Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Iran Hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years

531 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Space Commander Travis

Actually,and this may be going OT again, I have been thinking that there are some distinct similarities with Neoconism and Fascism (if not Nazism specifically); their main concern is the power and security of the State, and everything if necessary is subservient to that, and (as admitted earlier in this thread) any means are sometimes justified to achieve the desired end (overthrowing and occupying whatever countries are necessary to achieve their strategic aims, even countries that may not present any threat whatsoever to them), manipulating the media, to make sure that it only gives the "officially approved" version of the news, by having powerful friends in control of major parts of it, imposing ever more surveillance of the population in the name of the "security of the State", and, like Fascism, not having state ownership of industry and powerful businesses but these industries having the government in their pocket, so the main concern of Government is the wellbeing of these powerful business concerns.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Look in detail at Operation Paperclip. The bit that everyone knows about is the recruitment of Nazi rocket scientists. The bit that few know about is Dulices recruitment of many in the Gestapo into the ranks of the CIA, and where that wasn't possible, the assistance offered for Nazi's to escape to South America.

The numbers were significant and undoubtedly had effects on the character of the CIA at least.

Col. all of the factors you speak of are not a coincidental evolution of the American state, they are the fruits of what happened at the end of the second world war.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry_Dresden

I don't understand.

It seems i wasn't clear. What i mean't to say was that i agree with your statement that Israel should target those that supply their enemies... i.e Iran. Hope that clear's things up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Look in detail at Operation Paperclip. The bit that everyone knows about is the recruitment of Nazi rocket scientists. The bit that few know about is Dulices recruitment of many in the Gestapo into the ranks of the CIA, and where that wasn't possible, the assistance offered for Nazi's to escape to South America.

The numbers were significant and undoubtedly had effects on the character of the CIA at least.

Col. all of the factors you speak of are not a coincidental evolution of the American state, they are the fruits of what happened at the end of the second world war.

Br Cornelius

Dunno about "recruitment into the ranks....." ..but I would CERTAINLY beleive in the CIA grabbing them and offering "sanctuary" in America, in return for their Intel archives on the Soviet Union, and their experience fighting the Red Army.

I don't beleive they would ever become members of the CIA. They simply wouldn't be trusted enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Dunno about "recruitment into the ranks....." ..but I would CERTAINLY beleive in the CIA grabbing them and offering "sanctuary" in America, in return for their Intel archives on the Soviet Union, and their experience fighting the Red Army.

I don't beleive they would ever become members of the CIA. They simply wouldn't be trusted enough.

Then you are wrong. The CIA was heavily influenced by War profiteers who had deep links to German banks and Nazi backed industries. Dullies was the main man within the CIA, and both he and Prescott Bush were prosecuted for their ties to Nazi Germany with the result of having their assets ceased for a short time. As I said, you can only convince yourself of the widespread recruitment of know Nazi's into the CIA by researching the subject in depth. the majority were sent back to Germany post war to report on the Soviets, but not all. There were various prominent intelligence agents who considered it a grave error to have so many ex-Nazi's within the CIA and it was widely considered that their dubious reports about Soviet arms capabilities led directly to the Arms race.

It is rather more than a fascinating area for research as the repercussions echo down the decades.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Woah - wait a minute - what is the timeline here Br Cornelius ?

You mention the CIA, and "Dullies" (I'm assuming this is Allen Dulles ?) But they didn't exist until AFTER operation paperclip. The CIA was created in around 1947/1948, and Dulles didn't join until around 1951 ? )

So you are referring to some other, much later, activity ?

You're not getting confused with the Gehlen organisation, are you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

Today's neocons have no such struggles. They are Nazis in sheep's clothing

The Nazi's were guilty of 50 million deaths and untold costs and horrors for the rest of humanity. People who loosely compare them to others is a fool.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Since his people were the greatest single sufferers under that regime I'd say he has the right .....

Because Jews suffered in WW2 he has the right to be just as bad as Nazis we get it..... fascinating Zionist logic

Edited by SolarPlexus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Since his people were the greatest single sufferers under that regime I'd say he has the right to point out when it looks like another regime is trying to mimic it. But since you would not mind seeing it happen, of course you'd disagree with me.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Suddenly when an Israeli does what you just said can't be done, it's okay! Like a weed in the wind, you bend over for Israel on every conceivable detail. Why should anyone listen to a word you say when it's all rendered obsolete the moment someone mentions Israel doing it?

Since "I wouldn't mind seeing the Holocaust happen"? Why you dirty little sausage! And what did I ever say to give you that idea? I hope you don't talk in public like that. Apparently you've been getting pwned on this board lately and you're extra snippy as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Suddenly when an Israeli does what you just said can't be done, it's okay! Like a weed in the wind, you bend over for Israel on every conceivable detail. Why should anyone listen to a word you say when it's all rendered obsolete the moment someone mentions Israel doing it?

Since "I wouldn't mind seeing the Holocaust happen"? Why you dirty little sausage! And what did I ever say to give you that idea? I hope you don't talk in public like that. Apparently you've been getting pwned on this board lately and you're extra snippy as a result.

Why so shrill Yam? And what in hell are you even talking about? The post you seem to be referencing was my answer to your assertion that Netanyahu was a fool because he compared Iran to Nazis. Try to keep up please. As to people listening to what I say - why do you even care? And your hatred of Israel on these forums is easy for all to see - but not to worry, you have enough company that you shouldn't get lonely. Now I'd like to get back on topic if there is anything more to be said about Iran supplying weapons to the enemies of Israel and the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Why so shrill Yam? And what in hell are you even talking about? The post you seem to be referencing was my answer to your assertion that Netanyahu was a fool because he compared Iran to Nazis. Try to keep up please. As to people listening to what I say - why do you even care? And your hatred of Israel on these forums is easy for all to see - but not to worry, you have enough company that you shouldn't get lonely. Now I'd like to get back on topic if there is anything more to be said about Iran supplying weapons to the enemies of Israel and the US.

To be fair, Ii think accusing someone of wanting another Holocaust would rather justify a shrill response.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

And in your mind that act qualifies them to be compared to a group that murdered 50 million human beings, really?

I think you confuse their murders with war death but be that as it may I don't say the right has murdered anyone yet but I do compare their racist policies and it hasn't been that long since the Klan bombings of the 60's. This hate hasn't gone away but has tried to develop a camouflage of respectability within the right wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The christians and the Shiites both have much the same attitude, your just putting a little clash of civilization paranoid twist on it. History has existed with the concept of the end times since the beginning of time - and history tells us it never turns up because its just a story.

I guess you didn’t listen. They don’t have much the same attitude. The only thing they share is the belief of “End Times”, not what it entails. Once again, Christians (that believe so) for the most part believe we are in the End Times. This is a call to prepare oneself inwardly, not taking a lead role. Most Shiites have the attitude that it is their duty to pave the way for the 12th Imam. Two totally different things. I’m sure you will see Christians that are more active and Shiites that are more passive.

What history tells us is that clash of civilizations is the norm and a healthy paranoia. War is the great human constant. You play the game and you might die but if you don’t play the game then you are dead. One doesn’t have to focus on the End Times to be aware of the barbarian at the gate. “End Times” has nothing to do with preparing for the barbarian or finding ways to take advantage of the situation. In other words, this “End Times” is just the Left demonizing vigilance and prudency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I don’t know, Uncle Sam seems to have succeeded pretty well in its usual tactic for the last 70 years, of deposing elected governments that it doesn’t like, imposing a puppet “sympathetic to the West” (let’s not worry about how far right wing they are),

Your statement is a bit inaccurate but essentially correct. Elected governments aren’t always democratic. If you don’t have a dictator that is favorable to your side, it is usually favorable to the other side. The point is to get them favorable to your side. After a long period of time, your influence can aid in forming a more stable government. That is American Hegemony and has given us 70 years of relative peace. But if it wasn’t us, then it would have been the Soviet Union. Which one would you have preferred - American or Soviet? Or China or even upstarts like Iran or NK? Well?

and getting its lackeys in the Media in line to keep driving home the message that the latest of the Free World’s continual parade of enemies du jour is the worst one yet, and that if he isn’t stopped he won’t be satisfied until he’s got all the Free World under his heel. Washington’s propaganda machine seems to be working admirably.

Every great nation has its boogeymen. When one is conquered, another will take its place. There is also no rule that states that there can be only one at a time. That’s just the way it works. Without them, a nation could not be great in the first place. BTW, Washington’s propaganda machine is Left leaning. The Media still thinks that Obama has stopped the tide from rising. After all, Russia is only a regional power and Putin is a 19th Century man. Someone just neglected to inform him of that. He didn’t know that he was supposed to kowtow to Obama’s civilized ways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Woah - steady on. He accomplished that by demonising and brutalising whole sections of his population. Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, “non-conformists”, and political opponents where being treated outrageously in order to provide the focus for this “unification”. I really struggle to see that as “getting it right”.

No, He did that in addition to. If you watch “Triumph of the Will”, there was nothing of demonizing or brutalizing other Germans. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t going on. He put people to work and elevated the quality of life. That’s why he was Time’s Man of the Year in 1938. Hitler was a conundrum. He got a lot right but he will only be remembered for what he got wrong and rightfully so. If he could have only checked his hatred of the Jew, he could have conquered Russia and England. If he could have incorporated the Jewish officers in the military into his plan of conquest, Germany would have never been stopped. Germany would have developed nukes and be on the moon, maybe even Mars by now. America would be a minor power which would have lost all influence in the Pacific and probably would have been chased out of Hawaii. America may have been seen as a danger to the New World Order and the Light of Freedom might have been extinguished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The funny thing is that those policies (the drawing together of the people in a common cause and so on) were really the most socialist parts of National Socialism,

Far from it. Socialism has an implication that the individual does not exist. That the individual lives for only the state. There is no “drawing” as it is just marshalling cogs.

and they seem to be the aspects that are most admired, or at least not regarded as totally repugnant, of the whole National Socialist philosophy by those of a neocon persuasion.

It’s not neocon, but individualism. This is a concept that has long been twisted by Socialism. “Common cause” is an attribute of Individualism. There is no such concept in an Oligarchy. The only Common Cause there is the concerns of the leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Your statement is a bit inaccurate but essentially correct. Elected governments aren't always democratic. If you don't have a dictator that is favorable to your side, it is usually favorable to the other side. The point is to get them favorable to your side. After a long period of time, your influence can aid in forming a more stable government. That is American Hegemony and has given us 70 years of relative peace. But if it wasn't us, then it would have been the Soviet Union. Which one would you have preferred - American or Soviet? Or China or even upstarts like Iran or NK? Well?

Good question. What's 20 years of American hegemony given the world? More wars than the previous 50 years put together.

And these stable governments that America has spent so much time & trouble giving the peoples of the world; would that include governments like Pinochet's Chile? Would that include the Batista government in Cuba? or the Taliban, for that matter? Who came to control Afghanistan as a direct result of Uncle Sam's support while they were the Good Guys fighting the Reds.

Edited by Colonel Rhubarb
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Far from it. Socialism has an implication that the individual does not exist. That the individual lives for only the state. There is no "drawing" as it is just marshalling cogs.

It's not neocon, but individualism. This is a concept that has long been twisted by Socialism. "Common cause" is an attribute of Individualism. There is no such concept in an Oligarchy. The only Common Cause there is the concerns of the leader.

No such concept as oligarchy? C'mon, if there is no such concept where did you hear the word? We are living in an oligarchy. The fascist right has long twisted this into some patriotic ideal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Far from it. Socialism has an implication that the individual does not exist. That the individual lives for only the state. There is no "drawing" as it is just marshalling cogs.

It's not neocon, but individualism. This is a concept that has long been twisted by Socialism. "Common cause" is an attribute of Individualism. There is no such concept in an Oligarchy. The only Common Cause there is the concerns of the leader.

i really think you're re-writing the dictionary to suit your own agenda. Oligarchy actually means control by the few, not an individual Leader. And as such it's very appropriate to the modern day US of A, where this is surely undeniably true, both in the realm of overt politics (particularly where a few dynasties have come to dominate the political scene) and in the areas of the media and big business, which is where the real power lies, of course. And you really think that former President Bush's belligerent rhetoric was not designed to do just what you accuse Socialism of doing, drawing the People together in a Common Cause behind the Leader? (Which, of course, the current President, Mr. B. Obama, has tried to so just as much, although not so successfully).

* Oligarchy (from Greek (oligarkhía); from (olígos), meaning "few", and (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Edited by Colonel Rhubarb
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Good question. What's 20 years of American hegemony given the world? More wars than the previous 50 years put together.

And these stable governments that America has spent so much time & trouble giving the peoples of the world; would that include governments like Pinochet's Chile? Would that include the Batista government in Cuba? or the Taliban, for that matter? Who came to control Afghanistan as a direct result of Uncle Sam's support while they were the Good Guys fighting the Reds.

I don't think the results of our nation building adventurism could ever be bad enough for this guy to even take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

To be fair, Ii think accusing someone of wanting another Holocaust would rather justify a shrill response.

That **** is really starting to get old. Sometimes I'm amazed at what he gets away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

i really think you're re-writing the dictionary to suit your own agenda.

I think you’ve never spent any time considering the term and what it means. You just accept the academic definition and think that is all it is.

Oligarchy actually means control by the few, not an individual Leader.

Please don’t insult yourself quoting definitions. Don’t you think that *ONE* is a few? All dictators or Monarchs have their deputies or lieutenants that are at the very least aid in the act of ruling. This is why I prefer to use “Socialism”. Socialism just implies a controlling leadership without being specific of its makeup or goals.

And as such it's very appropriate to the modern day US of A, where this is surely undeniably true, both in the realm of overt politics (particularly where a few dynasties have come to dominate the political scene) and in the areas of the media and big business, which is where the real power lies, of course.

Not really, but close. As long as we have the Party of “NO” and the TEA Party with support of the Constitution in our Republic (not Democracy) then we are still what our Founding Fathers had intended, anything but an Oligarchy.

And you really think that former President Bush's belligerent rhetoric was not designed to do just what you accuse Socialism of doing, drawing the People together in a Common Cause behind the Leader? (Which, of course, the current President, Mr. B. Obama, has tried to so just as much, although not so successfully).

Again you miss the concept of “drawing together”. It is an attribute of Individualism, not Socialism. Socialism marshals cogs for the benefit of the state at the expense of the individual. In a Constitutional Republic, the well being of the individual is paramount and ensures the health of the state. Kennedy stated it very elegantly, “Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.” This takes on the implication of being active in volunteerism where as in Socialism, the concept is to let the other guy do all the work and then expect an equal share.

Bush only hyped his rhetoric, Obama is the one that has been belligerent in his rhetoric and how he has divided this nation and destroyed basic institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

No such concept as oligarchy? C'mon, if there is no such concept where did you hear the word? We are living in an oligarchy. The fascist right has long twisted this into some patriotic ideal

Gawd! That’s not what I said, not even close. If you are going to read posts here, please at least pretend that you comprehend. Please try again and read what I state and not what you what it to say. You just can’t skip a word here or there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

So while you're arguing over the precise meaning of words, you presumably have no qualms about the US policy of annexing whatever countries it wants, either directly or through installing puppet governments, under the pretext of spreading "Freedom", while acting self-righteous and sanctimonious about any other country that seeks to acquire for itself any influence in any region in which the US has an interest (which is most of them)?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Ravenhawk is a past master at changing the meaning of words to suit his agenda, makes his discussion impossible to follow and all but meaningless outside of his own head.

He is also nothing if not partisan for the biggest bully on the block.

Might is right and words mean nothing (that I don't want them to mean) is his creed.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Good question. What's 20 years of American hegemony given the world? More wars than the previous 50 years put together.

Actually no. There have been fewer wars and more independent nations created. This creates more trade and self determination. Is this not better than being under the heel of a totalitarian and wealth redistribution? Uhmmm…

And these stable governments that America has spent so much time & trouble giving the peoples of the world; would that include governments like Pinochet's Chile? Would that include the Batista government in Cuba? or the Taliban, for that matter? Who came to control Afghanistan as a direct result of Uncle Sam's support while they were the Good Guys fighting the Reds.

Come on, really? Nothing is perfect. But do you think that things would have been better in Cuba or Chile if we didn’t get involved? I guess people haven’t been risking their lives trying to escape Cuba to find their way here. Do you really think that Castro was better than Batista? Under Pinochet, there were horrendous civil right violations. But that did prevent Communist influence from invading the Western Hemisphere. Pinochet was overthrown by the ballot and not armed rebellion. 44% of the people were still in favor of him staying in power, but he stepped down anyway. And that is probably why that nation is doing well today. It is still under full privatization. How do you think Chile would have been like if Allende had remained in power? More like Cuba or even East Germany before the Wall came down?

Afghanistan was definitely a let down. We should have followed up with support to stabilize them. But some here would call that welfare. But then if Carter had supported the Shah, there might not have been an invasion of Afghanistan, which would mean that Bin Laden would have never risen to the level he did, nor would Saddam have done so. And by pulling out again, we have laid the way for more destabilization and worse leaders that do threaten our allies and our interests. But Socialists have no understanding of this. They are narcissists infected with Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy. They have to protect the American people from themselves because we can’t take care of ourselves without having these wise Socialists as a father figure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.