Found a girl for michael moore

[DieselWeasel]

Originally Posted by Ryano

None of the wars in the past two centuries were about freedom??? WTF? DW if it weren't for WWII, you would be speaking Japanese or German right now. If you don't believe that, you are extremely misguided.

FDR gave the Japanese no choice after he froze their assets, then gave the order to execute embargoes on steel, scrap metal, and eventually oil. The latter was the last straw, forcing their hand.


Read about it here:

The American Cause: Why Did Japan Attack Us?

[DieselWeasel]

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Your zionist moles idea sounds horribly close to a zionist conspiracy idea.

Yes, it's horrible, but the truth is ugly and terrible. You should probably put your head in the sand, like everyone else. It's more comfortable.

[Tannhauser]

Originally Posted by DieselWeasel

Yes, it's horrible, but the truth is ugly and terrible. You should probably put your head in the sand, like everyone else. It's more comfortable.

No need to get snippy.

To me there's a distinction between acknowledging that the US and Israel have uncomfortably close relationships and claiming that there is some sort of jewish plot to infiltrate US policy departments. Zionist conspiracy theories are, well, just another conspiracy theory, with all that entails.

You assume that I reject the idea because 'I can't face the truth' or 'it's uncomfortable'. But it's more to do with the type of thinking behind anything that smacks of conspiracy - whether it's in health, politics, science. I've looked at many over the years, and they always turn out to be based on not very much.

[Tannhauser]

Originally Posted by Ryano

So you assume you know what Hitler's plan was? Not World domination. Do you really think he would have been satisfied with just Europe?

The war was not for freedom? Anyone who thinks not, is delusional.

Hang on, I didn't say that the war wasn't for freedom. I didn't say that at all. In fact, I think it's one of the few wars where freedom really was at stake for millions of people: principally jews, gypsies, slavs and homosexuals. I just think that Americans weren't amongst those whose freedom was threatened.

WWII has been so intensely studied, and there is so much information available from the Nazi top brass: communiques, interviews, witness statements, diary entries etc, that yes, I think it's possible to form a good picture of Hitler's plans.

I think it's a misconception that Hitler wanted to take over the world. He had ambitions for German expansion, and a racist ideology, but as far as I know his ambitions were really focused on mainland europe. In fact, as I said before, he was an open admirer of the British Empire and would have been happy to let the UK keep its bits of Africa, let alone thinking about America.

[Tannhauser]

Originally Posted by Ryano

So you assume you know what Hitler's plan was? Not World domination. Do you really think he would have been satisfied with just Europe?

The war was not for freedom? Anyone who thinks not, is delusional.

You might find this of interest:

Hitler saw direct conflict with the US as something on the very distant horizon, and likely beyond his own lifetime (which he anticipated would be short). His chief geopolitical objective through most of his career was German domination of continental Europe, which he considered to be the Aryan race's immediate right and destiny. Conquest of Great Britain didn't even really fit into his plans, such that his peace overtures to Britain after the fall of France specified that Britain could keep all its overseas possessions (though Italian ambitions in the Mediterranean soon complicated things). As the Germans successes compounded, Hitler's horizons seemed to expand a bit -- correspondence and discussion within the German heirarchy apparently referenced a return to Germany's pre-World War I African colonies, and a central Asian demarcation line between Germany and Japan's spheres of influence was anticipated. The western hemisphere remained pretty much off Hitler's radar, though, except politically.

Hitler's main objective with regard to the US was simply keeping us out of the war. He recognized that our intervention in World War I had been decisive. He considered the increasing US support for Britain to be the work of the ever-popular "international Jewish conspiracy", and authorized the "Final Solution" (systematic extermination of European Jews, rather than simply seizure of property, brutal imprisonment, and sporadic murder) partly as an act of revenge against the "conspiracy" once Germany and the US were formally at war. Though Germany issued the formal declaration after Pearl Harbor, Hitler's aims in doing so were political (maintaining the "initiative") and tactical (launching a submarine offensive in hopes of disrupting supplies to Britain), rather than in contemplation of any actual seizure of American territory.

Of course, just because Hitler didn't plan an invasion doesn't mean we didn't think he was at the time. I recall seeing a Life magazine spread, I think from 1940 or '41, predating Pearl Harbor, in which possible German invasion plans were laid out. They theorized that Germany would subvert governments in South American and the Carribean (Argentina, and to a lesser extent Brazil until it joined the Allies in 1944 or '45, had sympathies with the Nazis), and would build up forces there. Captured naval assets of France, and possibly Britain, would also support the Nazi invasion. All of this, of course, was idle speculation, possibly fed by US contingency plans from between the wars. Remember that the War Department had gamed possible wars with Japan and Britain (!) during the '20s, and had some idea of where foreign invaders might choose to land.

Similarly, our own fears to the contrary, Japan's ambition was hegemony over Asia. It didn't even plan to extend its island possessions in the Pacific until the Doolittle raid inspired them to expand their defensive perimeter by taking Midway island.

To sum up my own views on this: every country always justifies its wars as being 'for freedom'. Every country. But in this case, the USA really was fighting for freedom, in the sense that the regime they were fighting had the stated aim of subjugating and murdering sections of the indigineous populations. However, I just don't think that extended to the population of the US.

[Ryano]

[QUOTE=DieselWeasel;294853]FDR gave the Japanese no choice after he froze their assets, then gave the order to execute embargoes on steel, scrap metal, and eventually oil. The latter was the last straw, forcing their hand.

So the Japanese attacked the U.S. because of economic issues. So what. You think we shouldn't have defended ourselves? What about the freedoms of the people they killed? What about the freedoms of the 3000 people that died in the World Trade Center attacks? You think we must let Al Quida attack us at will without trying to take them out on their soil? I guess since you can't hear any gunshots your freedom is secure. Get your head out of the sand.

[Ryano]

It's no secret that FDR wanted the U.S. to get involved in the war. Rightly so, in my opinion and most of the rest of the world. If the U.S. did not get involved the outcome of the war probably would have been different and the FREEDOM of millions more people would have been lost.

DW, hypothetical situation.....You and a friend on standing on a streetcorner. A thug comes up and punches your friend in the face. Do you get involved or hide to maintain your freedom???

Freedom WAS at stake, regardless if you can see it or not.

[Tannhauser]

Originally Posted by DieselWeasel

Here's another good article by Buchanan on the topic:

Pat Buchanan? As in 'Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory' Pat Buchanan? As in 'There's no way the Nazis could have gassed jews with diesel fumes at Treblinsk' Buchanan?

Wow. That's me out of here.

[DieselWeasel]

Originally Posted by Ryano

So the Japanese attacked the U.S. because of economic issues. So what. You think we shouldn't have defended ourselves? What about the freedoms of the people they killed? What about the freedoms of the 3000 people that died in the World Trade Center attacks? You think we must let Al Quida attack us at will without trying to take them out on their soil? I guess since you can't hear any gunshots your freedom is secure. Get your head out of the sand.

All of those things that I mentioned (i.e. freezing of Japanese assets in the U.S., along with multiple embargoes) were considered acts of war.

Roosevelt also refused to meet with the Japanese diplomats who were willing to make concessions for peace by leaving an island that they took.


Here's another good article by Buchanan on the topic:

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?


Quoted from the above:

“The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”
(Henry Stimson, Secretary of War)


In regards to 9/11, neither Iraq (Ba'ath govt or Iraq citizens) nor Afghanistan (Taliban or Afghan citizens) was involved in the terrorist actions on that day. If you believe the official story of 9/11, though quite dubious and full of holes, almost all of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, NOT Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, or any other Middle East country that the U.S. either attacked, is still currently attacking, or is in the crosshairs.

During the push for war in 2002 and 2003, leading to the bombing and invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration lied about phantom "weapons of mass destruction", along with a bogus link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Both were fabrications.

Prior to that, the Bush administration demanded that the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, hand over bin Laden. When the Taliban requested some form of evidence or proof that clearly shows OBL was responsible for 9/11, the U.S. govt refused to provide anything demonstrating that.


Here's an interesting tidbit related to the discussion, showing the Bush administration's agenda to invade Afghanistan just days before 9/11:

Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11' | World news | The Guardian


Also, the Department of Justice never indicted OBL for the crimes associated with 9/11, nor included 9/11 as one of his terrorist crimes on his FBI Most Wanted poster, even now, after his death.

FBI — USAMA BIN LADEN
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”


Get my head out of the sand? I was IN the sandbox, a.k.a. Iraq. Were you over there, or are you just a chickenhawk who wants war but doesn't want to go over there, nor his family, only wanting OTHER people to fight and die for lies and bullshit?

[DieselWeasel]

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Pat Buchanan? As in 'Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory' Pat Buchanan? As in 'There's no way the Nazis could have gassed jews with diesel fumes at Treblinsk' Buchanan?

Wow. That's me out of here.

As far as I'm aware, Buchanan never did any Holocaust denial. I've researched him in the past.

However, he's correct when he asserts that our government is thoroughly overrun with people, both jews and gentiles, who are more loyal to Israel than our own country.