Death To The Goering Quote!
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Look who's back... :-)</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This quote has been used time and time again as 'proof' that America's War on Terrorism is somehow illegal, immoral, or a duplicitous trick to (Check all that apply) control the world, steal oil, exploit the poor, gain the capital for soylent green production. This quote says, in a nutshell, all wars are fought for the self interests of leaders, and that the people gain nothing from conflict. Is this true?
First, we must examine the context of the quote. From Snopes <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm</a>
In a conversation with a pyschologist:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are 2 very significant things in the full quote. First, it is context specific. It is talking specifically about World War II, when personalities forced their respective countries into War. Second important thing is Goering's dismissal of Democracy. He skirts the psychologist's comment and refers back only to party support and patriotism. He fails to answer the question! Those who use this quote leave that part out. Showing Goering's failure to respond to the idea of Democracy pokes holes in the armor of conspiracy. Goering attempts to dismiss democracy by saying (in a nutshell) the government can force the people to think the right way. Goering is wrong, however, particularly about America.
In a totalitarian, socialist, or fascist regime, Goering is right. 'The Party' can unite the people with propaganda of being attacked. Look at modern history: Where there is only 1 voice, the people can be convinced with words alone. Germany blamed the Jews. The Italians blamed the white shirts (Party opposite to Fascists). Japan used the idea of racism. Where there is 1 party, Goering's analysis is dead on. It breaks up in Democracy, particularly America.
In the years leading up to World War II, America was strongly isolationalist. The people quite obviously did not want war. Despite FDR's desire to help Britain and France, he was powerless to declare war. Though he quite fervently warned of the threat abroad, he could not convince the people and the congress to enter the war. Everyone involved saw it as suicide. Goering, it seems, was quite wrong indeed.
"But wait! FDR knew about Pearl Harbor! He forced the people to war!" While this idea is generally accepted, it needs to be broken down to show the continued failure of Goering's analysis. Although FDR may have had advanced knowledge of the attack, he did in no way direct it. Japan attacked of its own will, and FDR allowed the situation to occur, though this in itself is debatable. (How could he have stopped it? A preemptive counter? Moving the entire fleet (which was done.) leaving civilians to die?) FDR did not directly orchestrate the Pearl Harbor attack. It was the Japanese attack, NOT 'The Party' that convinced the population to support the party's goals. Game, set, match, Jammer. :-)
Still, World War II was a long time ago. Vietnam is a much more apt example. The War Powers Act of 1969 dramitically changed how America went to war. Now the president, not congress, could engage in limit (in theory) wars of his own will. This is the situation Goering was referring to, right? No again. Vietnam was like no other conflict America has fought. First of all, it did not begin as a war. The US began by sending military advisors to South Vietnam. The situation continued for a few years in this respect, as the US gradually upped it precense. Little by little, America was becoming involved. After the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized the President to take all action he deemed necessary to protect US interests in Vietnam. Though the legitimacy of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident can be debated, the social effect was clear. The US had been attacked, and should defend itself. Helping "The Freedom Loving People of South Viet-Nam"™ was a side bonus.
The war dragged on. Although the US never lost a major engagement and had a 15:1 kill ratio, the failure of the presidency during those years never committed to winning the war. It was easily winnable. (N. Vietnam recently admitted to 1,200,000 dead and 300,00 wounded. Compare that to the US' loss of 60,000.) Eventually, however, the people turned against the war. As word spread of escalating death tolls, scorched earth campaigns, and controversy over the draft, support fell greatly. Despite clashes between patriots and dissenters (most notably the Hard Hat Rally in NYC), those in power failed to silence and quell the spirit of dissent. 'The Party' was unable to keep the people convinced of a war, and it showed in the polls. Johnson aborted reelection. Nixon won by promising an end to Vietnam. Once again, America and Democracy proves that the will of the people is not owned by the government. It can be granted and taken away.
This all, of course, leads us back to the War on Terrorism. On 9/11, a group of Muslim Extremists flew planes into 2 civilian targets, 1 military, and 1 awesome state. I'm basing that on facts, not tinfoil conspiracy theories with shaky evidence and even shakier support. Don't debate that here, its been locked countless times. If you disagree with it, I have a great land offer for you in Nigeria :-) Anyway, America was attacked. Plain and simple. It was called another Pearl Harbor, but it was much worse. Pearl Harbor was a military target attacked by another countries armed forces. Even then, it was an American Territory. 9/11 happened in the heart of the American government and the American economy. Civilians, not military men and women, were the target. America was attacked.
Naturally, the American people united. There was widespread support for Afghanistan, both in America and abroad. President Bush stressed that Afghanistan was the begining, not the end. The goal of the US' war on terror was to end ALL forms of terrorism everywhere. Israel, the Phillipines, Ireland, etc. The president also used his momentum to begin making the case for an attack on Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
The point I am making is obvious: An external event united the country behind a previously held but largely unwanted agenda. America is now dedicated to removing terrorism from the Middle East (by force, if necessary) and installing Western style governments complete with democracy, capitalism, and a respect for human rights. That goal alone would be justification for war, in the opinion of the Bush government.
"Wait just a minute! They didn't care about this until after 9/11 when they could get support for it!"
Not true. The much hyped <a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>Project for the New American Century</a> proves that this was on the conservative radar since the late 1990s. Using thin logic, conspiracy theorists link an acknowledgment by the PNAC that only a catastrophic event would allow the goals to be enacted proves that Bush planned 9/11. To beleive that, you need to ignore the confessions of Osama bin Laden and his top commanders. But I digress. The US has both its own security interest, and the interest of the civilized world in mind.
"Not true again! The US once actively installed dictators and toppled elected governments. The Shah of Iran! Chile!" Please, show me where I said the US was perfect. The cold war was a difficult time for America. It needed to balance global stability with long term interests. The US overthrew legitimate governments with human rights abusers because global stability was more important than a freedom loving US hating government. America was not a good country in the cold war. History shows us that. Compared to the Soviet Union, America was certainly the BETTER country. Now that we no longer need to worry about creating Armegeddon, America is free to work on its goals of freedom across the world. The above logic is, in a nutshell, "Because America at one point acted against its current need, it doesn't have the right to pursue those needs." Using that logic, America shouldn't have granted women and blacks the right to vote, since at one point they acted against giving women and blacks the right to vote.
Are America's current actions hypocritical? YES. But hypocrisy, in its traditional sense, is not bad. hypocrisy is saying "I know what is right, but I'm doing something else I know I shouldn't be doing." It is better to acknowledge that standards exist and do wrong than to abolish the standards and claim to do right.
Goering, it appears, is wrong. History shows us that democracies are not easily brought into war. An external event must at trigger the acceptance of a government's agenda. The government's agenda alone will not convince the people. Even when a government has support for a military agenda, support is temperamental and easily revoked, as Bush's numbers now show.
Oh, and a special note for a special someone...
<span style='color:white'>Bad idea for a comeback topic...</span>
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This quote has been used time and time again as 'proof' that America's War on Terrorism is somehow illegal, immoral, or a duplicitous trick to (Check all that apply) control the world, steal oil, exploit the poor, gain the capital for soylent green production. This quote says, in a nutshell, all wars are fought for the self interests of leaders, and that the people gain nothing from conflict. Is this true?
First, we must examine the context of the quote. From Snopes <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm</a>
In a conversation with a pyschologist:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are 2 very significant things in the full quote. First, it is context specific. It is talking specifically about World War II, when personalities forced their respective countries into War. Second important thing is Goering's dismissal of Democracy. He skirts the psychologist's comment and refers back only to party support and patriotism. He fails to answer the question! Those who use this quote leave that part out. Showing Goering's failure to respond to the idea of Democracy pokes holes in the armor of conspiracy. Goering attempts to dismiss democracy by saying (in a nutshell) the government can force the people to think the right way. Goering is wrong, however, particularly about America.
In a totalitarian, socialist, or fascist regime, Goering is right. 'The Party' can unite the people with propaganda of being attacked. Look at modern history: Where there is only 1 voice, the people can be convinced with words alone. Germany blamed the Jews. The Italians blamed the white shirts (Party opposite to Fascists). Japan used the idea of racism. Where there is 1 party, Goering's analysis is dead on. It breaks up in Democracy, particularly America.
In the years leading up to World War II, America was strongly isolationalist. The people quite obviously did not want war. Despite FDR's desire to help Britain and France, he was powerless to declare war. Though he quite fervently warned of the threat abroad, he could not convince the people and the congress to enter the war. Everyone involved saw it as suicide. Goering, it seems, was quite wrong indeed.
"But wait! FDR knew about Pearl Harbor! He forced the people to war!" While this idea is generally accepted, it needs to be broken down to show the continued failure of Goering's analysis. Although FDR may have had advanced knowledge of the attack, he did in no way direct it. Japan attacked of its own will, and FDR allowed the situation to occur, though this in itself is debatable. (How could he have stopped it? A preemptive counter? Moving the entire fleet (which was done.) leaving civilians to die?) FDR did not directly orchestrate the Pearl Harbor attack. It was the Japanese attack, NOT 'The Party' that convinced the population to support the party's goals. Game, set, match, Jammer. :-)
Still, World War II was a long time ago. Vietnam is a much more apt example. The War Powers Act of 1969 dramitically changed how America went to war. Now the president, not congress, could engage in limit (in theory) wars of his own will. This is the situation Goering was referring to, right? No again. Vietnam was like no other conflict America has fought. First of all, it did not begin as a war. The US began by sending military advisors to South Vietnam. The situation continued for a few years in this respect, as the US gradually upped it precense. Little by little, America was becoming involved. After the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized the President to take all action he deemed necessary to protect US interests in Vietnam. Though the legitimacy of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident can be debated, the social effect was clear. The US had been attacked, and should defend itself. Helping "The Freedom Loving People of South Viet-Nam"™ was a side bonus.
The war dragged on. Although the US never lost a major engagement and had a 15:1 kill ratio, the failure of the presidency during those years never committed to winning the war. It was easily winnable. (N. Vietnam recently admitted to 1,200,000 dead and 300,00 wounded. Compare that to the US' loss of 60,000.) Eventually, however, the people turned against the war. As word spread of escalating death tolls, scorched earth campaigns, and controversy over the draft, support fell greatly. Despite clashes between patriots and dissenters (most notably the Hard Hat Rally in NYC), those in power failed to silence and quell the spirit of dissent. 'The Party' was unable to keep the people convinced of a war, and it showed in the polls. Johnson aborted reelection. Nixon won by promising an end to Vietnam. Once again, America and Democracy proves that the will of the people is not owned by the government. It can be granted and taken away.
This all, of course, leads us back to the War on Terrorism. On 9/11, a group of Muslim Extremists flew planes into 2 civilian targets, 1 military, and 1 awesome state. I'm basing that on facts, not tinfoil conspiracy theories with shaky evidence and even shakier support. Don't debate that here, its been locked countless times. If you disagree with it, I have a great land offer for you in Nigeria :-) Anyway, America was attacked. Plain and simple. It was called another Pearl Harbor, but it was much worse. Pearl Harbor was a military target attacked by another countries armed forces. Even then, it was an American Territory. 9/11 happened in the heart of the American government and the American economy. Civilians, not military men and women, were the target. America was attacked.
Naturally, the American people united. There was widespread support for Afghanistan, both in America and abroad. President Bush stressed that Afghanistan was the begining, not the end. The goal of the US' war on terror was to end ALL forms of terrorism everywhere. Israel, the Phillipines, Ireland, etc. The president also used his momentum to begin making the case for an attack on Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
The point I am making is obvious: An external event united the country behind a previously held but largely unwanted agenda. America is now dedicated to removing terrorism from the Middle East (by force, if necessary) and installing Western style governments complete with democracy, capitalism, and a respect for human rights. That goal alone would be justification for war, in the opinion of the Bush government.
"Wait just a minute! They didn't care about this until after 9/11 when they could get support for it!"
Not true. The much hyped <a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>Project for the New American Century</a> proves that this was on the conservative radar since the late 1990s. Using thin logic, conspiracy theorists link an acknowledgment by the PNAC that only a catastrophic event would allow the goals to be enacted proves that Bush planned 9/11. To beleive that, you need to ignore the confessions of Osama bin Laden and his top commanders. But I digress. The US has both its own security interest, and the interest of the civilized world in mind.
"Not true again! The US once actively installed dictators and toppled elected governments. The Shah of Iran! Chile!" Please, show me where I said the US was perfect. The cold war was a difficult time for America. It needed to balance global stability with long term interests. The US overthrew legitimate governments with human rights abusers because global stability was more important than a freedom loving US hating government. America was not a good country in the cold war. History shows us that. Compared to the Soviet Union, America was certainly the BETTER country. Now that we no longer need to worry about creating Armegeddon, America is free to work on its goals of freedom across the world. The above logic is, in a nutshell, "Because America at one point acted against its current need, it doesn't have the right to pursue those needs." Using that logic, America shouldn't have granted women and blacks the right to vote, since at one point they acted against giving women and blacks the right to vote.
Are America's current actions hypocritical? YES. But hypocrisy, in its traditional sense, is not bad. hypocrisy is saying "I know what is right, but I'm doing something else I know I shouldn't be doing." It is better to acknowledge that standards exist and do wrong than to abolish the standards and claim to do right.
Goering, it appears, is wrong. History shows us that democracies are not easily brought into war. An external event must at trigger the acceptance of a government's agenda. The government's agenda alone will not convince the people. Even when a government has support for a military agenda, support is temperamental and easily revoked, as Bush's numbers now show.
Oh, and a special note for a special someone...
<span style='color:white'>Bad idea for a comeback topic...</span>
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are America's current actions hypocritical? YES. But hypocrisy, in its traditional sense, is not bad. hypocrisy is saying "I know what is right, but I'm doing something else I know I shouldn't be doing." It is better to acknowledge that standards exist and do wrong than to abolish the standards and claim to do right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not entirely true. Hypocrisy is much more nuanced, comes in many flavors, and can be phrased many ways--including, 'I am going to hold you to one set of standards, and I believe that this is fine for you. However, I do not believe that these standards should apply to me, and that is also fine.'
And the latter half is hard to swallow-- by not adhering to the standards, aren't you in effect abolishing them?
Goering's quote is incredibly apropos, and is exactly right. You are even providing proof for its legitimacy. In order to avoid political suicide in a Republic, or to avoid revolution in a monarchy or dictatorship, you must convince the public that what you want to do is just and proper. Convincing Congress is as simple as controlling Congress, which the Republicans have done. No Republican would dare commit political suicide and go against the administration's wishes. Doing so would mean they are swiftly booted out (or worse.) This is why presidents always help campaign for members of their party running for elected posts... the more elected officials in their party the better. You need a majority in order to control Congress, and that is what the Republican machine has been able to master, much to the chagrin of Democrats across the country. So Bush controls Congress. Easy for him to do whatever he pleases. For an example of this control, just look at how the blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Acts got passed without anyone in the public even knowing about it or questioning it until after the fact. Do the Patriot Acts seem democratic to you?
9/11 was the trigger that united the people. That much is without question. The use of that united energy was very purposefully directed to fit an agenda. You can't just let all that energy go to waste without releasing it on something. Unfortunately, Afghanistan and Iraq are the targets of that energy.
Had the press told Americans that it was a pack of Serbian Nationalists that had hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC as revenge for America's role in destroying their homeland, the public would be 100% behind sending troops and bombs to Serbia again. It is very easy to persuade the people what to do. No one would sit back and question it, because people here are very trusting of the press and they think whatever appears in the papers must be gospel. It is the rare individual that thinks for themselves and comes to their own conclusion. We are far too busy buying disposable diapers, eating Krispy Kreme doughnuts and "fighting terrorism by consuming as much as we possibly can." Thankfully the media keeps reminding us to do this with their ad campaigns, otherwise we might start thinking about reality instead of double-espresso lattes.
<a href='http://www.enduringvision.com/archives/movie_chain_unveils.htm' target='_blank'>Movie Chain Unveils New "Bin Laden" Ad Campaign (satire)</a>
The problem with 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond lies in the fact that Americans have never fully questioned what happened. Instead of investigating the truth, people are quick to react and want revenge. The administration just guided the public along. The public accepts what they're told and they get back to taking their kids to soccer and consuming, consuming, consuming. Of course people support the war; they were told that Iraq had something to do with it, and they believed it! That's <b>exactly</b> what Goering was referring to.
Bush's problem now is that his war did not go as well as hoped, and some of the lies for going to war are starting to come out. The truth is slowly but surely coming to the surface. Had the war been truly over much sooner, we'd have already moved on to Iran or Syria and no one would have cared. Dig a little deeper, people, and see just how far this goes. All I can say without going off topic is follow the money. Follow the money...
I don't even follow your "hypocrisy is okay" section, so forgive me for just leaving that one alone. Just note that what America thinks is best for the world is not at all what the world thinks is best for themselves. Pushing so-called "democracy" on people is like Muslims coming here and pushing Islam on Christian/Jewish America. Why are our values and culture supposed to be what the world should follow? Most foreigners will likely tell you they do not wish to follow our values or our culture. They think we are arrogant for believing we know what's best for them. We are in the vast minority population-wise. So let them be.
The reasons for terrorism can be traced very easily. It has nothing to do with "they hate us because we're rich and fat." That is the arrogance of America coming out and blatant sterotypes. Instead of fixing the underlying problem, we are resulting to our own form of "justified" terrorism in acts of revenge. It will only get worse from here on out. Peace comes from isolationism... but peace unfortunately isn't very profitable. The bane of capitalism, and a major flaw in our Democracy... whoops, I mean... Republic.
I love being a special someone! Will you send me a Christmas gift?
Here's a site about a few of the men in the Nurmberg Trials IQ's and other thing. Someone might find it offensive so if ya do this is your only warning dont click the link.
<a href='http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html' target='_blank'>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...defendants.html</a>
There are different types, like the SAT you could score very high analytically and average spatially. Depending on the test there are other dividers like philosophy, etc.. Didn't see numbers on there but I'll hazard a guess that high is 130+ which is the usual cutoff on the bell curve. It's not uncommon for a gifted person to take 8 or 9 completely different tests to get an aggregate IQ.
So, a high IQ does not automatically make a person credible or prophetic in <x> area. Nor does it mean they actually use it. Some people with IQs higher than Einstein's never finished high school and live in their parents' basement. It all depends on the individual, and where they end up in life also plays a big part.
His background, even if we grant that he is a genius, colors his pattern of thought and steers it in a particular direction. Taking all else into consideration, it is not a stretch to assume his frame of reference is totalitarianism. It is also not a stretch to think that he considered other ideologies inferior, or not long for this earth.
And at the risk of jumping completely off the tracks, America is a Representitive Republic whose representatives are elected democratically. So it is a democracy. If you were to draw a chart, things like democracy and communism would be at the top and socialism, fascism, representative republic, etc would be under them. The citizenry also has a say in most major changes at a local government level. Compare that to China, a country that considers itself a Republic as well.
And...... Democrats also voted in favor of the Patriot Act. In fact, a LOT of Democrats did. Just to drill it in because I feel people need it to be done....
House: 357 in favor, 66 against, 9 no vote ; on revision there are other tallies listed but this came from .gov
Senate: 98 in favor, 1 against, 1 no vote
You may begin your Republikan m1nd kontr0l d3vic3 theory now.
They may have been **** at that time, but they kept stellar records. The paperstorm must have been horrible on the middlemen.
Democrats acceptance of the Patriot Acts occured during a time of crisis, immediately after 9/11. It was 342 pages. They didn't even have time to read it when they blindingly signed it. Goering's quote fits here, too: "..denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Look no further than when <a href='http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_and_Cheney_Block_911_Investigation_.shtml' target='_blank'>Cheney threatened</a> any Democrat who attempted their own investigation into 9/11.
As for the 9/11 inquiries: Bush isn't stupid. A public inquiry will only fuel the conspiracy flames and hurt his chances of re-election. It would just expose the mass incompetence in the FBI and CIA culture, which Bush would be blamed for (though always exsisted). Also, a public inquiry would require exposing the names of leads, ongoing investigations, and current persons of interest. Is it hard to beleive that there may be a legitimate reason for not making a deeper investigation public? We already know allowed the terrorist attack to happen: Massive incompetence within our intelligence community. Unless you think that confessed <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/mohammed/' target='_blank'>9/11 Mastermind</a> is lying to help out his buddy Bush...
When looking at what exactly the Australia people got out of the war there's really not much. We may be able to get a Free Trade agreement with the US but that's a long way from being finalised. We've got a rising cost that's heading upwards of 100 million dollars (quite a lot in Australia). Thankfully we didn't lose any servicemen. The big winner has been the government, who has gained a lot support and popularity from the war (yeah and 80% of Australia opposed the war prior to it's beginning, go figure <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
With regards to the war on terror, the quote makes mention of "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Now that does have a ring of plausibility about it in the current situation. The US government issues constant "terror warnings" and has a nice little chart with the level of threats on it. Now the question here is: are these warnings in response to actual threats, or are they based on minimal information (or no information), and exist primarily to keep the population fearful and eager to re-elect Bush? The 2nd one seems less plausible, but possible.
I just found the quote to be quite interesting. Certainly it provides a useful insight into the Nazi regime. Whether it has relevance in the modern world comes down to one's perception of events. After looking at the Iraq war, I confess that some of the quote would indeed seem to be relevant. But that's my opinion, and my perception of the events. Others can, and will, see it differantly.
Taking your first example, Vietnam, we can relate it to Goering's quote. The Vietnamese had fought to end French colonialism in the 1950s. The Geneva Conference called for free elections in 1956. But the U.S. blocked those elections. Then came the height of the Cold War. McCarthyism. Absurd communist paranoia. Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy assassination. Only four days after JFK was killed, Lyndon Johnson signed National Security Memo 273, which essentially reversed Kennedy's new withdrawal policy and gave the green light to begin covert operations against North Vietnam. Good Morning, Vietnam!! The public was wagged the entire way.
"The central goal of U.S. policymakers in Vietnam was to make sure that an independent socialist course of development did not succeed. U.S. leaders relied on Cold War rhetoric about the communist monolith but really feared that a 'virus' of such independent development could infect the rest of Asia, perhaps even becoming a model for all the Third World." - <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/views/050300-102.htm' target='_blank'>Vietnam War Is A Study In US Crime</a>
So even in Vietnam, the Goering quote comes into play. Convince the public that communism (or in most people's minds, the U.S.S.R.,) this evil beast that put nuclear missiles some 80 miles from Florida, was starting to spread across the globe and would inevitably lead to a world war against us. Use the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Kennedy assassination with the patsy of Lee Harvey Oswald (branded a communist sympathizer) and you have a <b>perfect</b> mix of fear, uncertainty, and misinformation by which to convince the public that what you're doing is right. The public very much wanted to avenge Kennedy's death, and they displaced their anger on this supposed communist threat in Southeast Asia.
Unfortunately, <b>millions</b> of people lost their lives before the drug-crazed hippies started to question the real motives. By then it was far, far too late. In a reactionary mode, you cannot stop death and destruction from happening. All you can do is complain about it after the fact. Kennedy lost his life because he didn't want to commit to all of the communist rhetoric behind Vietnam. That's one of the saddest tragedies of American history. And the people of this country have their history all wrong...
This is just some accurate history to boot: despite what is commonly believed, the Vietnam war was not technically "winnable." Simply because the U.S. never intended to "win." The U.S. never declared war on any country. So there was never an actual agenda or objective put forth. How can you declare a winner for a game that has no objective? It is unfathomable to believe that 6.5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm dropped on the people of Southeast Asia could not "win the war." The people of Vietnam, neither South nor North, wanted us there. Remember, they fought and won their independence from France colonialism in the mid 50s. They were set and ready for democracy, socialism, whatever they wanted to do... they sure as hell did not need us. Our intention was simply to disrupt free-thinking and squash any attempt at self-rule. The U.S. did this by completely levelling the country, killing millions of civilians, and suppressing the will of the people there. All under the name of a war against communism and a perceived threat to the American way of life. Believe it or not, the government actually lied to us. Shocking, I know.
It's a sad, sad history. So many people killed...
So when communism was in fact spreading across the globe, the US government was guilty of making people think communism was spreading across the globe?
Damn them!
This part is kind o/t though.
Your link is, umm... interesting. <span style='color:white'>Check Discussion rule five.</span>. Its right to extent: the US didn't want democracy, it wanted a non-communist state. Those goals are similar to the goals of us policy in most of the cold war, and are proven time and time. I'm not defending those actions, but I understand why they needed to be done. The US needed to ignore the freedom for some to protect the freedom for everyone.
And now, I'm off to class.
So when communism was in fact spreading across the globe, the US government was guilty of making people think communism was spreading across the globe?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue is not about communism "spreading across the globe." In relation to Goering's quote, it is the <b>use</b> of that fear in American minds that allowed the administration to do whatever it saw fit. After all, why should we fear a tiny little country like Vietnam? Vietnam was finally able to decide for itself how it was going to be run. Independence. The U.S. was opposed to allowing them this freedom. "Communism spreading across the globe" was merely the excuse to convince Americans that the Vietnam conflict was justified. (It's a "conflict" and not technically a war because we did not declare war on Vietnam or the U.S.S.R or any other country.)
We have no idea what would have happened in Vietnam had they been allowed to continue on their own path. That is a tragedy. While it's true the Socialist party behind Ho Chi Minh probably would have won, we never gave them that chance to decide for themselves. In hindsight in regards to the excuse for fighting in Vietnam, we "lost" the conflict, right? So why isn't communism all over the planet? You'll probably suggest fear of our bombs made them all shape up. Truth is communism is a hard pill to swallow, and given the choice, many countries are not want for it. Most have to be forced into it. And as we saw the U.S.S.R. crumble in the late 80s, we see that we truly did not need to fear the "communism virus." The U.S. just made use of that fear and dread.
This topic is starting to stray, and we could end up discussing the Vietnam conflict alone at great length. Irregardless of whether you personally believe that communism was spreading across the globe or not, or what you think the true motives of the politicians were at the time, the public was led to believe that communism needed to be stopped because of the events that happened in the early 60s. We know this because there was very little resistance from the public to the U.S. sending of troops in 1965. Therefore proving Goering's quote is dead-on accurate. Totally different story in 1968 after bodies kept coming back home and people no longer <b>believed</b> the government lies... that is what Bush has to fear in today's "war on terror."
I'm straying here, but Bush #1 tried to avoid the inevitable public backlash and ensure a future quick victory in Iraq by forcing 10 years of sanctions to soften the Iraqis up. Get in, get out, move on before the public starts to think about it. Shock and awe. It reads like a perfectly laid-out script. Except they haven't fooled everyone...
Actually, you just reproved what I said in my first post: that in a democracy, the people ultimately control what happens, even if only in a reactionary sense. Political fear of reaction will keep many aspirations in check. The government may be able to distort the truth to gain support, but that support will dwindle as the 'truth' comes out.
Look at Bush's numbers now: He's at about 50% approval, and he's winning '04 by only a couple percentage points against possible attacks. If Goering were right, Bush would still be riding high after keeping the public in fear or continually mentioning the nonexsistant threat (which is very much real, but thats a different topic).
I'm glad we've come to the consensus that I'm right. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <3
And yes, Vietnam is a totally different topic. There was a nice one going in the old D forums.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the people can only influence what happens when something goes wrong. Specifically, soldiers continuing to die. Your argument is that Goering's quote is wrong. It's not wrong. It's completely right.
1. People don't want war. True (you can't argue there.)
2. People can be brought to war if they can be convinced they are under attack. True. You've shown those examples.
3. There is nothing you, I, or anyone else in this country can do to stop our president and our Congress from doing as they see fit. True.
Our only method for stopping Bush or any other administration is to vote them out. <i>After the fact.</i> Who cares when it happens... Goering does not even talk about what is required for the house of cards to come crumbling down. In the meantime, we can do nothing to stop it, and often times the next voting period is <b>too late.</b> Even if you do vote him out, the next batch of politicians will fall under the same kinds of influence and massive opportunity for corruption as the present. This influence... both monetary and political... comes from corporations and people not even in elected positions. How do you prevent that? Well, you can't.
Repeatedly convincing the public that what the administration is doing is right only helps to ensure the lie is continued indefinitely. And like he says, that part is easy. Exactly what Goering is talking about. The Nazi party lied to and convinced an entire nation for more than a decade. Millions died as a result before some other countries intervened. How many more lies will be told to wage war elsewhere? How many must die before the oil cartel is stopped? Who will step up to the plate? Look at how the Nazi rise to power parallels what is happening today. Take a close, hard look at the Patriot Acts.
<span style='color:white'>That wasn't necessary.</span>
People can be brought to war for a vast number of reasons. Minimizing those reasons to defense to prove a point is dishonest.
Ok, let's see here. Congress, which has two halves politically... one of which has people vocally declaring the words "I hate Bush" voted by how much of a margin to proceed? (296-133, 77-23) And they voted by how much of a margin to enact the Patriot Act? If you want to use that line of reasoning, you cannot at the same time declare that it is the current President or his advisors that are at fault. It's either all of 'em or shrunk to the sphere over which one part has direct control.
Voting is a huge issue to Congressional candidates, except in a few districts like Kennedy's. They cannot really do that much damage in a single term, and people can vote them out on the short. People just are not informed enough to know anything beyond (D) or ®. It's a choice, and a sad one at that. But if we required a test or something to vote it would get railed on. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> The problem isn't as much corruption as it is flat out ignorance of the issues on the part of the voters. You can flat out lie to them and they'll believe it because no one cares to look it up. Then when you look it up they flame you for being a zealot. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The "threat" in regards to the 9/11 probe was a voice of opposition to an independent investigation by one political party. It would be in addition to another investigation being conducted by the group of people who are responsible for doing that sort of thing in the first place. You hear them saying the exact same thing in regards to the probe of the security leak right now. Some members of Congress are known to just blurt out whatever they want, security be damned. That's why certain things are compartmentalized. An additional effort by people, many of whom do not have clearance for the info to begin with, who also have an obviously vested and slanted interest in the outcome can not help an objective investigation in the least.
If they want to challenge the DoJ, fine. But don't lay it at the feet of the people saying that it is a DoJ issue to begin with. They didn't make the rules, and they didn't make Congress leak classified info like a sieve. In fact, one of the vocal supporters of an independent probe into the leak is also a vocal supporter of removal of security classification on the exact same issue.
People can be brought to war for a vast number of reasons. Minimizing those reasons to defense to prove a point is dishonest.
Ok, let's see here. Congress, which has two halves politically... one of which has people vocally declaring the words "I hate Bush" voted by how much of a margin to proceed? (296-133, 77-23) And they voted by how much of a margin to enact the Patriot Act? If you want to use that line of reasoning, you cannot at the same time declare that it is the current President or his advisors that are at fault. It's either all of 'em or shrunk to the sphere over which one part has direct control.
Voting is a huge issue to Congressional candidates, except in a few districts like Kennedy's. They cannot really do that much damage in a single term, and people can vote them out on the short. People just are not informed enough to know anything beyond (D) or ®. It's a choice, and a sad one at that. But if we required a test or something to vote it would get railed on. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> The problem isn't as much corruption as it is flat out ignorance of the issues on the part of the voters. You can flat out lie to them and they'll believe it because no one cares to look it up. Then when you look it up they flame you for being a zealot. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The "threat" in regards to the 9/11 probe was a voice of opposition to an independent investigation by one political party. It would be in addition to another investigation being conducted by the group of people who are responsible for doing that sort of thing in the first place. You hear them saying the exact same thing in regards to the probe of the security leak right now. Some members of Congress are known to just blurt out whatever they want, security be damned. That's why certain things are compartmentalized. An additional effort by people, many of whom do not have clearance for the info to begin with, who also have an obviously vested and slanted interest in the outcome can not help an objective investigation in the least.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "people" he is referring to are the common men... you and me. Not the military, not the administration, not the dictators, not the leaders of a country. The former do <b>not</b> want war. And by that I mean, they do not want to <i>start</i> war. The latter are the makers of war throughout history. War is not a humanitarian problem, it is the problem of a few, who then convince the people to "do their bidding." After all, Bush didn't go over to Vietnam and he sure isn't going to go over to Iraq. The great wars in this century were not fought because all of humanity hated each other. It was fought to push back a very small group of people (in relation to the global population) that were acting on their own interests. THAT is precisely what Goering is talking about. Convince the public they are being attacked (9/11, anthrax, homeland security, threat alert orange) and you'll get your majority. Pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq would simply not be possible without what happened on 9/11. No one can argue that. Follow the money...
Sadly, the checks and balances that should protect us from this kind of horrible failure of the American system have failed us. The Democrats are flat-out impotent. They have been bullied and pressured into conforming, and only a few have done anything to raise awareness. And when they do, they are quickly chastised, and following Goering's quote again: "...denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." That is exactly what you're saying. The Bush admin needs only to flex this lack of patriotism muscle in relation to the war on terror, and all opposition is suppressed.
Money spent on investigating the Clinton sex scandal: 47 million.
Money spent on investigating 9/11: 3 million.
2. People can be brought to war if they can be convinced they are under attack. True. You've shown those examples.
3. There is nothing you, I, or anyone else in this country can do to stop our president and our Congress from doing as they see fit. True.
...
Sadly, the checks and balances that should protect us from this kind of horrible failure of the American system have failed us. The Democrats are flat-out impotent. They have been bullied and pressured into conforming, and only a few have done anything to raise awareness. And when they do, they are quickly chastised, and following Goering's quote again: "...denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." That is exactly what you're saying. The Bush admin needs only to flex this lack of patriotism muscle in relation to the war on terror, and all opposition is suppressed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. The first point isn't true. When under attack, people <b>do</b> want war. If that were the case, polls would show to anyone in the government that war would be political suicide.
2. This point assumes that all wars are pointless and illegitimate. Not true. The people don't need to be 'convinced' they are under attack when they actually are. To get case specific, Islamic Fundamentalism has been at war with America for years; it took a brutal attack for people to realize that there WAS an attack. Goering thinks that there is never a reason for war other than powerlust.
3. Yes there is, in the reactive sense. Vietnam proved this exactly! The war was popular at the start. As discontent grew, politicans knew they needed to follow the will of the people or be removed. The will of the people was done. If the government could ignore the people, why didn't LBJ simply escelate to the point of total victory? He was afraid of the political consequences the PEOPLE would exact upon him.
How are democrats being bullied out of speaking their mind? Have you been following the news lately? Ted Kennedy called the President flat out a liar. Al Franken wrote the most hate filled in recent years (well, Treason and Slander came in a close second). Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the rest of the Democratic presidential contenders are having a contest to see who can hate Bush the most. If this is 'intimidation', then Bush really, REALLY sucks.
EDIT
Also, where is that statistic coming from? Does it include military intelligence that links Bin Laden to the attack, or does it only take into account the money spent trying to blame bush?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So let me get this straight. There was a reason for war, because they started it. So what was their reason? isn't that what would determin if the reason for that war was other than powerlust?
Hitler was the aggressor nation. He attacked countries for reasons he claimed to be legitimate. The only legitimate use of force is defense though. He attacked for power.
The US entered WWII to stop Hitler/Tojo and protect Europe/Asia after being directly attacked.
To apply this to the current situtation: The War on Terror is a war against Islamic fundamentalism. The conflict is, in a nutshell, freedom vs virtue. The US says Freedom is more important in a society than virtue. The Islamic world has it the other way around. Fundies claim its god's will to kill those they disagree with, fight.
Thats totally OT though.
2. Ugh... you are not understanding the quote. People need to be convinced when there is <b>no threat</b>. See point 1... people do not want to die and go to war for no reason. Thus, if you want to <b>start</b> a war with another country for land, or oil, or anything else, you must convince the people that going to war is required. Thus you tell them... lie to them... that they are being attacked by said country or threat. He does not refer to going to war when you actually ARE being attacked. That is a totally different situation that he doesn't even refer to. Your opinion that our current war is actually justified means you simply believe we were attacked by Islamic Extremists. My opinion is that we were not, and that this is all a case of "wag the dog" so that we could invade Iraq. Goering's quote is applicable here, in my opinion. You cannot extend his quote to when you truly are being attacked... Pearl Harbor, WW2, et al. Self-defense is an entirely different situation, and the quote does not apply. You can't "kill the quote" just because <i>you</i> believe our current wars are justified.
3. LBJ did escalate. Unfortunately, "winning" wasn't the objective. There was no objective put forth. The goal was not to "win" anything. What, were we trying to kill everyone off except those who were for "democracy?" They actually ended up succeeding, by quashing the hopes and dreams of every citizen in Vietnam of ever having a chance to decide for themselves how their country should be run. The war lasted much longer than when people started to complain. Nixon just picked up the torch, because it was <b>not</b> LBJ that wanted the war. He just happened to be the next in line after Kennedy and was pretty much forced into it. He had one choice: go along or be assassinated, too. "I'll give you your damned war."
Speaking out is totally different than actually <b>doing</b> something. Words are meaningless. They were bullied into accepting the Patriot Acts, whether or not they agreed with them. They were bullied into laying off the 9/11 investigation by Cheney himself. They were bullied into agreeing to invade and occupy Iraq. The Democrats are simply a loud and vocal floormat. Who cares what they say if Bush and crew are allowed to keep wiping their shoes on them? All they can do is try to bolster support for their party members so they can regain control of something. That won't happen for another year. Until then, they are completely impotent and frankly useless.
The $3 mil is purely the money alloted for the Congressional investigation into 9/11. It has nothing to do with blaming Bush, that is not at all what I'm referring to. I'm referring to what the Republicans think is worth spending money on.
"The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003..." - <a href='http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html' target='_blank'>9-11 Commission Funding Woes</a>
"..and $40 million more for the money special prosecutor Kenneth Starr spent investigating Clinton." - <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/lewinsky990505.html' target='_blank'>Taxpayer Sues Lewinsky</a>
The point I'm conveying is that what he is suggesting is a *way* to get people to go to war. It is not *the* way, nor is it necessarily in the top ten of ways. It is a point made by someone people hate that parallels an action presumably taken by another person they hate. If the circumstances leading up to the conflict were different, people would not have anything to say about it. And the 1000 blogs arguments are building up in would not even know how to spell Goering, much less quote him.
Suffice it to say, to get reluctant people to go to war you have to a) convince them they'll win ; and b) convince them there is a reason/cause. If that reason were to save half-off on all shoes and fashion apparel, we'd have an army of valley girl shock troops willing to live and die at our command. Ok, maybe not.
Yes, I agree. There are lots of people willing to die for their country or their cause. But they did not invent the war. And I have to hope that all people would rather <b>not</b> have war, given the choice between that and a peaceful solution. War is unavoidable in many cases. You can come up with thousands of reasons for why one group would want to fight another. Some of those reasons are justified. Others are more malicious in intent. Regardless of the reasons for going to war, the people subjected to the fighting must not truly want it. If they (speaking of "people" in his quote) do want death and destruction as something that should be encouraged and applauded, I have no hope for humanity. I just cannot accept that the majority of this population is really just searching for someone else to kill.
We're getting into pedantics when trying to interpret his meaning of "people." The essence of what Goering referred to is that by and large, a population is probably not willing to go along with a leader's agenda if that agenda does not fit their own. IE, the people of America probably do not want to see their soldiers die in Iraq so the oil cartel, defense contractors, and corporations involved in the clean-up could make their billions. If you as a leader have another agenda you wish to enact, you must convince the people that those soldiers are going to die for a just, valid reason. Before 9/11, you simply could not send troops there and occupy the country. Today, you can. Nazi Germany in the 1930s was exactly the same situation as today. The Propaganda Ministry was absolutely critical to Hitler's ability to wage war. That is what Goering is talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point I'm conveying is that what he is suggesting is a *way* to get people to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there are many ways by which to start war. I don't disagree with that. This discussion is about the validity of the quote, in particular its applicability in modern times. In my opinion, his statement is <b>exactly</b> appropriate to America today. Whether you believe it applies to America today or not is your opinion. Americans have had extremely few reasons to <i>want</i> to wage war. This was true during the two world wars of the last century, and it's true today. We are content with what we have, and who wouldn't be? We're mostly fat, rich, and pretty lazy. So if you wanted to apply the Goering quote, an administration, junta, person, or group needs only to convince the American people that they are being attacked in order to set forth their own agendas. Insert Islamic Extremism, 9/11, anthrax, threat alert orange, rolls of plastic, duct tape, gas masks, ad nauseum. Let the wagging begin. Now this junta is <b>waging war</b> to fit their agenda, and the American people... shockingly... are supporting it. And people keep dying...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If that reason were to save half-off on all shoes and fashion apparel, we'd have an army of valley girl shock troops willing to live and die at our command. Ok, maybe not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
:: Shudders ::
<i>"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro."</i> - <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html' target='_blank'>Friendly Fire</a>
Here is a link to the now unclassified document the book excerpts are referring to: <a href='http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf' target='_blank'>Operation Northwoods document</a>
The document itself is a very interesting read. It goes to show you just how accurate Goering's quote really is.
Msr Evil:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have now seen several posts where people had to post 'totally off-topic'. Please, if you feel that need, don't post. All it tells me is, this thread has gone stagnant and needs to go fallow and die. Keep it on-track, folks, and either honor Jammers topic or let it roll into obscurity. Like BathroomMonkey.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And PM my defense of Al Franken's book to Jammer. Move along, folks.
If you tally up those conflicts, more often than not we are going somewhere because of a threat to someone else. Usually we've been asked to, or have volunteered and our help was accepted.
That being said, in this one issue (Gulf II) some people did take threat into account and it did sway them. Some people, like me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> , did not need that type of convincing but /shrug. The quote lists out a way it can be done, but I disagree that it applies to most cases and I disagree that it applies to us more than any other.
$0.02
If you tally up those conflicts, more often than not we are going somewhere because of a threat to someone else. Usually we've been asked to, or have volunteered and our help was accepted.
That being said, in this one issue (Gulf II) some people did take threat into account and it did sway them. Some people, like me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> , did not need that type of convincing but /shrug. The quote lists out a way it can be done, but I disagree that it applies to most cases and I disagree that it applies to us more than any other.
$0.02 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the reason you went to Afghanistan/Iraq was that you had to eliminate threats to US. That was the official reason that was used to fuel up the people and get their agreement on the war. Now of course the reasons have changed after everyone starts to understand that there never was a threat, but that's another topic.