many men "died for oil" in WWII.
> 
> Danger come in many packages. The invasion of Kuwait posed no direct threat of harm to the US but the threat to the international oil supply was a strategic danger.


And maybe not going to war to protect middle eastern oil supplies would have focused us on ensuring our own energy independence earlier. Might the fracking boom and use of natural gas happened sooner? Might alternative energies, wind and solar, become cost competative. Might more resources have been put into battery technology? Might clean coal already be a reality? I don't know but it might have been interesting and more productive to find out.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Well, It's always easy to _armchair quarterback_ war.
> 
> Would it really have all been over in a year? Whoever wants another world war, raise your hand!


Same reasoning used in Korea. Do you really, really think China or the USSR would have gone to war with the US for Vietnam? They may have been willing to support it in a proxy war but very few people really think they would have been willing to face a direct conflict with the US.

Korea, Vietnam and the brush wars in Africa all showed the world that the US was a sunshine friend. It was willing to help as long as the other side didn't tell it to stop. We are still that way and are paying to price for it. Showing weakness to a bully only makes him bully more.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Same reasoning used in Korea. Do you really, really think China or the USSR would have gone to war with the US for Vietnam? They may have been willing to support it in a proxy war but very few people really think they would have been willing to face a direct conflict with the US.
> 
> Korea, Vietnam and the brush wars in Africa all showed the world that the US was a sunshine friend. It was willing to help as long as the other side didn't tell it to stop. We are still that way and are paying to price for it. Showing weakness to a bully only makes him bully more.


Would there be a divided Korean Peninsula today without direct Chinese intervention? http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm. What makes you think they didn't value the Vietnamese communists as much?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> Your view is shortsighted. For one thing take a few minutes and look around. How much stuff do you see that you would not have or be able to use if the middle eastern oil was cut off.


I don't know, I would hope that if we were straight out given the choice "hey, do you want to give these things up or would you rather people (including your own family) to die for you to keep them?" we'd all choose the obvious moral high ground.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2015)

watcher said:


> Your view is shortsighted. For one thing take a few minutes and look around. How much stuff do you see that you would not have or be able to use if the middle eastern oil was cut off. Like it or not oil is the life blood of the US and the world. It has been that way for decades. I posted in another thread about how many men "died for oil" in WWII.
> 
> Danger come in many packages. The invasion of Kuwait posed no direct threat of harm to the US but the threat to the international oil supply was a strategic danger.


I would not like to explain that logic to my G.D when I reach his gates. You just admitted (the US military) of killing people for material gain and I will leave this thread with a feeling of nausea.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> I would not like to explain that logic to my G.D when I reach his gates. You just admitted (the US military) of killing people for material gain and I will leave this thread with a feeling of nausea.


Well, all conflict comes down to a fight for resources one way or another. So you must be in a constant state of upset. For if you chose not to scrabble for what you have, then someone else will have it who will.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Well, all conflict comes down to a fight for resources on way or another.


These arguments always end up with those contending that a war was fought for idealism (freedom, human rights, etc.) was really fought for resources. It reaches a point where it's undeniable. Neocons contended for years that Iraq had nothing to do with oil, until O'Reilly finally admitted on Letterman that it was about oil. That opened the flood gates for all conservatives to admit it.

I don't know why I should care though. If the military forces were proxy gangsters for big oil then I can't really complain, since I get a pension check from Chevron every month. As an employee of big oil for decades I guess I was part of the mob, and I'm still on the take today.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And maybe not going to war to protect middle eastern oil supplies would have focused us on ensuring our own energy independence earlier. Might the fracking boom and use of natural gas happened sooner? Might alternative energies, wind and solar, become cost competative. Might more resources have been put into battery technology? Might clean coal already be a reality? I don't know but it might have been interesting and more productive to find out.


Think how far technology has come in the last 25 years. 1990 - A cell phone was permanently installed in your car, or else it had a small suitcase to carry it around. That was state of the art battery technology! Solar was not very efficient and highly expensive, wind power was for pumping water into stock tanks. It's easy to look back now with today's technology and say we coulda, woulda, shoulda but it's just wishful thinking.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> Think how far technology has come in the last 25 years. 1990 - A cell phone was permanently installed in your car, or else it had a small suitcase to carry it around. That was state of the art battery technology! Solar was not very efficient and highly expensive, wind power was for pumping water into stock tanks. It's easy to look back now with today's technology and say we coulda, woulda, shoulda but it's just wishful thinking.


I think its appropriate to look back and ask just those questions before we embark down the same path in the same region that cost us 6000+ dead, 10's of thousands more wounded and trillions of dollars to arrive in a worse place than we started. What woulda, shoulda, coulda have been done differently with better outcomes.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I think its appropriate to look back and ask just those questions before we embark down the same path in the same region that cost us 6000+ dead, 10's of thousands more wounded and trillions of dollars to arrive in a worse place than we started. What woulda, shoulda, coulda have been done differently with better outcomes.


Not so simple. All history teaches is what happened with the facts we can quantify. Pretty uncertain facts at that. And, if successful, credit will be discounted as the result is not noticed. If a bad result, blame will be apportioned according to personal beliefs of the blamer.

But unfortunately for the simple solution, the exact same problems rare show up again. And applying the lessons of the past, even by those rare individuals who recognize a success in the first place, rarely is successful again because lessons are also learned by the sowers of chaos. WWII gave a whole set of lessons that when applied have lead to other problems.

But mostly, the successes are only recognized when they turn into failure, much too late to be easily fixed. You may reel in horror over the spilling of blood and agonize over the loss of innocent life but never consider that this is what success looks like. It has looked a lot worse many times. 

Maybe, even more dismaying, is the idea that all the complaining and lecturing in the world has never changed much at all. Now that is some actual history to contemplate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Not so simple. All history teaches is what happened with the facts we can quantify. Pretty uncertain facts at that. And, if successful, credit will be discounted as the result is not noticed. If a bad result, blame will be apportioned according to personal beliefs of the blamer.


Either way, the justification to go to war turned out to be bogus and we didn't get what we were promised. Interestingly, KBR and big US oil companies got what they were promised.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Either way, the justification to go to war turned out to be bogus and we didn't get what we were promised. Interestingly, KBR and big US oil companies got what they were promised.


Falling gas prices?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Falling gas prices?


Gasoline will become less expensive very soon, perhaps within a week or so. But how does that relate to war in the middle east?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Gasoline will become less expensive very soon, perhaps within a week or so. But how does that relate to war in the middle east?


You said that before, its not true!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> "The perceived point of this, reminds of of the quote, when people complain about the American farmer."
> 
> good for you, no empathy works well in our day and age.


I have plenty of empathy of the innocents who die in war. a It's terrible fate, for all involved, but sometimes, that' just the way it goes.

I just choose not to trash memorial day, by diminishing our war dead's sacrifices, as unjust or fruitless. They did what they thought was right.

6 Million of your fellow Jews, perished, in what had *absolutely nothing* to do with war. 

Without a gruesome world war, that fortunately ended up freeing the concentration camps, the killing would have went on until every last Jew was gone.

That would have been acceptable, for sake of peace, right?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

gibbsgirl said:


> Don't talk with your mouth full reads to me as attempting to point out don't be exclusionary of support to a farmer.
> 
> I read the above caption on the picture as being inclusionary. In other words totally opposite of what I think your point was.
> 
> ...


No, it was just plain old irony.

_*Having the right*_, to disparage and badmouth our military leaders and war dead, while trashing war as always evil and fruitless - when in fact _*it was war *_- brutal, painful, ugly war, that had gained and maintained American citizens _*that actual right*_, to say what ever they want.

Our war dead are in heaven, smiling, as their efforts were definitely not in vain.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Same reasoning used in Korea. Do you really, really think China or the USSR would have gone to war with the US for Vietnam? They may have been willing to support it in a proxy war but very few people really think they would have been willing to face a direct conflict with the US.
> 
> Korea, Vietnam and the brush wars in Africa all showed the world that the US was a sunshine friend. It was willing to help as long as the other side didn't tell it to stop. We are still that way and are paying to price for it. Showing weakness to a bully only makes him bully more.


I don't know. I don't own a crystal ball either. 

No one knows what the results of a "real war" with North Korea would have turned out either, same as Vietnam.

Communists - both Chinese and Russian, were pretty hell-bent on Communism, at least during those times.

They might not have wanted to give up that easy, plus It's not like Russia possessed nuclear weapons or anything.

Maybe our leaders, were wisely avoiding world war III

Armchair quarterbacks?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Not so simple. All history teaches is what happened with the facts we can quantify. Pretty uncertain facts at that. And, if successful, credit will be discounted as the result is not noticed. If a bad result, blame will be apportioned according to personal beliefs of the blamer.
> 
> But unfortunately for the simple solution, the exact same problems rare show up again. And applying the lessons of the past, even by those rare individuals who recognize a success in the first place, rarely is successful again because lessons are also learned by the sowers of chaos. WWII gave a whole set of lessons that when applied have lead to other problems.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it was a simple thing. I said it was a neccessary thing. Answers aren't always simple to find or easy to parse out. The military spends countless hours each year going over old battles and rehashing them looking for new insights. They know no battle will ever play out the same way but many of the lessons gained from recognizing past mistakes may save lives and win future battles. Businesses analyze their own and others product rollouts, production runs, ad campaigns and countless other aspects of their businesses. The most successful look at both their successes and failures trying to predict future successes and failures. Governments are, or should be, no different. You're correct that personal bias can affect the conclusions drawn and future actions from those conclusions. And those actions and conclusions will and should be scrutinized by those next in line. Hopefully well eventually learn something.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I didn't say it was a simple thing. I said it was a neccessary thing. Answers aren't always simple to find or easy to parse out. The military spends countless hours each year going over old battles and rehashing them looking for new insights. They know no battle will ever play out the same way but many of the lessons gained from recognizing past mistakes may save lives and win future battles. Businesses analyze their own and others product rollouts, production runs, ad campaigns and countless other aspects of their businesses. The most successful look at both their successes and failures trying to predict future successes and failures. Governments are, or should be, no different. You're correct that personal bias can affect the conclusions drawn and future actions from those conclusions. And those actions and conclusions will and should be scrutinized by those next in line. Hopefully well eventually learn something.


A sort of Azimov psychohistory, huh? To bad it's only fiction. The truth is that few can agree on what the 'facts' even are, then even fewer agree on what they mean and almost no one agrees that unpleasant contradictions are worth considering.
There is then the problem, that even if we have 'facts' from the past, we almost never have the 'facts' from the present to make the comparison. Those 'facts' of the present have to wait for events to show what was important and what wasn't. And by then it's too late.
Beside, businesses have a failure rate well in excess of governments. I'm not sure that is a good example anyway.
Facts have a bad habit of really being interpretations at best and frequently soothing fiction at worse. 
All this debate assumes that governments are not already doing what you urge, only they don't consider what you do to be a mistake.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You said that before, its not true!


Good! I'll take that as a prediction that gasoline prices will either stay where they are or go up. When gasoline prices fall I'll be back to rub your nose in it.

I'm not guessing about this. I worked in the refining industry for decades. I've observed the patterns long enough to know what to expect.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Good! I'll take that as a prediction that gasoline prices will either stay where they are or go up. When gasoline prices fall I'll be back to rub your nose in it.
> 
> I'm not guessing about this. I worked in the refining industry for decades. I've observed the patterns long enough to know what to expect.



I just read an interesting article on both gas and oil reserves. It seems that reserve inventory in the U.S. has always included expected production from wells not drilled and they are soon going to base reserves on actual production only. It's going to be interesting to see how that affects prices.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> A sort of Azimov psychohistory, huh? To bad it's only fiction. The truth is that few can agree on what the 'facts' even are, then even fewer agree on what they mean and almost no one agrees that unpleasant contradictions are worth considering.
> There is then the problem, that even if we have 'facts' from the past, we almost never have the 'facts' from the present to make the comparison. Those 'facts' of the present have to wait for events to show what was important and what wasn't. And by then it's too late.
> Beside, businesses have a failure rate well in excess of governments. I'm not sure that is a good example anyway.
> Facts have a bad habit of really being interpretations at best and frequently soothing fiction at worse.
> All this debate assumes that governments are not already doing what you urge, only they don't consider what you do to be a mistake.


Excuse my tardiness in responding. I was deleting and destroying 30+ years of animal husbandry and crop production records since they are only some interpretation of the facts and have no bearing on what I should do in the future since I can't know the facts of growing conditions in the future. Analysis of past events doesn't guarantee future success but ignoring them almost guarantees future failure. Mr. Edison could have tried the same filiment over and over and never invented the lightbulb. Or he could dismiss his failures and light the world. We could try to do what no colonial power ever succeeded to do in Afghanistan or have gone in, taken care of our business and left. It's hard to argue with logic that says there are no facts and we can't learn from past events. The first part does make it easier to dismiss the continued criticism of the current administration unless there's a different standard for judging those you disagree with.

As for governments failing less than business. Check out Italy's record of governmental success since WWII. Hard to believe Italian businesses have fares worse.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> I just read an interesting article on both gas and oil reserves. It seems that reserve inventory in the U.S. has always included expected production from wells not drilled and they are soon going to base reserves on actual production only. It's going to be interesting to see how that affects prices.


I doubt that prices will react to crude reserves. Crude supply isn't a problem right now because the Saudis have vowed to meet demand at the prevailing market price.

The recent run-up in gasoline price was because of refinery spring turnaround season. They ran into a little trouble at a few refineries this year that made turnaround season last longer than expected. But that's resolved now so we should see prices drop as early as next week.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Good! I'll take that as a prediction that gasoline prices will either stay where they are or go up. When gasoline prices fall I'll be back to rub your nose in it.
> 
> I'm not guessing about this. I worked in the refining industry for decades. I've observed the patterns long enough to know what to expect.


Well, I'm rubbing your nose in it right now!!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> These arguments always end up with those contending that a war was fought for idealism (freedom, human rights, etc.) was really fought for resources. It reaches a point where it's undeniable. Neocons contended for years that Iraq had nothing to do with oil, until O'Reilly finally admitted on Letterman that it was about oil. That opened the flood gates for all conservatives to admit it.
> 
> I don't know why I should care though. If the military forces were proxy gangsters for big oil then I can't really complain, since I get a pension check from Chevron every month. As an employee of big oil for decades I guess I was part of the mob, and I'm still on the take today.


Human rights and freedom are linked to free access to resources. There's a difference in fighting to keep access to a resource free than fighting to take for your and only your own use.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Either way, the justification to go to war turned out to be bogus and we didn't get what we were promised. Interestingly, KBR and big US oil companies got what they were promised.


And so have the rest of the world, the free flow of oil on the WORLD MARKET at a price set by those who have the oil and those who want the oil.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Human rights and freedom are linked to free access to resources. There's a difference in fighting to keep access to a resource free than fighting to take for your and only your own use.


It can be a very blurry line.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I don't know. I don't own a crystal ball either.
> 
> No one knows what the results of a "real war" with North Korea would have turned out either, same as Vietnam.
> 
> ...


But you can read history can you not? 

Compare stances and actions taken by Neville Chamberlain in the 30s and JFK's in the 60s. Then compare the results. 

Do you really think China or the USSR would have actually entered into open warfare with the US over Vietnam? If so why didn't they openly provide support for it against us? After all we already had a huge number of troops there and were bombing the north. Care to show me where the Chinese or USSR military bases were in the north? Got a list of battles where Chinese or USSR troops were major combatants in a battle? If they would not place ground troops at risk what in the world makes you think they'd be willing to risk a nuke strike on their homelands?

Weakness and lack of resolve before an enemy has resulted in a lot of deaths.

One other thing to think about. How many people have died around the world in all the proxy wars which might just not have happened if the communist knew the US would use its full might to support its stance?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> There's a difference in fighting to keep access to a resource free than fighting to take for your and only your own use.


Iraq was about keeping access to a resource free?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I doubt that prices will react to crude reserves. Crude supply isn't a problem right now because the Saudis have vowed to meet demand at the prevailing market price.
> 
> The recent run-up in gasoline price was because of refinery spring turnaround season. They ran into a little trouble at a few refineries this year that made turnaround season last longer than expected. But that's resolved now so we should see prices drop as early as next week.


You left out one major factor, the limited refining capability in the US. IIRC, almost every refinery out there is running right at its maximum just to meet demand. One little hiccup and the supply no longer meets demand which results in increased prices at the pump.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Iraq was about keeping access to a resource free?


Yes. Remember why we went into Iraq in the first place? It attacked and took control of Kuwait and its oil. Oil is the most vital resource there is in the world economy. It has been that way for decades.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Yes. Remember why we went into Iraq in the first place? It attacked and took control of Kuwait and its oil. Oil is the most vital resource there is in the world economy. It has been that way for decades.


Just to be clear, you're saying that Iraq was about oil?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Sorry, killing and dying for oil is an appalling concept no matter how its dressed up in justification.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

One fact, at least of the moment, is that the US is in a relatively more secure position regarding oil than it has been in decades. This has lead to Obama having more room to maneuver than any recent President yet there we still are, unable to shake free of middle east turmoil. Despite Obama's attempt to be what he perceives as more balanced in embracing Islamic countries and pushing away Israel, he went with his personal beliefs that Muslim countries were hungering for democracy as he defines it. He encouraged revolution of the masses. I bet he truly thought he had the magic key that all the previous Presidents had been too foolish to use.
Well, surprise, surprise, they are on the whole not willing to throw away millennia of their own history to buy into it. A large percentage likes imposing their brand of politics on everyone else and finds oligarchy the natural form of government. They probably find western democracy noisy, ill mannered and pretentious. 
Oil simply made this view point have weight. They had what the west wanted. That gave a hand on the leash of the US, being very oil hungry, especially. The US was aware of this hand- it suffered economic disruption due to two oil embargos. 
So the idea that some mysterious and nefarious cabal of oil companies was responsible for the US's military actions is silly because the real force, manipulated or not, was the US public's gluttony for oil. I remember feeling played by all the media feeds about poot Kuwait babies being thrown out of incubators that was part of the drumming up to the first Iraqi war. If I felt that way, it certainly was clear to most Americans what was going on. We were quite willing to march in line to protect our oil supplies. Despite the hands on the leashes jerking away.
Then these actions are not imposed on the US public by malicious commercial interests, they are embraced by the public. As they are now. Oklahoma and Texas can shake away- we want to drive and want our plastics.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just to be clear, you're saying that Iraq was about oil?


Unlike you I will answer a question put to me. Seeing as how the Iraq war started because of oil you have to say that it was about oil. You don't think Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam wanted more beaches to kiteboard on do you?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> You don't think Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam wanted more beaches to kiteboard on do you?



Regardless like Vietnam it was none of our business.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Sorry, killing and dying for oil is an appalling concept no matter how its dressed up in justification.


So how do you feel about the men who died in WWII on the bombing raids on German controlled oil fields? How about the men in submarines in the Pacific who died while trying to sink Japanese oil tankers? 

How do you feel about killing 1600+ people in one night in the name of electricity? That OK with you, after all its not oil?

While the US hasn't been Dudley Do-Right it has not invaded another nation and taken what it wanted. If that were our style in the 70s we would have put troops on the ground and we'd be selling the world oil not buying it. And believe me there were those who felt that was the route to take and it would have been a fairly easy sale to the nation several times then. People were quite upset about the lack of oil products.

People need to grow up and see the world for what it is not some place of free bubble up and rainbow stew. As I have stated wars are fought for economical reasons and there are very few things in the world today which can cause more economical problems for any first (or even second) world nation than the lack of oil.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Regardless like Vietnam it was none of our business.


Wrong. Oil is VITAL to the US. If you owned a farm/ranch and someone cut off your access to water would you just stand by and do nothing? Anything which has an effect on the flow of oil on the free market is not only our business but its the business of every nation which operates above third world conditions. Because w/o oil a nation can *only* operate at a third world level. 

Take a few seconds and look around you. How much plastic do you see? W/o oil that plastic would be gone. How much of the stuff around you came from more than a few tens of miles from where you live? W/o none of that would be there. If you take meds you might want to check to see how many of them are petrochemical based. People whine and moan about fighting for oil but most of them would be in the crowd demanding governmental action if they were suddenly forced to do w/o it.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> So how do you feel about the men who died in WWII on the bombing raids on German controlled oil fields? How about the men in submarines in the Pacific who died while trying to sink Japanese oil tankers?
> 
> How do you feel about killing 1600+ people in one night in the name of electricity? That OK with you, after all its not oil?
> 
> ...


Um, no. That's not ok. If the true motivation is securing an interest in electricity, oil, or magic pixie dust, I'd have to say that's not ok. I'm not sure, at all, that those were the motivations involved there, but I think it's fairly clear that they have been in some more recent campaigns.

The world doesn't have to be rainbow stew to get a simple thing right in our heads.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> Wrong. Oil is VITAL to the US. If you owned a farm/ranch and someone cut off your access to water would you just stand by and do nothing? Anything which has an effect on the flow of oil on the free market is not only our business but its the business of every nation which operates above third world conditions. Because w/o oil a nation can *only* operate at a third world level.
> 
> 
> 
> Take a few seconds and look around you. How much plastic do you see? W/o oil that plastic would be gone. How much of the stuff around you came from more than a few tens of miles from where you live? W/o none of that would be there. If you take meds you might want to check to see how many of them are petrochemical based. People whine and moan about fighting for oil but most of them would be in the crowd demanding governmental action if they were suddenly forced to do w/o it.



And just what do you think any dictator would have done with that oil ?
Eat it ? Store it ?
No they would have sold it on the open market. 
Even if they hadn't it still not our business to decide who sells to whom.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Um, no. That's not ok. If the true motivation is securing an interest in electricity, oil, or magic pixie dust, I'd have to say that's not ok. I'm not sure, at all, that those were the motivations involved there, but I think it's fairly clear that they have been in some more recent campaigns.
> 
> The world doesn't have to be rainbow stew to get a simple thing right in our heads.


It seems you just don't get it. The US and every other non third world nation in the world is dependent on oil to survive. Saying our involvement in Desert Storm was all about oil is like saying our involvement in WWI was all about passenger liners.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> And just what do you think any dictator would have done with that oil ?
> Eat it ? Store it ?
> No they would have sold it on the open market.


That didn't happen. Most of the Iraqi oil just sat in the ground.

The problem was that there were sanctions against Saddam that were preventing most of that oil from being exported, and there was no convenient way of lifting those sanctions. But the Bush administration wanted to see that oil on the open market (and see his friends get rich along the way, of course). There was only one way that oil was going to see the world market -- regime change. Bush made it happen.

Bush knew that Iraq wasn't a threat but he had to sell the invasion on some basis other than oil, since he know that the American people would never go for Americans getting killed in an oil war. He had to sell it on the basis of removing a threat, and idealism of course.

But we wouldn't be there if it weren't for oil. Look at Boko Haram as an example. They are brutal and a serious threat to the region, but the region doesn't have resources we want to exploit. ISIS is in a region that has a lot resources we want to exploit. See the difference in how we react?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But we wouldn't be there if it weren't for oil. Look at Boko Haram as an example. They are brutal and a serious threat to the region, but the region doesn't have resources we want to exploit. ISIS is in a region that has a lot resources we want to exploit. See the difference in how we react?


That a grown man would think that there wouldn't be a difference between a place in which there are American interests and where there aren't is rather shocking. I bet that is the source of your belief that Bush created it out of his nefarious little mind. You see no connection between a resource that has created a dependency and no such resource. That a person in a place who has the power to bring chaos to the US would be more alarming to a government than one creating chaos where it doesn't matter.

The problem is that you think that the loss of oil resources would not have damaged the US and therefore the only cause you can see for that military action was corporate greed. 

It took me awhile to get there but at least I can now see what you mean. Not that I agree but at least it is not as irrational all the way through as I thought. Once you dismiss the effect of an oil shortage on the US economy, everything follows.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> It took me awhile to get there but at least I can now see what you mean. Not that I agree but at least it is not as irrational all the way through as I thought. Once you dismiss the effect of an oil shortage on the US economy, everything follows.


Corporate greed was just a desirable side effect. The primary objective was to get that oil on the world market to benefit the overall US and global economies.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> It seems you just don't get it. The US and every other non third world nation in the world is dependent on oil to survive. Saying our involvement in Desert Storm was all about oil is like saying our involvement in WWI was all about passenger liners.


No, I do get it. I get that oil is a manufactured dependance. I get that there are billionairs with bank accounts at stake and that they've built a house on sand here so that everything has to come crashing down if their oil empire fails. Let's not pretend that this is water or food or shelter. It's a manufactured state of potential crisis.

All that aside... we can state truth in fewer words than it takes to justify a bad moral decision. So it really is this simple - You don't kill or die to take what you want or supposedly need. That's a conflict with basic morality.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> It seems you just don't get it. The US and every other non third world nation in the world is dependent on oil to survive. Saying our involvement in Desert Storm was all about oil is like saying our involvement in WWI was all about passenger liners.


And maybe we would have been better off rather than invading Iraq to save Kuwaiti babies, to have spent the trillions of dollars here, developing the technology that some experts say will make us a nation with an oil surplus by the early 2020's. Maybe using that money and expertise to secure and exploit our own resources rather than trying to secure and exploit that which belongs to others might not have led to the mess in the Middle East we have today. No way to really know, but interesting to contemplate. Interesting to think about as we look forward.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

More than a few here argue that the government has no right to take your money and distribute it to others. How do you reconcile that with the government using your tax money to "secure" resources from others to distribute those resources to others?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Suppose, China needs lumber, yet the U.S. and Canada refuses to sell it, are they justified in coming over here to take it?

Speaking of a manufactured crisis, as to the oil embargo of 1973, I had heard this before and found it again here....


> the former Saudi representative to OPEC, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, said, &#8220;&#8217;I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.&#8221; When he was sent by King Faisal to the Shah of Iran in 1974, the Shah said that it was Henry Kissinger who wanted a higher price for oil.


 http://www.globalresearch.ca/contro...eral-commission-and-the-federal-reserve/14614


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> Suppose, China needs lumber, yet the U.S. and Canada refuses to sell it, are they justified in coming over here to take it?
> 
> Speaking of a manufactured crisis, as to the oil embargo of 1973, I had heard this before and found it again here....
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/contro...eral-commission-and-the-federal-reserve/14614


Actually they did. A Chinese company bought a local paper plant, thinking to ship cheaply from our local harbor. But it surprised them to find out that there were environmental rules to meet. And it was way too much cost. So they just abandoned the mill, leaving a toxic cleanup to be done by the US government. And went back to buying raw products to be shipped directly to their shores where the pollution can waft away unrestricted. Oh and never paid the debt they incurred for the purchase.
But as long as the US is willing to ship raw material, and the US has a military to deter their military, they can't just come a take with jumping through a few hoops anyway. 
But as to their attitude about what they do, ask the Tibetans. Or the Uyrgurs. Who would probably find the Iraqi's situation much better. There is a certain peace that having no options about responses gives.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Regardless like Vietnam it was none of our business.


It was our business, as Americans were very afraid of Communism.

Still are.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> But you can read history can you not?
> 
> Compare stances and actions taken by Neville Chamberlain in the 30s and JFK's in the 60s. Then compare the results.
> 
> ...


Just as well as you, maybe even better.

What happened in American history and what_ might _have happened in American history, are two different things.

Would Russian and/or China, gone into direct conflict over Vietnam? I don't know and neither do you. They were both pretty hell-bend on Communism and if we remember our history, Russia put nuclear weapons near our own shores, when their use was stilled considered a "maybe".

Speaking of history

On your point, supposed we "conquered" North Vietnam, etc. Now what? Kill everybody? Hope they liked and embrace Americanism?

If we remember _recent history_, We indeed conquered Iraq and outed it's brutal Dictator. Their people should have been thrilled with their new freedom and their chance for a better life, in a free country.

To quote Dr Phil "how's that working out for ya".

It's not working out very well at all. :rolleyes;


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Just as well as you, maybe even better.
> 
> What happened in American history and what_ might _have happened in American history, are two different things.
> 
> ...


Japan worked out pretty good!
Germany worked out pretty good!
Poland, yeah, them too!
Italy, same same!
Others too!

But, America hasn't done well like you said in some places. South America is another example of things not going well for us. It appears to me that the areas that didn't work out well for us was because we didn't really take over, just interfered. Anything we need from another country, we can buy it or trade for it, we don't need to steal it from them at gun point.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Japan worked out pretty good!
> Germany worked out pretty good!
> Poland, yeah, them too!
> Italy, same same!
> ...


Well, not necessarily, at least at first.

Germany split into two, half Communist. Poland went back to the commies. Russia and China were U.S. allys during WWII, enemies afterwards. Now _fair weather friends_.

There is no working crystal ball

My point was that simply serving a "beat down", to a particular country, does not guarantee that everything turns out the way we want it to.

Maybe we just got lucky. maybe as much as we would like to ignore the fact, we don't always "win". If there was such a thing as "japanese insurgents", maybe have been a whole different ball game,no Camrys for us!.

It's worse now with Muslim extremists than the Commies. The simply don't want to get with the program.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> No, I do get it. I get that oil is a manufactured dependance. I get that there are billionairs with bank accounts at stake and that they've built a house on sand here so that everything has to come crashing down if their oil empire fails. Let's not pretend that this is water or food or shelter. It's a manufactured state of potential crisis.


No you don't get it. We are not pretending we are totally dependent on oil at this time. Without oil how do you think we are going to get the water out of the ground and into people's homes? 

Without oil how are we going to 1) get food from farm to table and 2) grow the massive amounts of food for the number of people we have to feed?

You think farmer John with his mules is going to be able to produce as much as farmer Pete with his oil dependent machinery? 




Woolieface said:


> All that aside... we can state truth in fewer words than it takes to justify a bad moral decision. So it really is this simple - You don't kill or die to take what you want or supposedly need.


What planet do you live on? You really don't think if it came down to it your neighbor would not kill you if it meant the difference in the survival or death of his family? Would you just sit there and watch your child starve to death while someone else had food?




Woolieface said:


> That's a conflict with basic morality.


Who's morality are you basing that on? There are those whose morals are so strong against using violence that they stand by and do nothing while their entire families be killed. There are others with moral standards that have no qualms killing a child because allowing it to live would upset the life style they wish to live.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> You think farmer John with his mules is going to be able to produce as much as farmer Pete with his oil dependent machinery?
> 
> .




Lol have you forgotten where you are ?

I think John will be able to produce far MORE food than Pete.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

where I want to said:


> Actually they did. A Chinese company bought a local paper plant, thinking to ship cheaply from our local harbor. But it surprised them to find out that there were environmental rules to meet. And it was way too much cost. So they just abandoned the mill, leaving a toxic cleanup to be done by the US government.


 Wow we're so much like them we left Iraq with depleted uranium to clean up 

On oil, A long time ago I heard Lindsey Williams say that our oil companies wanted to exploit the Mideast first, then later develop the oil in this country. So from this we can learn that they knew we had oil all along, and second we now see oil development which includes fracking that has made us an oil exporter, we were set to be one of the worlds largest. Of course the Saudis under the guise of punishing Russia targeted our production by driving the cost of oil down. The upshot of all this is that we never really had to go to war for oil since we always have had it and the oil companies already knew where it was.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

BlackFeather said:


> Wow we're so much like them we left Iraq with depleted uranium to clean up
> 
> On oil, A long time ago I heard Lindsey Williams say that our oil companies wanted to exploit the Mideast first, then later develop the oil in this country. So from this we can learn that they knew we had oil all along, and second we now see oil development which includes fracking that has made us an oil exporter, we were set to be one of the worlds largest. Of course the Saudis under the guise of punishing Russia targeted our production by driving the cost of oil down. The upshot of all this is that we never really had to go to war for oil since we always have had it and the oil companies already knew where it was.


The Canadian tar sands & new North Dakota oil couldn't be developed unless oil was $100/barrel. They knew it was there all along but they couldn't do anything about it.

Middle east oil is cheap, if you consider life cheap.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The Canadian tar sands & new North Dakota oil couldn't be developed unless oil was $100/barrel. They knew it was there all along but they couldn't do anything about it.
> 
> Middle east oil is cheap, if you consider life cheap.


Liberals consider life cheap and expendable!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Liberals consider life cheap and expendable!


I'm a moderate that leans a bit to the left and I do not think life is cheap or expendable. 

Generalizations suck.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It seems so incredible that such simple answers to problems that have shaken human kind from their earliest history were really so simple. 1) Never conduct a war. 2) Never try to use resources outside your area of control. 3) Wait to develop means to defend yourself until your border is crossed. 4) Never make decisions until you've asked people who have shown themselves absolutely sure you've been wrong about everything right after the events but don't ask in advance.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm a moderate that leans a bit to the left and I do not think life is cheap or expendable.
> 
> Generalizations suck.


You approve of abortions! End of story!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> You approve of abortions! End of story!


I believe in a woman's right to choose. And that is my right.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I believe in a woman's right to choose. And that is my right.


Good for you! It still.changes nothing! I also have the right to disagree!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Good for you! It still.changes nothing! I also have the right to disagree!


You're right! And generalizations still suck!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Gasoline will become less expensive very soon, perhaps within a week or so. But how does that relate to war in the middle east?
> ...


Gasoline has dropped 10 cents around here. Expect it to come down a lot more.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Gasoline has dropped 10 cents around here. Expect it to come down a lot more.


Not what you said before...want me to repost you exact quote?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Gasoline has dropped 10 cents around here. Expect it to come down a lot more.


That's strange. Fuel cost around here have been going up. In mid May we were paying $2.35/gal today I paid $2.55/gal. That's 20 cents per gallon in less than a month.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

OPEC overproduction continues, while oil prices drop. US production expected to slow.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/11/new...b_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork

How do you suppose I knew that?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> OPEC overproduction continues, while oil prices drop. US production expected to slow.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/11/new...b_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork
> 
> How do you suppose I knew that?


Because that is what was successful for the Saudis before, keep pumping until the liw proces drive competetors out of business?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

3.46 and still climbing....that 87


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

OK Nevada, what the heck! 

I was all excited to have gas go down locally cause it had jumped about $0.30 a gallon. But, it didn't. Now it's gone up about another $0.30 a gallon.

It's more expensive than diesel!

I think you need to message the refinery fairies you're getting your intel from and tell them I need the prices dropped back down here please.

My kids wanna swim at the pool this summer which is one town away. These prices are frustrating my little summery plans here gosh darn it!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gibbsgirl said:


> OK Nevada, what the heck!
> 
> I was all excited to have gas go down locally cause it had jumped about $0.30 a gallon. But, it didn't. Now it's gone up about another $0.30 a gallon.
> 
> ...


Ha on you- diesel is ordained by the gods of gasoline to be cheaper than gas. It was a perversion that it's been the other way. - spoken as the owner of a diesel pick up.........


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> OK Nevada, what the heck!
> 
> I was all excited to have gas go down locally cause it had jumped about $0.30 a gallon. But, it didn't. Now it's gone up about another $0.30 a gallon.
> 
> ...


Refineries had more unexpected issues. Give it a week or two. I promise that low prices are on their way.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Refineries had more unexpected issues. Give it a week or two. I promise that low prices are on their way.


How long have you been saying this? You were wrong so far!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> How long have you been saying this? You were wrong so far!


What do you think will happen to gasoline prices over the next few weeks?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What do you think will happen to gasoline prices over the next few weeks?


They will either go up, go down or remain about the same. Your prediction of what they were going to do shows us that no one can be sure of anything else.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What do you think will happen to gasoline prices over the next few weeks?


Not much! Same as before.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Not much! Same as before.


Speaking specifically to California, gasoline has dropped for 39 consecutive days. The average price has dropped 44.2 cents over the past 41 day.

http://www.dailynews.com/business/20150626/gas-prices-continue-dropping-in-los-angeles-county


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Speaking specifically to California, gasoline has dropped for 39 consecutive days. The average price has dropped 44.2 cents over the past 41 day.
> 
> http://www.dailynews.com/business/20150626/gas-prices-continue-dropping-in-los-angeles-county


Prices have dropped a bit here in KY.... saw a sign just the other day $1.69


----------

