WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Discuss Divide and rule

R

RedOctober

Guest
#1
I take my stand against the fact, that the Bush administration proceeds in a long term tradition of "devide and rule", a practice that is common in the American policy of the last 60 years.

It is a cynical devious way of short time succes, and pay the price of enormous losses in the long run.

Let's hear the later president Harry Truman in 1941:

New York Times, 24 juli 1941

As Russia absorbed the major blows of Nazi force, Stalin became an ally, the admired "Uncle Joe"; but with ambivalence. Roosevelt's wartime strategy, he confided to his son in private, was for the US to be the "reserves," waiting for the Russians to exhaust themselves in the combat against the Nazis, after which the Americans would move in for the kill. One of the preeminent Roosevelt scholars, Warren Kimball, concludes that "aid to the Soviet Union became a presidential priority" on the assumption that Red Army victories would allow the President to keep US soldiers out of a land war in Europe.

Truman went much further. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, he commented that "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible."

By 1943, the US began to reinstate Fascist collaborators and sympathizers in Italy, a pattern that extended through the world as territories were liberated, reinstating the tolerance for fascism as a barrier to radical social change. Recall that Soviet aggression was not an issue prewar, nor anticipated postwar.

Source

And of course you Americans will start nagging about the source!
But, it is a fact, that Truman had that vision already in 1941.

Reagan did the same in the Iran-Iraq war. This got Saddam red hot of anger, when he found out.
That is always the case if you secretly provide both sides weapons in a military conflict.

In Afghanistan the CIA also provided Stinger AAM weapons to the same people that later on formed Al Qaeda.
In that time, those weapons weren't even sold to Nato allies!

So, in doing so, America adopted the British method of creating conflicts between peoples, with the target of controlling them, and keep their influence in the global theater low.

Look at Iraq for instance. 3 Different groups of people have been united in 1 country. The Sunni, the Sjiite and the Kurds.
The only way to solve a lot of problems is to devide Iraq in 3 parts.
But that is not good for the American oil industry...

So Iraqi's become slaves of a new Saddam like dictatorship.
The transfer of power to an "Iraqi government" was a charade.
Those Iraqi's are oppportunists, that told some lies to the CIA to save their skin, afraid as they were to be kicked back to Iraq.
Bush simply used those lies knowingly to get a pretext for war.

The same way Hitler smuggled in some SS troopers into Poland, that started firing at German troops. And then the attack on Poland was on in 1939.

Why didn't Bush march into Iraq straight away in the first place?

Because the attack had another purpose!
To devide Europe.
The anti French campaign was also staged and cooked by the neocon thinktank.
It had everything to do with the struggle between the euro and the dollar.

America fears that oil is going to be paid in euro's.
And that the dollar loses it's influence.

It would be much wiser to get another government in America, and solve things within Nato interests. We'd better stop war mongering, and work to the same value of dollar and euro.
From then on, America can fully have profit from the development of eastern Europe. Who cares? Europeans are not very picky, if they have a good standard of living, other nations can also have a share.

The EU may have flaws, but it is the first time in history that such a great number of nations work together without a fight over who's the boss.
And Europe wants to get her sons and daughters back!

We don't want our soldiers to die for some oil company!
 

morelos

lexicon incognito
1,952
0
0
#2
hm. you said i'd get pissed at you for something in there?

but you're right; where's the opportunity to get pissed?

now, we're pressuring pervez musharraf (pakistan) to search for key al-qaeda members NOW NOW NOW. we're going to sell them F16s and sway the balance of military might from "even" to "pakistan beats india" as long as they can produce the guys we want by november.

my countrymen are so dense to believe any of this shit.

~ dan ~
 

Offalittle

Window Washer
70
0
6
#3
morelos, I think you might under estimate your countrymen. Perhaps we understand what is happening but think it good for the long term goals of our country. If history has taught us anything, it is there will always be war. Ensuring you come out on top in a war is what's best for any country. The desctruction of a potental enemy's greatest assets, it's people and their hope, goes a long way towards giving yourself the upper hand before a conflict even starts.
 

morelos

lexicon incognito
1,952
0
0
#4
offalittle said:
morelos, I think you might under estimate your countrymen. Perhaps we understand what is happening but think it good for the long term goals of our country. If history has taught us anything, it is there will always be war. Ensuring you come out on top in a war is what's best for any country. The desctruction of a potental enemy's greatest assets, it's people and their hope, goes a long way towards giving yourself the upper hand before a conflict even starts.
no chance. we have an enormous land wealth. we don't need more. people don't understand what's happening. get on abcnews.go.com forums or some other place and read about "george w's direct pipeline to god" and how so many people think "fuck the towelheads; all this world needs is another muslim" and how the're all afraid "these terrorist camel jockeys want everyone to live like them, or else die."

what you're doing is closing your mind to the possibility that many people get their news solely from one television station. most americans don't lift a newspaper, much less listen to news on the radio. and when they do, it's rush limbaugh. listen to rush some time and you'll see why they can take the stance they do. he's easy to parrot and he sells his material in a "how can you argue this, i'm right" fashion.

do i underestimate my countrymen? by making a broad sweeping generalisation, yes. but guess what. the dumb ones i discuss? they outnumber us. greatly.

and the way we've always won our wars before is by DEFENDING OURSELVES when attacked. the revolution. the second world war. in the first world war, we thought we were intervening BEFORE we would have been attacked.

historically, wars we've fought which were the least popular with our people have been vietnam, followed by this one (picking a fight is the worst thing you can do), followed by korea (which would have been right up there if we weren't so afraid of the word 'communism' in the 50s).

~ dan ~

what you're seeing is the bush administration rewinding the clock. stem cells? nope. separation of church and state? not much longer. etc.

"ensuring you come out on top in a war" is not good enough when you always had the "let's not start this war in the first place" option.
 

Offalittle

Window Washer
70
0
6
#5
morelos -
yeah ok. I take it back. You are not under estimating our people. I may not agree with your views on this, or other wars, but what I can't disagree with is your lack of faith in the vast majority of the average citizens. I don't think the problem is uniquely American, we are just more under the scope because of our power in global politics but people are overwhelmingly sheep. Gathering their information from a single, often flawed source, and not bothering to perform even the slightest bit of analytics.

Our only hope is in our next life we can come back as stupid asshat sheep and be blissfully ignorant like the rest.
 

morelos

lexicon incognito
1,952
0
0
#6
hm. i see where you're going. but i would say it's MORE american than you think, because of the amount of apathy we have. we've gotten so tolerant of all sorts of mistreatment, and partly because we've had to overcome shock at diversity.

the other part is like my econ prof said: "you have food on your table and a roof over your head and it's suddenly hard to complain."

~ dan ~