http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truth_be_known/
Germany and the world before WWI
From its earliest days the US had tried to avoid involvement in European
squabbles. This rule was broken in WWI and in WWII, two wars that can be
considered part of a single conflict. France, Germany, England, and Russia
had been competing for resources and colonial territory for decades, each
intensely envious and fearful of the others. This is known as "balance of
power politics" where small countries allied with big countries and major
powers tried to impose limits on other major powers, even at the risk of
going to war. Germany in particular felt locked out and targeted by the
other powers. Millions of lost lives later, many people questioned the
judgement of this policy, which led to an insane and paranoid fear that the
other countries might gain an advantage over them. Germany simply didn't see
the potential for extreme political meltdown that lay ahead when it began
attacking countries after Sarajevo. Germany felt it was completely justified
in acting out aggressively, and generations later it still hasn't recovered.
Humans apparently have a short memory. Today the United States insists on
imposing conditions on countries in order to maintain its strategic
advantage. The World Wars have taught us that balance of power politics ends
up costing millions of lives. Some would claim that a united Germany was
simply going through a natural growth phase prior to WWI. But Britain in
particular was loathe to see a stronger Germany, as was France and Russia,
however natural that growth may have been. That is the ugly truth that was
so difficult to see at the time, but not that difficult to see in hindsight.
Iran, being a former regional power determined to rise again, does not like
the United States imposing limits on its growth or defense capability. Like
Germany, Iran considers these limits to be an act of war. The US is
demonstrating a cavalier disregard for the obvious truth that the Middle
East is already a powder keg waiting to blow, with just one more major
provocation. Like Germany and the other European powers of WWI, the US has
chosen a course that opens the door to world conflagration, the likes of
which hasn't been seen for generations. Far better would be for the US to
difuse the anger it has generated toward itself by staying out of the
affairs of other countries. Far more likely to bring on world prosperity and
advancement is the respecting of the rights and sovereignty of other
nations, not imposing conditions.
Iran is acting with a bravado that is almost certain to bring on an American
or Israeli attack. All three nations appear totally ignorant of the lessons
learned in the Great Wars. Each feels within its right to attack, each
stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that a major Middle East conflagration is
imminently possible, would drag in many countries, and cost millions of
lives. Each one is acting with a sense that it must act the way is acting to
fulfill some sort of destiny. In other words they have little choice in the
matter. This, my friends, is the kind of inflexibility that has preceded
each of the major world disasters in history. I'm afraid we are in for a
very bumpy ride in 2006.
John Bollingbrook
Join the discussion at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truth_be_known/
steveo - 25 Jan 2006 10:12 GMT
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truth_be_known/
>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> inflexibility that has preceded each of the major world disasters in
> history. I'm afraid we are in for a very bumpy ride in 2006.
Isreal is all to aware of lessons provided by WWII, and is likely to
pre-emptively attack Iran to protect itself from a country that has directly
stated that Israel should be wiped out. Iran has the missile tech to drop
their future nukes on Israel, and they have shown many times in the past
that they will act with little regard or care for the future consequences
resulting from their actions. It doesn't make sense for Israel to not
destroy the nuke factories, regardless of any international outcry or
sanctions. Losing trade is better than having Tel Aviv being blasted.
With regards to US foreign policy, I'm sure that most could agree that since
Truman it has been conducted ineptly and this ineptness has frustrated US
aims. Nonetheless, it wasn't a proactive government resisting the Germans
that prompted WWII, but rather the combination of a crazy man in office in
Germany, feckless European leaders, and the terrible treaty they had imposed
upon the Germans at the conclusion of WWI as their vengeance.
Iran is indeed just like the Balkans in the first half of the 20th century,
with the potential to engulf the whole world in war as we all vie for the
black blood of our civilization. There was no solution to that problem
except a big war (or a complete modification of every European mind and
system of governance and culture). It would seem that there is no solution
to this one except a big war either. Hopefully this happens BEFORE Iran
gets nukes and can produce them on its own.
Even if we develop an alternative to oil tomorrow and then completely
withdraw all Western people and influence in total, the region still has
more than enough tension to spark a major war. Iran wants regional power,
and to leverage that to propel itself into the top echelon of the world's
nations. Saudi Arabia has some major internal problems, with the monarchy,
the culture frictions between modern and ancient, religious and secular,
moderate Islam and extreme. It could easily disintegrate within the next
decade, leaving the region even more unstable. There are so many issues in
the region that it would take quite a long time just to _list_ them.
steveo
kilgore trout - 30 Jan 2006 02:25 GMT
> Iran is indeed just like the Balkans in the first half of the 20th century,
> with the potential to engulf the whole world in war as we all vie for the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to this one except a big war either. Hopefully this happens BEFORE Iran
> gets nukes and can produce them on its own.
How do you know? Ever been there? Or you believe
the news that you get from Jewish owned networks.
> Even if we develop an alternative to oil tomorrow and then completely
> withdraw all Western people and influence in total, the region still has
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> steveo
Iran just doesnt buy into the Holocost fable. They
feel like it was an internal Euro problem and now
they have a cobra on their doorstep supplied with
state of the art weapons, and they did nothing to
cause it.
Robert Cohen - 29 Jan 2006 04:39 GMT
The Iranian elections are reportedly rigged to favor/enhance/affirm the
ruling mullahs.
Thus, the current semi-brilliant selection.
I do not claim to know if the above "rigged" perception/statement is
absolute truth, relatively factual, complete lie & distortion, but it
is probably irrelevant anyhow.
Why "irrelevant anyhow?"
Well, since the Palestinians have only yesterday seemingly
freely/democratically elected a majority religious/repressive agenda
parliament/government, then so might've the Persians also apparently
fairly/honestly.
I suppose there will not be an internal revolt: The secularists aren't
foolhardy in Palestine or Iran or elsewhere.
I am unaware of Arab/Moslem/Persian democratic-secular martyrs, other
than an Ataturk.
Please cite any other in order to show me that I'm full of ignoramous
cow-merde (which I already knew).
Nasser?
Arafat?
Hussein of Jordan?
Sadat?
Hussein of Iraq?
Syria's boss?
And plenty of other non-religio leaderrs.
Okay, so I'm dead w-r-o-n-g: Perhaps Gamal Abdul Nasser & Sadat were
hated by the Moslem Brotherhood.
We humans/people adapt/conform, or we die.
Arabs & Persians can & do go into exile, or they may stay there and
adapt to the the on-going repression/situation.
I suppose that the United Nations will stumble-bumble rhetorically
along: Darfur is the latest example of what it tragically cannot do.
I suppose that the European Union may sort of shut-up especially since
Iran is now very publicly/shrewdly banking in petrol-Euros.
Each person/nation acts in its perceived (rational/irrational)
self-interest.
What Israel does will be decided by whatever its leadership likewise
determines.
I would not want to be in that leadership today.
But if I had been 33 years ago, I would've facilitated/pushed
alternatives to oil as a way to persuade anti-zionists that deity is
not necessarily on the anti-zionist side.
Obviously the anti-zionists do not fear the West would cut-off itself
from the @#$%^&*()_+ oil.
My agenda of Yom Kippur 33 years ago might've well been a
"water-powered" or other such vehicle that had subverted/transcended
petrol-dollar inter-dependency.
Too late now.
Robert Cohen - 29 Jan 2006 14:01 GMT
Well, helle, everybody oughtabe shocked, shocked that oil is about
politics-economics.
(Though we just couldn't predict that a Hurricane would sink New
Orleans.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1697136,00.html
kilgore trout - 30 Jan 2006 02:12 GMT
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truth_be_known/
>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> Join the discussion at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truth_be_known/
Of course they dont understand. They are non
whites. They despise the west. They care nothing
for Beethoven,Shakespeare,Thomas Edison, Henry
Ford,The Beatles etc etc. They are sub humans.
Their victory would be a total destruction of the
white man. They get lots of help from the Jews in
America, who operate as a 5th column keeping our
fat in the fire. Israel is a country founded by
terrorism and murder with Mafia money. It is no
secret that the Jews controlled the gangs in NY in
the early 20th century, now their heirs are coming
from Russia. We haear of all of the Jewish
refugees from Russia over the years, they were
criminals for the most part. Marielito Soviet Style.
Robert Cohen - 30 Jan 2006 13:25 GMT
re: Blunt Scape-Goater Goads Me To This
So long as a Jew-hater defines/designs the all-purpose super-villain,
I'll think about what history/reality is for me.
I'm taking the baiting, and thus here's what I feel:
Kilgore is one person, and has his view of point, which for all I know
is what HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS, by Daniel Gottlieb,
thought/think.
I'm listening to the fictional HITLER'S NIECE, by Ronald Hansen: I
listened to the first disc yesterday, and the reaction was why do I
need this to make a day lousy.
The art talent/water colors are rejected by the non-Aryan dean of
admittance of the Vienna art school, and his relative taunts him about
"Frankberger" a semitic forebearer.
Whatever Israel does, at least its decision can't be blamed by an
Hannah Arrendt as naive/soft compliance with the Hitlerian enemy.
Robert Cohen - 31 Jan 2006 14:03 GMT
>HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS, by Daniel Gottlieb
Daniel Goldhagen
Goldhagen, Gottlieb, vat's the difference, they all think alike