R
RedOctober
Guest
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!
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!
