"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:5c9%a.118217$cF.32801@rwcrnsc53... "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:782qjvcth0kp1k30m6qpp3eb6bo4if8ri4@4ax.com... Tell us more about "crimes and offenses" by US troops domestically. Here's one to start with. http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/gallery/ http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/ Very sad. However I tend to be better at *describing* considerations that contribute to the attitudes and actions of the players in a situation. (*Descriptive*) Then I leave it to each individual to take these considerations, add their own and decide for themselves what action +should+ be taken. (+Normative+). (A) The first consideration crucial to understanding what transpires, usually unconsciously, in peoples' minds in situations like the Hernandez incident is "double standards" otherwise known as "loyalty to one's own group, tribe, race, community or nation". This trait is normal, natural and inherent in the human psyche. This is old hat to psychologists, and especially behavioral and evolutionary psychologists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered the incendiary bombing of German cities for the express purpose of annihilating German civilians. In at least one of his memos he referred to them as "terror bombings". Toward the end he questions the military usefulness of these "terror bombings", and showing a little conscience, for he does not mention Bomber Command in his victory speech, but he did have profound praise for Fighter Command that saved the country in the Battle of Britain. 700,000 civilians, mostly women and children were snuffed out in these attacks on German cities that were known not to be worthwhile military targets.
Further evidence that the U$$A (and their few allies) are the real
War Criminals that need to be eradicated ....
--
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
--Henry Kissinger
Fred J. McCall
08-15-2003, 05:57 PM
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
:For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered the incendiary bombing of
:German cities for the express purpose of annihilating German civilians. In
:at least one of his memos he referred to them as "terror bombings".
And wanted to use poison gas.
--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Mark K
08-16-2003, 12:24 AM
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o90rjvc1tfraehjm57sbq6s05rumlq6o0h@4ax.com... "Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote: :For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered the incendiary bombing
of :German cities for the express purpose of annihilating German civilians.
In :at least one of his memos he referred to them as "terror bombings". And wanted to use poison gas.
Imperialist plunder of Iraq has long history
from http://www.themilitant.com
BY SAM MANUEL
"By July 1920 a popular rebellion in Iraq threatened continued foreign
occupation. The British Royal Air Force suppressed the revolt with a
massive aerial bombardment of Arab villages, including the use of
poison gas. Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an
experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary
of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas
against uncivilized tribes.""
Fred J. McCall
08-16-2003, 07:24 AM
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:o90rjvc1tfraehjm57sbq6s05rumlq6o0h@4ax.com.. .
:> "Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
:>
:> :For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered the incendiary bombing
:of
:> :German cities for the express purpose of annihilating German civilians.
:In
:> :at least one of his memos he referred to them as "terror bombings".
:>
:> And wanted to use poison gas.
:
:"Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an
:experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary
:of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas
:against uncivilized tribes.""
He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European
women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to
Germany.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Mark K
08-16-2003, 09:51 AM
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6ifsjv01vp8nsvtqjnhoes2g32run68l4b@4ax.com...
Mark K said: For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered the incendiary bombing ofGerman cities for the express purpose of annihilating German civilians. At least one of his memos he referred to them as "terror bombings".
And wanted to use poison gas.
Mark K reported: :"Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an :experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary :of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas :against uncivilized tribes.""
He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to Germany.
Winston Chuchill was a man of vision, conviction and determination,
dedicated to do *whatever* it took to save and propagate Western
civilization.
He spear-headed the war effort and saved the world from the Nazi menace, and
for that we can forgive his imperial arrogance, hubris, bigotry and
terrorist atrocities (more than Saddam, but less than Pol Pot).
Andrew Chaplin
08-16-2003, 10:15 AM
Mark K wrote: "Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:6ifsjv01vp8nsvtqjnhoes2g32run68l4b@4ax.com...
He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to Germany. Winston Chuchill was a man of vision, conviction and determination, dedicated to do *whatever* it took to save and propagate Western civilization. He spear-headed the war effort and saved the world from the Nazi menace, and for that we can forgive his imperial arrogance, hubris, bigotry and terrorist atrocities (more than Saddam, but less than Pol Pot).
He also had some pretty sensible people to restrain him, too; Alan
Brooke comes to mind. Most of his opposition did not.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
RTO Trainer
08-16-2003, 10:22 AM
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:51:06 GMT, "Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:6ifsjv01vp8nsvtqjnhoes2g32run68l4b@4ax .com... Mark K said: > For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered > the incendiary bombing ofGerman cities for the express > purpose of annihilating German civilians. At least one of his > memos he referred to them as "terror bombings". > And wanted to use poison gas. Mark K reported: :"Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an :experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary :of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas :against uncivilized tribes."" He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to Germany.Winston Chuchill was a man of vision, conviction and determination,dedicated to do *whatever* it took to save and propagate Westerncivilization.He spear-headed the war effort and saved the world from the Nazi menace, andfor that we can forgive his imperial arrogance, hubris, bigotry andterrorist atrocities (more than Saddam, but less than Pol Pot).
Good discussion, guys. But do you mind taking it out of us.config?
(Changing the Subject line might be appropriate too.)
--
"In this era of American triumph, only two institutions continue to resist the future: blue collar unions and our armed forces. The unions have a better case."
--Ralph Peters
SPC Robert White
31U, OKARNG
Commo Plt. HHC 45th eSB
Always Forward!
*****Begin Lemming Code Block*****
LIT\LSS d+(BDU) s+>s: a C+$ N++ aNG///LCC PS+ PE tv+ b++ e++>e++++
******End Lemming COde Block******
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:_ht%a.130217$It4.53381@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net... "Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:6ifsjv01vp8nsvtqjnhoes2g32run68l4b@4ax.com... Mark K said: > For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered > the incendiary bombing ofGerman cities for the express > purpose of annihilating German civilians. At least one of his > memos he referred to them as "terror bombings". > And wanted to use poison gas. Mark K reported: :"Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an :experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary :of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas :against uncivilized tribes."" He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to Germany. Winston Chuchill was a man of vision, conviction and determination, dedicated to do *whatever* it took to save and propagate Western civilization.
So you won't begrudge anyone for doing "whatever" it takes to save
and propagate the Eastern Civilizations ... eh?
--
"Either the world will be ruled according to the ideas of our
modern democracy, or the world will be dominated according
to the natural law of force; in the latter case the people of
brute force will be victorious."
G.W. Bush or Adolf Hitler ?
As I have stated elsewhere, I focus on observing and describing how the
world works, and leave judging "right" and "wrong" to the individual - as
what is right and what is wrong to a person is strongly influenced by the
self-interest of the groups he identifies with.
I observe that in general in international politics, the Code of Ethics
which has, is and almost certainly will prevail is: "Might is Right".
Therefore if "Eastern Civilizations" ever had the power and chose to use it
to propagate their civilizations, it would be consonant with how, in
international affairs, the world has always operated so far.
For instance, the talk of Israel's "right to exist" is rather silly. Israel
has the right to exist because it has the power to exist. The former
American Indian nations on the other hand do not have the right to exist
because they do not have the power to enforce that right.
You can't possibly be a U$ Military moron, you're too intelligent and objective
....
--
"We huddled 'em up. We made them squat down... I poured four clips
into the dinks...the mothers kept hugging their children...we kept on
firing..."
- Paul Meadlo
United States Army commenting on US War crimes at My Lai
Fred J. McCall
08-16-2003, 03:25 PM
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:6ifsjv01vp8nsvtqjnhoes2g32run68l4b@4ax.com.. .
:
:> > Mark K said:
:> > > For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered
:> > > the incendiary bombing ofGerman cities for the express
:> > > purpose of annihilating German civilians. At least one of his
:> > > memos he referred to them as "terror bombings".
:
:> > > And wanted to use poison gas.
:
:> Mark K reported:
:> :"Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an
:> :experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary
:> :of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas
:> :against uncivilized tribes.""
:
:> He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European
:> women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to
:> Germany.
:
:Winston Chuchill was a man of vision, conviction and determination,
:dedicated to do *whatever* it took to save and propagate Western
:civilization.
I prefer to think that he was just a nasty old bugger who happened to
be in the right place when a nasty old bugger was required. I still
don't find some of his propensities particularly admirable. There
really was no good reason to want to drop war gasses on cities full of
civilians, other than sheer bloody-mindedness.
:He spear-headed the war effort and saved the world from the Nazi menace, and
:for that we can forgive his imperial arrogance, hubris, bigotry and
:terrorist atrocities (more than Saddam, but less than Pol Pot).
Well, he did have a bit of help. You might want to consider that some
90% of the 'Nazi menace' effort was concentrated in the East. You
might also want to consider that much of the action in the West was US
troops.
Looking at the world leaders of the time, one has to seriously wonder
what the difference was between the good guys and the bad guys at the
top. It almost appears like the only difference was what the system
they found themselves in charge of would let them get away with.
--
"Have you noticed that the most subtle shedders of blood have always
been the most civilized gentlemen? If civilization has not made man
more bloodthirsty, it has at least made him more hideously and
abominably bloodthirsty. Formerly he saw bloodshed as an act of
justice, and with a clear conscience exterminated whomever he
thought he should. And now we consider bloodshed an abomination,
yet engage in this abomination more than ever."
-- Dostoyevsky "Notes From The Underground"
Fred J. McCall
08-16-2003, 06:43 PM
Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:>
:> "Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> :news:6ifsjv01vp8nsvtqjnhoes2g32run68l4b@4ax.com.. .
:> :
:> :> > Mark K said:
:> :> > > For instance, in WWII, Winston Churchill ordered
:> :> > > the incendiary bombing ofGerman cities for the express
:> :> > > purpose of annihilating German civilians. At least one of his
:> :> > > memos he referred to them as "terror bombings".
:> :
:> :> > > And wanted to use poison gas.
:> :
:> :> Mark K reported:
:> :> :"Responding to a proposal to use chemical weapons as an
:> :> :experiment on "recalcitrant" Arabs, Winston Churchill, then secretary
:> :> :of state for war, said, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas
:> :> :against uncivilized tribes.""
:
:That was prior or during WW I
No, it was not. It was in 1920.
:> :> He apparently didn't have any large problem with using it on European
:> :> women and children, either, since that's what he wanted to do to
:> :> Germany.
:> :
:> :Winston Chuchill was a man of vision, conviction and determination,
:> :dedicated to do *whatever* it took to save and propagate Western
:> :civilization.
:>
:> I prefer to think that he was just a nasty old bugger who happened to
:> be in the right place when a nasty old bugger was required. I still
:> don't find some of his propensities particularly admirable. There
:> really was no good reason to want to drop war gasses on cities full of
:> civilians, other than sheer bloody-mindedness.
:>
:> :He spear-headed the war effort and saved the world from the Nazi menace, and
:> :for that we can forgive his imperial arrogance, hubris, bigotry and
:> :terrorist atrocities (more than Saddam, but less than Pol Pot).
:>
:> Well, he did have a bit of help. You might want to consider that some
:> 90% of the 'Nazi menace' effort was concentrated in the East. You
:> might also want to consider that much of the action in the West was US
:> troops.
:
:If Churchill's RAF spitfires had not outfought a
:numerically stronger Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain,
:there would never have been a "Second Front" and Bradley,
:Patton and Eisenhower would never have seen Europe
And frankly, that would have been fine with us. You're wrong, though.
Or is it your contention that the only thing stopping an amphibious
invasion of Britain by Germany was a handful of RAF aircraft? I
always thought the Royal Navy had just a BIT to do with that.
In any case, you appear to be suggesting that if Britain had lost the
war early this would somehow have damaged the US. I think it would
have been much worse for Britain than for us, so your position seems
just a BIT odd.
:> Looking at the world leaders of the time, one has to seriously wonder
:> what the difference was between the good guys and the bad guys at the
:> top. It almost appears like the only difference was what the system
:> they found themselves in charge of would let them get away with.
:
:That is what jokers like Shinsecki & co have been doing
:and you can expect a sea change in the pentagon.
Oh, I see now. You're just a loon. Pardon me for taking you at all
seriously earlier in your diatribe. It won't happen again.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Mark K
08-16-2003, 08:02 PM
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h4ntjvosn1ocdhtkm5d0i083n4bh1gmpip@4ax.com...
:> Looking at the world leaders of the time, one has to seriously wonder :> what the difference was between the good guys and the bad guys at the :> top. It almost appears like the only difference was what the system :> they found themselves in charge of would let them get away with.
:That is what jokers like Shinsecki & co have been doing :and you can expect a sea change in the pentagon.
Oh, I see now. You're just a loon. Pardon me for taking you at all seriously earlier in your diatribe. It won't happen again.
Not a loon, but a tribal fellow. Shinseki is not kosher because he
contradictts holy brothrer Wolfowitz, and is therefore not for the good of
the tribe. (See below.)
http://www.mail-archive.com/news@antic.org/msg04747.html
Wolfowitz Contradicts Shinseki over Iraqi Occupation
Wolfowitz Contradicts Shinseki over Iraqi Occupation
Feb 28, 2003
Summary
U.S. Army Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki said Feb. 25 that hundreds of
thousands of troops would be needed in Iraq following a war. However, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz contradicted that statement on Feb. 27,
saying Shinseki's estimates were "wildly off the mark." When two important
figures like this contradict each other, it always has strategic
significance.
Analysis
An interesting fight has broken out over the U.S. Army chief of staff's
contention that Iraq would be occupied by hundreds of thousands of U.S.
troops following a war. Gen. Erik Shinseki made that statement Feb. 25 at a
Congressional hearing, without any immediate contradictions. Then, at
hearings on Feb. 27, Democrats began attacking Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz on the question of the war's cost -- at which point Wolfowitz
broke with Shinseki, saying that his estimate was "wildly off the mark" and
that the actual number of occupation forces would be closer to 100,000
troops.
The debate over the cost of the war is not particularly interesting. The
Democrats know perfectly well that the cost of the war depends on how long
the war lasts, how hard the fighting is and so on. Since no one knows that,
a definitive answer is impossible. At the same time, the Bush administration
has run the numbers along several contingencies and know more than officials
want to tell Congress. Both sides are playing dumber than they are. It is
wearying, but not important.
A split within the Defense Department on the scope of the occupation,
however, is important. Shinseki is a careful man: He did not become chief of
staff of the Army by casually throwing numbers around Congressional
hearings, nor was his statement, widely circulated, immediately repudiated
by civilian defense officials. From the evidence, it is clear to us that
Shinseki was expressing defense policy as he knew it -- and the Army chief
of staff, charged with personnel planning, certainly would have to be in the
loop on a long-term deployment issue of that magnitude. <snip>
"JRE" <dkrrv@kkl.org> wrote in message news:vjttfj33ai2i49@corp.supernews.com... So you won't begrudge anyone for doing "whatever" it takes to save and propagate the Eastern Civilizations ... eh? Eastern Civilizations?? Now that's funny!! Oxymoronic, but FUNNY !!
Kind of like Christian Morality ... eh?
Jim E -- "Either the world will be ruled according to the ideas of our modern democracy, or the world will be dominated according to the natural law of force; in the latter case the people of brute force will be victorious." G.W. Bush or Adolf Hitler ?
--
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush Sr. 1998
