Discussion:
OT: RADIO LIBERTY newsletter December 2007
(too old to reply)
Howard Duck
2008-02-05 04:50:34 UTC
Permalink
RADIO LIBERTY
Host: "Dr. Stan" Monteith
P.O. Box 969
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: 800-544-8927
Fax: 831-464-8427
www.radioliberty.com

December 2007

DEJA' VU IN IRAQ

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

Place: Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon:
Date: October 12, 2007
Speaker: Lt. Gen. (Ret) Ricardo Sanchez
Commander: Coalition forces in Iraq: June 2003 - June 2004

"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its
desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a
strategy that will achieve 'victory' in that war torn country or in
the greater conflict against extremism." [1]

"While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve
their reputations and their political power - our soldiers die!" [2]

"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will
not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is
stave off defeat." [3]

"There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent
strategic leadership within our national leaders." [4]

"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end
in sight." [5]

"Without bipartisan cooperation we are doomed to fail. There is
nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope." [6]

"Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure
since there has been no focused oversight of the nation's political
and economic initiatives in this war." [7]

"In the meantime our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will
continue to die." [8]

"America must understand that it will take the army at least a decade
to fix the damage that has been done to its full spectrum readiness."
[9]

"A critical objective assessment of our nation's ability to execute
our national security strategy must be conducted. If we are objective
and honest, the results will be surprising to all Americans. There is
unacceptable strategic risk." [10]

"America has not been fully committed to win this war." [11]

"America must mobilize the interagency and the political and economic
elements of power, which have been abject failures to date, in order
to achieve victory." [12]

You cannot understand the origin of the terrible events that took
place during the twentieth century, or grasp the implications of the
frightening things that are happening today, unless you are aware of
the powerful occult organizations that direct American foreign policy,
and the course of human affairs. [13]

Why is the U.S. fighting in Iraq today? Why did President Bush send J.
Paul Bremer (CFR) to Iraq in May 2003, and let him disband the Iraqi
army, disrupt the Iraqi police force, discharge the public servants
who provided water, electricity, and sewage to the populace, close the
factories where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were employed, close
the hospitals, close many schools, and plunge Iraq into chaos? [14]
Why didn't the U.S. utilize the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police force
to maintain order? Why didn't the U.S. maintain the Iraqi civil
service, and keep the Iraqi factories operating so the populace would
have jobs? Why didn't the U.S. military divide Iraq into three ethnic
regions, and transfer control of those regions to the ethnic leaders?
Why is the U.S. military fighting a no-win war in Iraq that is similar
in every way to the no-win wars the U.S. military fought in Korea and
Vietnam? [15]

When I learned that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the military
officer who commanded the coalition forces in Iraq from June 2003 to
June 2004, had addressed The Military Reporters and Editors luncheon
on October 12, 2007, I searched the Internet for a copy of his
address. Google lists 7500 references to Lt. Gen. Sanchez's talk, but
I found only one copy of the text, and is was difficult to read
because the speech was printed in capital letters. It was difficult to
determine when the sentences ended, and the punctuation was confusing.
On the other hand,- Google listed thousands of newspaper articles that
condemned Lieutenant General Sanchez for criticizing the Bush
administration, and noting that they had blocked the military's effort
to win the war in Iraq.

I have reproduced part of one of the hundreds of vitriolic articles
that are available on the Internet. It was written by Spencer
Ackerman, and published in WSJ (Wall Street Journal).com on October
16, 2007. The article stated:

"Ricardo Sanchez's mishandling of the Iraq War during his year as
ground commander is legend. . . ."

"No one pities retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez quite like he
pities himself. His reputation destroyed after his disastrous year as
U.S. ground commander in Iraq -including most notoriously, the Abu
Ghraib torture scandal - Sanchez took a surprising move toward
rehabilitation on Friday, delivering a blistering indictment of the
war's history and its prospects before a military reporters'
convention in Arlington. The war is "a nightmare with no end in
sight," declared its former commander. President Bush, having failed
to accept 'the political and economic realities of this war,' has
adopted the surge in 'a desperate attempt' to salvage his political
fortunes, but will, at best, 'stave off defeat.' The press portrayed
the speech as the latest in a series of volleys by retired generals
furious with the Bush administration." [16]

Are the hundreds of newspaper articles that criticize Lt. Gen. Ricardo
Sanchez's address justified, or were the articles written to demonize
and discredit General Sanchez because he revealed the shocking fact
that the U.S. military hasn't been allowed to win the war in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez divided his address into two parts. The first
segment dealt with his relationship to the media; the second segment
discussed the military situation in Iraq. Because of space
limitations, I have reproduced only the second segment of General
Sanchez's address. Please copy and disseminate it.

"As we all know, war is an extension of politics, and when a
nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in
order to win. War fighting is not solely the responsibility of the
military commander, unless he has been given the responsibility and
resources to synchronize the political, economic, and informational
power of the nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand
strategy that will allow America to emerge victorious from this
generational struggle against extremism?
"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its
desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a
strategy that will achieve 'victory' in that war torn country, or in
the greater conflict against extremism. From a catastrophically
flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration's
latest 'surge' strategy, this administration has failed to employ and
synchronize its political, economic, and military power. The latest
'revised strategy' is a desperate attempt by an administration that
has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war, and
they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American
people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America
cannot achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand
strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to
achieve victory in Iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our
nation's crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.
"While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to
preserve their reputations and their political power - our soldiers
die! Our national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered
into this war, and to this day continue to believe that victory can be
achieved through the application of military power alone. Our
forefathers understood that tremendous economic and political capacity
had to be mobilized, synchronized, and applied if we were to achieve
victory in a global war. That has been, and continues to be, the key
to victory in Iraq. Continued manipulations and adjustments to our
military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with
this flawed approach is stave off defeat. The administration,
Congress, and the entire interagency, especially the Department of
State, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure,
and the American people must hold them accountable.
"There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent
strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese
proverb says, 'Action without vision is a nightmare.' There is no
question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.
"Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by
partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for
power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by
partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective,
executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles
have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons
and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that
political power had greater priority than our national security
objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward
achieving victory in Iraq. Without bipartisan cooperation we are
doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that
would give us hope.
"If we succeed in crafting a bipartisan strategy for victory,
then America must hold all national agencies accountable for
developing and executing the political and economic initiatives that
will bring about stability, security, political, and economic hope for
all Iraqis. That has not been successful to date.
"Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this
failure since there has been no focused oversight of the nation's
political and economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations,
encouragements, investigations, studies, and discussions will not
produce success. This appears to be the nation's only alternative
since the transfer of sovereignty. Our continued neglect will only
extend the conflict. America's dilemma is that we no longer control
the ability to directly influence the Iraq institutions. The sovereign
Iraqi government must be cooperative in these long term efforts. That
is not likely at the levels necessary in the near term.
"Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and
provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be
wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the meantime
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will continue to die.
"Since the start of this war, America's leadership has known that
our military alone could not achieve victory in Iraq. Starting in July
2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military
commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never
achieve 'victory' in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without
the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national
power. This was a necessary condition to stabilize Iraq. Any
sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased
resistance.
"By neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council
level, that is the path our political leaders chose, and now America,
more precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable
situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military
in its application of power, but even its greatest failures in this
war can be linked to America's lack of commitment, priority, and moral
courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent
young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond
anything experienced to date.
"What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war
is that our Army and Marine Corps are struggling with the deployment
schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our
formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training
challenges are significant, and America's ability to sustain a force
level of 150,000 (+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have
been politically unacceptable to date. The draw down of the surge to
presurge levels was never a question. America must understand that it
will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been
done to its full spectrum readiness. The president's recent statement
to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of
political expediency.
"Our Army and Marine Corps will execute as directed, perform
magnificently and never complain. That is the ethic of our warriors
and that is what America expects of them. They will not disappoint us.
But America must know the pressures that are being placed on our
military institutions as we fight this war. All Americans must demand
that these deploying formations are properly resourced, properly
trained, and we must never allow America's support for the soldier to
falter. A critical, objective assessment of our nation's ability to
execute our national security strategy must be conducted. If we are
objective and honest, the results will be surprising to all Americans.
There is unacceptable strategic risk.
"America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A
precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would
endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs, it
would have significant adverse effects on the international community.
Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level
for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy, we
must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis
maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution.
"At no time in America's history has there been a greater need
for bipartisan cooperation. The threat of extremism is real and
demands unified action at the same levels demonstrated by our
forefathers during World War I and World War II. America has failed to
date.
"This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort
that can be characterized as hasty, unresourced, and often
uncoordinated and unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially
ignored, were the political and economic coalitions that were the key
to victory and stability in the immediate aftermath of the
conventional war. The military coalition which was hastily put
together in the summer of 2003 was problematic given the multitude of
national caveats, inadequate rules of engagement, and other
restrictions on the forces deployed. Even so, the military coalition
was the most extensive, productive, and effective deployment of forces
in decades. Today, we continue our inept coalition management efforts
and, in fact, we are facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our
military coalition partners. America's 'revised' strategy does not
address coalition initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to
continue this struggle without the support of our coalition partners
across all elements of national power. Without the political and
economic elements of power complementing the tremendous efforts of our
military, America is assured of failure. We continue on that path.
America's political leadership must come together and develop a
bipartisan grand strategy to achieve victory in this conflict. The
simultaneous application of our political, economic, information, and
military elements of power is the only course of action that will
provide a chance of success.
"Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date
primarily because there is no entity that has the authority to direct
action by our interagency. Our National Security Council has been a
catastrophic failure. Furthermore, America's ability to hold the
Interagency accountable for their failures in this war is
non-existent. This must change. As a nation, we must recognize that
the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life. This
enemy is arguably more dangerous than any threat we faced in the
twentieth century. Our political leaders must place national security
objectives above partisan politics, demand interagency unity of
effort, and never again commit America to war without a grand strategy
that embraces the basic tenets of the Powell Doctrine.
"It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot
achieve victory alone in this war, yet they continue to demand victory
from our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of
our national political leaders involved in the management (of) this
war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of
their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately
be relieved or court-martialed.
"America has sent our soldiers off to war, and they must be
supported at all costs until we achieve victory or until our political
leaders decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders
owe the soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies, and the
resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully
committed to win this war. As the military commanders on the ground
have stated since the summer of 2003, the U.S. military alone cannot
win this war. America must mobilize the interagency and the political
and economic elements of power, which have been abject failures to
date, in order to achieve victory. Our nation has not focused on the
greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic
elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival
of America. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and
America should not accept this. America must demand a unified national
strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common
good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to
their political party above loyalty to the Constitution because of
their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of
office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own
self interests or political party. The security of America is at
stake, and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is
unquestionably dereliction of duty.
"These are fairly harsh assessments of the military and press
relationship and the status of our war effort. I remain optimistic and
committed to the enabling of media operations under the toughest of
conditions in order to keep the world and the American people
informed. Our military must embrace you for the sake of democracy but
you owe them ethical journalism.
"Thank you for this opportunity.
"May God bless you, and may God bless America.
"Praise be to the Lord, my rock, who trains my fingers for battle
and my hands for war.
"Thank you." [17]

Why is the U.S. military still fighting in Iraq? Because our military
leaders haven't been allowed to win the Iraq war - just as the U.S.
military wasn't allowed to win the Vietnam War 40 years ago or the
Korean War 55 years ago. Indeed, the war in Iraq is a replay of the
no-win wars the U.S. military has been forced to fight in the past.
It's like deja' vu all over again.

I interviewed Ambassador William H. Sullivan and General Lewis Walt in
1980, and both men told me the U.S. military could have won the
Vietnam War in two months if they had been allowed to fight the war
properly. Why didn't the U.S. win the Vietnam War? Because Robert
McNamara was deeply involved in the occult, and forced the U.S.
military to follow his Rules of Engagement that insured the U.S. would
lose the war. Senator Barry Goldwater published a copy of McNamara's
Rules of Engagement in the Congressional Record (S 2632) of March
1985. Every American should read the article, and weep for the 58,000
American servicemen who died in Vietnam because the occult force that
controlled our government wouldn't let them win. [18]

A similar situation exists in Iraq today. The Rules of Engagement that
have been imposed on the U.S. military have confused our soldiers, and
aided the enemy. [19] Is the military situation improving? It probably
is because the U.S. has hired 60-70 thousand Sunni tribesmen who were
killing our soldiers several months ago, and paid them $300 a month to
act as security guards. In addition, the U.S. is arming and training
the Sunnis so they will be better killers when the Iraqi civil war
resumes after the presidential election in November 2008. [20]

Why did the Bush administration release the National Intelligence
Estimate (ME) that claims Iran has discontinued its effort to build
nuclear weapons? Joel Skousen claims The Powers that Be (I call them
the Brotherhood of Darkness [BOD] or the Spiritual Hierarchy) have
decided to delay the coming attack on Iran because an expansion of the
war in the Middle East would aid Congressman Ron Paul's presidential
campaign, and endanger the struggling economy of the western world.

As I stated last month, the economic crisis that lies ahead will
disrupt the world economy and destroy the wealth of millions of
Americans, but that will give us an opportunity to tell people about
the spiritual struggle that is taking place, and the demonic forces
that control our nation. Our job is to tell people the truth, and to
remember that only the Lord can make them believe. James Russell
Lowell wrote:

Then to side with truth is noble, When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, And 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitudes make virtue Of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever With the Cross that turns not back.
New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth:
They must upward still and onward Who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong,
Yet that scaffold sways the future, And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, Keeping watch above his own. [21]

Barbara and I appreciate your faithful support, and your prayers.

Yours in Christ,
Stanley Monteith

REFERENCES

1. www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html, p. 4.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., p. 5.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., p. 6.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p.7.
12. Ibid.
13. www.transmissionmeditation.org/trans-spir.html: See Also: Stanley
Monteith. Brotherhood of Darkness, Bible Belt Publishing, 2000: See
Also: Stanley Monteith, The Occult Hierarchy pamphlet. Both items
available from Radio Liberty at 800-544-8927.
14. www.socialistaction.org/caldwell-smith24.htm: See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Paul_Bremer
15. www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis100.htm. See Also. The
Communist-Capitalist Alliance pamphlet available from Radio Liberty
by calling 800-544-8927
16. www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_disgruntled_general
17. www.militaryreporters.org, op. cit.
18. Congressional Record, March 1985, S2632. You can purchase a copy
of the Vietnam Rules of Engement from Radio Liberty.
19. www.militaryreporters.org, p. 7, op. cit.: See Also:
www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/06/politically-correct-rules-of-engement-enda...
20. www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8516603
21. Charles Johnson, One Hundred & One Famous Hymns, Hallberg
Publishing Corporation, Delavan, Wisconsin, 1982, p. 87.
Francis A. Miniter
2008-02-06 18:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
RADIO LIBERTY
Host: "Dr. Stan" Monteith
P.O. Box 969
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: 800-544-8927
Fax: 831-464-8427
www.radioliberty.com
December 2007
DEJA' VU IN IRAQ
<snip>
You cannot understand the origin of the terrible events that took
place during the twentieth century, or grasp the implications of the
frightening things that are happening today, unless you are aware of
the powerful occult organizations that direct American foreign policy,
and the course of human affairs. [13]
<snip>
Why is the U.S. military still fighting in Iraq? Because our military
leaders haven't been allowed to win the Iraq war - just as the U.S.
military wasn't allowed to win the Vietnam War 40 years ago or the
Korean War 55 years ago. Indeed, the war in Iraq is a replay of the
no-win wars the U.S. military has been forced to fight in the past.
It's like deja' vu all over again.
<snip>
It's deja vu all over again?

Apparently, Mr. Monteith has not read any history. In Korea, Gen. MacArthur,
despite warnings from China and from the President proceeded to the Yalu River,
only to be hit with a truly massive attack from Chinese troops that he did not
believe were there. So great was the force of the attack that the UN - mostly,
American - troops were driven back hundreds of miles. After that, without going
nuclear, there was no reasonable prospect of a military victory.

In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese. On top of that, and more directly the cause of failure, we
were supporting a corrupt regime in South Viet Nam with local military leaders
looking out for their own good instead of the national good, refusing to commit
troops loyal to them unless other military leaders did the same. The central
government was highly unpopular, while the Viet Cong had substantial popular
support. 500,000 American troops could not change those facts.

No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this.


Francis A. Miniter
e***@webtv.net
2008-02-06 20:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Francis wrote,

<<No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this. >>

Francis, Francis, Francis. You are SUCH a pushover.

Ellen
Pogonip
2008-02-07 03:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@webtv.net
Francis wrote,
<<No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this. >>
Francis, Francis, Francis. You are SUCH a pushover.
Ellen
It's such a pity Art Bell retired. I can just imagine Howard glued to
his radio during Art's shows. He should have a Crosley with vacuum
tubes, of course.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
e***@webtv.net
2008-02-07 07:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Joanne wrote:

<<It's such a pity Art Bell retired. I can just imagine Howard glued to
his radio during Art's shows. He should have a Crosley with vacuum
tubes, of course.>>

Yes! I can see it now.

Ellen
Wes Struebing
2008-02-07 01:28:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Howard Duck
RADIO LIBERTY
Host: "Dr. Stan" Monteith
P.O. Box 969
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: 800-544-8927
Fax: 831-464-8427
www.radioliberty.com
December 2007
DEJA' VU IN IRAQ
<snip>
You cannot understand the origin of the terrible events that took
place during the twentieth century, or grasp the implications of the
frightening things that are happening today, unless you are aware of
the powerful occult organizations that direct American foreign policy,
and the course of human affairs. [13]
<snip>
Why is the U.S. military still fighting in Iraq? Because our military
leaders haven't been allowed to win the Iraq war - just as the U.S.
military wasn't allowed to win the Vietnam War 40 years ago or the
Korean War 55 years ago. Indeed, the war in Iraq is a replay of the
no-win wars the U.S. military has been forced to fight in the past.
It's like deja' vu all over again.
<snip>
It's deja vu all over again?
Apparently, Mr. Monteith has not read any history. In Korea, Gen. MacArthur,
despite warnings from China and from the President proceeded to the Yalu River,
only to be hit with a truly massive attack from Chinese troops that he did not
believe were there. So great was the force of the attack that the UN - mostly,
American - troops were driven back hundreds of miles. After that, without going
nuclear, there was no reasonable prospect of a military victory.
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese. On top of that, and more directly the cause of failure, we
were supporting a corrupt regime in South Viet Nam with local military leaders
looking out for their own good instead of the national good, refusing to commit
troops loyal to them unless other military leaders did the same. The central
government was highly unpopular, while the Viet Cong had substantial popular
support. 500,000 American troops could not change those facts.
No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this.
Not to mention the US-led coalition DID win the "war" in Iraq - very
quickly. The political situation and the vacuum created by the war
which allowed the insurgency to thrive were and are far more
problematic. And "flying by the seat of your pants planning" does
little to mitigate those issues.
--

Wes Struebing

Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Howard Duck
2008-02-07 05:48:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Howard Duck
RADIO LIBERTY
Host: "Dr. Stan" Monteith
P.O. Box 969
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: 800-544-8927
Fax: 831-464-8427
www.radioliberty.com
December 2007
DEJA' VU IN IRAQ
<snip>
You cannot understand the origin of the terrible events that took
place during the twentieth century, or grasp the implications of the
frightening things that are happening today, unless you are aware of
the powerful occult organizations that direct American foreign policy,
and the course of human affairs. [13]
<snip>
Why is the U.S. military still fighting in Iraq? Because our military
leaders haven't been allowed to win the Iraq war - just as the U.S.
military wasn't allowed to win the Vietnam War 40 years ago or the
Korean War 55 years ago. Indeed, the war in Iraq is a replay of the
no-win wars the U.S. military has been forced to fight in the past.
It's like deja' vu all over again.
<snip>
It's deja vu all over again?
Apparently, Mr. Monteith has not read any history. In Korea, Gen. MacArthur,
despite warnings from China and from the President proceeded to the Yalu River,
only to be hit with a truly massive attack from Chinese troops that he did not
believe were there. So great was the force of the attack that the UN - mostly,
American - troops were driven back hundreds of miles. After that, without going
nuclear, there was no reasonable prospect of a military victory.
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese. On top of that, and more directly the cause of failure, we
were supporting a corrupt regime in South Viet Nam with local military leaders
looking out for their own good instead of the national good, refusing to commit
troops loyal to them unless other military leaders did the same. The central
government was highly unpopular, while the Viet Cong had substantial popular
support. 500,000 American troops could not change those facts.
No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this.
Francis A. Miniter
First, Dr. Monteith minored in history and it has always been a
primary interest outside of medicine.

Second, quite a number of high ranking military who were involved in
Viet Nam have stated quite openly that they were not allowed to win by
Washington - something they could have done in very little time.

You know, you go on reading the sources that tell you lies and you
never seek the truth from the sources themselves. Truman demanded
MacArthur's resignation because MacArthur said he would either
withdraw his troops entirely and go home, or he would go in and win
the war, but he would not see his men die to hold the 38th parallel.
--
Howard
Francis A. Miniter
2008-02-07 19:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Struebing
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Howard Duck
RADIO LIBERTY
Host: "Dr. Stan" Monteith
P.O. Box 969
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: 800-544-8927
Fax: 831-464-8427
www.radioliberty.com
December 2007
DEJA' VU IN IRAQ
<snip>
You cannot understand the origin of the terrible events that took
place during the twentieth century, or grasp the implications of the
frightening things that are happening today, unless you are aware of
the powerful occult organizations that direct American foreign policy,
and the course of human affairs. [13]
<snip>
Why is the U.S. military still fighting in Iraq? Because our military
leaders haven't been allowed to win the Iraq war - just as the U.S.
military wasn't allowed to win the Vietnam War 40 years ago or the
Korean War 55 years ago. Indeed, the war in Iraq is a replay of the
no-win wars the U.S. military has been forced to fight in the past.
It's like deja' vu all over again.
<snip>
It's deja vu all over again?
Apparently, Mr. Monteith has not read any history. In Korea, Gen. MacArthur,
despite warnings from China and from the President proceeded to the Yalu River,
only to be hit with a truly massive attack from Chinese troops that he did not
believe were there. So great was the force of the attack that the UN - mostly,
American - troops were driven back hundreds of miles. After that, without going
nuclear, there was no reasonable prospect of a military victory.
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese. On top of that, and more directly the cause of failure, we
were supporting a corrupt regime in South Viet Nam with local military leaders
looking out for their own good instead of the national good, refusing to commit
troops loyal to them unless other military leaders did the same. The central
government was highly unpopular, while the Viet Cong had substantial popular
support. 500,000 American troops could not change those facts.
No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this.
Francis A. Miniter
First, Dr. Monteith minored in history and it has always been a
primary interest outside of medicine.
Second, quite a number of high ranking military who were involved in
Viet Nam have stated quite openly that they were not allowed to win by
Washington - something they could have done in very little time.
Wishful thinking. Such people had no memory of Korea.
Post by Wes Struebing
You know, you go on reading the sources that tell you lies and you
never seek the truth from the sources themselves. Truman demanded
MacArthur's resignation because MacArthur said he would either
withdraw his troops entirely and go home, or he would go in and win
the war, but he would not see his men die to hold the 38th parallel.
--
Howard
You have it backwards. MacArthur had a total failure of intelligence. Despite
published warnings by China and diplomatically conveyed warnings through India,
MacArthur refused to believe that the Chinese would get involved. They did in
massive numbers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff told MacArthur to stay well clear of
the Manchurian border. In open defiance of his orders, MacArthur ordered
Stratemeyer to bomb the Korean end of the bridges across the Yalu. Truman
countermanded the order, and MacArthur appeared to threaten to resign, though no
one could for a moment think that this egomaniac would actually give up power
voluntarily. MacArthur believed that if the Chinese invaded Korea, his air
power would slughter them. He was 100% wrong. That was October/November 1950.
MacArthur was not sacked until April, 1951, when MacArthur sabotaged a peace
initiative of Truman's by declaring their was "no substitute for victory".

In case you didn't notice, they weren't MacArthur's troops to withdraw and go
home with.

Suggested reading:

Clay Blair, The Forgotten War - America in Korea 1950-1953
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm


Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
2008-02-08 03:51:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:52:39 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Wes Struebing
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Howard Duck
RADIO LIBERTY
Host: "Dr. Stan" Monteith
P.O. Box 969
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: 800-544-8927
Fax: 831-464-8427
www.radioliberty.com
December 2007
DEJA' VU IN IRAQ
<snip>
You cannot understand the origin of the terrible events that took
place during the twentieth century, or grasp the implications of the
frightening things that are happening today, unless you are aware of
the powerful occult organizations that direct American foreign policy,
and the course of human affairs. [13]
<snip>
Why is the U.S. military still fighting in Iraq? Because our military
leaders haven't been allowed to win the Iraq war - just as the U.S.
military wasn't allowed to win the Vietnam War 40 years ago or the
Korean War 55 years ago. Indeed, the war in Iraq is a replay of the
no-win wars the U.S. military has been forced to fight in the past.
It's like deja' vu all over again.
<snip>
It's deja vu all over again?
Apparently, Mr. Monteith has not read any history. In Korea, Gen. MacArthur,
despite warnings from China and from the President proceeded to the Yalu River,
only to be hit with a truly massive attack from Chinese troops that he did not
believe were there. So great was the force of the attack that the UN - mostly,
American - troops were driven back hundreds of miles. After that, without going
nuclear, there was no reasonable prospect of a military victory.
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese. On top of that, and more directly the cause of failure, we
were supporting a corrupt regime in South Viet Nam with local military leaders
looking out for their own good instead of the national good, refusing to commit
troops loyal to them unless other military leaders did the same. The central
government was highly unpopular, while the Viet Cong had substantial popular
support. 500,000 American troops could not change those facts.
No need to call upon dark forces to explain any of this.
Francis A. Miniter
First, Dr. Monteith minored in history and it has always been a
primary interest outside of medicine.
Second, quite a number of high ranking military who were involved in
Viet Nam have stated quite openly that they were not allowed to win by
Washington - something they could have done in very little time.
Wishful thinking. Such people had no memory of Korea.
Post by Wes Struebing
You know, you go on reading the sources that tell you lies and you
never seek the truth from the sources themselves. Truman demanded
MacArthur's resignation because MacArthur said he would either
withdraw his troops entirely and go home, or he would go in and win
the war, but he would not see his men die to hold the 38th parallel.
--
Howard
You have it backwards. MacArthur had a total failure of intelligence. Despite
published warnings by China and diplomatically conveyed warnings through India,
MacArthur refused to believe that the Chinese would get involved. They did in
massive numbers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff told MacArthur to stay well clear of
the Manchurian border. In open defiance of his orders, MacArthur ordered
Stratemeyer to bomb the Korean end of the bridges across the Yalu. Truman
countermanded the order, and MacArthur appeared to threaten to resign, though no
one could for a moment think that this egomaniac would actually give up power
voluntarily. MacArthur believed that if the Chinese invaded Korea, his air
power would slughter them. He was 100% wrong. That was October/November 1950.
MacArthur was not sacked until April, 1951, when MacArthur sabotaged a peace
initiative of Truman's by declaring their was "no substitute for victory".
In case you didn't notice, they weren't MacArthur's troops to withdraw and go
home with.
Clay Blair, The Forgotten War - America in Korea 1950-1953
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm
Francis A. Miniter
An alternative view:
Disturbing Facts About the Korean War
http://www.fdrs.org/facts_about_the_korean_war.html

KOREAN WAR FACTS: 1ST MACARTHUR WARNING UNHEEDED

You can learn how the Korean War was rigged by the U.S. State
Department and United Nations in Disturbing Facts About the Korean
War.

Once in the war, General MacArthur helped push the North Korean army
back across the 38th Parallel (the dividing line between North and
South Korea).

When China's Mao Tse-tung gave a warning to the UN forces not to make
a move on the Yalu River that bordered China, General MacArthur knew
that Chinese troops were gathering north of the Yalu.

This is when the Korean War facts begin showing an "allied" force
working against MacArthur. When MacArthur told the U.S. State
Department this information, he was ignored.

Finally, on November 25, 1950, about "200,000 Chinese 'volunteers'
crossed the Yalu and smashed into the unprepared UN troops. Another
500,000 followed in December."
KOREAN WAR FACTS: MACARTHUR STOPPED BY TRUMAN & MARSHALL

General MacArthur tried to take out China's supply and communication
lines by bombing the bridges on the Yalu River. He also wanted to have
the Nationalist Chinese help the American cause by attacking China
from Taiwan.

"The official response to MacArthur was swift… MacArthur's bombing
orders were canceled by General George Marshall (… a CFR member who
had been called out of retirement by President Truman to serve as
Secretary of Defense). This was the same Marshall who… reportedly
received advance word of attack on Pearl Harbor.

"MacArthur was ordered not to bomb key Chinese supply bases and to
order pilots not to chase fleeing enemy aircraft."

KOREAN WAR FACTS: WASHINGTON ASSURES LIN PIAO

"Chinese commander General Lin Piao was to say later, 'I never would
have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I
had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur
from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply
and communication.'"

KOREAN WAR FACTS: MACARTHUR DISMISSED, REPLACED BY FUTURE CFR MEMBER

General Douglas MacArthur made a public appeal to Congress for help on
the matter and was subsequently dismissed from his duties on April 10,
1951. "He was replaced by General Matthew B. Ridgeway, who later
became a CFR member.

"The MacArthur plan for a diversionary attack by Taiwan was never to
be. This plan had been blocked by an order from Truman only two days
after the North Koreans attacked… General Marshall also rejected an
offer by Chiang Kai-shek to send Nationalist Chinese to aid Americans
in Korea."
KOREAN WAR FACTS: MACARTHUR’S LATER COMMENT

"MacArthur, noting that for the first time in its military history,
the United States had failed to achieve victory, was later to state,
'Never before has this nation been engaged in mortal combat with a
hostile power without military objective, without policy other than
restrictions governing operations, or indeed without even formally
recognizing a state of war.'

"This set a precedent in the United States which continues to haunt us
to this day."
http://www.fdrs.org/korean_war_facts.html
--
Howard
Francis A. Miniter
2008-02-08 04:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:52:39 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
<snip>
Post by Francis A. Miniter
You have it backwards. MacArthur had a total failure of intelligence. Despite
published warnings by China and diplomatically conveyed warnings through India,
MacArthur refused to believe that the Chinese would get involved. They did in
massive numbers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff told MacArthur to stay well clear of
the Manchurian border. In open defiance of his orders, MacArthur ordered
Stratemeyer to bomb the Korean end of the bridges across the Yalu. Truman
countermanded the order, and MacArthur appeared to threaten to resign, though no
one could for a moment think that this egomaniac would actually give up power
voluntarily. MacArthur believed that if the Chinese invaded Korea, his air
power would slughter them. He was 100% wrong. That was October/November 1950.
MacArthur was not sacked until April, 1951, when MacArthur sabotaged a peace
initiative of Truman's by declaring their was "no substitute for victory".
In case you didn't notice, they weren't MacArthur's troops to withdraw and go
home with.
Clay Blair, The Forgotten War - America in Korea 1950-1953
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm
Francis A. Miniter
Disturbing Facts About the Korean War
http://www.fdrs.org/facts_about_the_korean_war.html
KOREAN WAR FACTS: 1ST MACARTHUR WARNING UNHEEDED
You can learn how the Korean War was rigged by the U.S. State
Department and United Nations in Disturbing Facts About the Korean
War.
?????
Post by Howard Duck
Once in the war, General MacArthur helped push the North Korean army
back across the 38th Parallel (the dividing line between North and
South Korea).
Almost true. "Toward" not "across".
Post by Howard Duck
When China's Mao Tse-tung gave a warning to the UN forces not to make
a move on the Yalu River that bordered China, General MacArthur knew
that Chinese troops were gathering north of the Yalu.
False. MacArthur and his G2 and the G2 of Eighth Army were all caught unawares.
Even when CCF troops were captured and even when they said that CCF troops had
crossed in force, the G2s refused to believe this information.
Post by Howard Duck
This is when the Korean War facts begin showing an "allied" force
working against MacArthur. When MacArthur told the U.S. State
Department this information, he was ignored.
False. MacArthur was reporting to Truman that there was no likelihood that CCF
forces would attack, and he laid out a number of reasons including the need to
recover from the long civil war in China that ended the previous year.
Post by Howard Duck
Finally, on November 25, 1950, about "200,000 Chinese 'volunteers'
crossed the Yalu and smashed into the unprepared UN troops. Another
500,000 followed in December."
False. The initial movement of CCF troops took place in early November. By
Thanksgiving, US/UN troops were retreating south around the Chosin Reservoir.
CCF attacks stopped briefly on Nov. 6 but resumed by the 15th.
Post by Howard Duck
KOREAN WAR FACTS: MACARTHUR STOPPED BY TRUMAN & MARSHALL
General MacArthur tried to take out China's supply and communication
lines by bombing the bridges on the Yalu River. He also wanted to have
the Nationalist Chinese help the American cause by attacking China
from Taiwan.
MacArthur's order to Stratemeyer came before anyone was aware of any CCF
incursion.
Post by Howard Duck
"The official response to MacArthur was swift… MacArthur's bombing
orders were canceled by General George Marshall (… a CFR member who
had been called out of retirement by President Truman to serve as
Secretary of Defense). This was the same Marshall who… reportedly
received advance word of attack on Pearl Harbor.
"MacArthur was ordered not to bomb key Chinese supply bases and to
order pilots not to chase fleeing enemy aircraft."
The JCS had already told MacArthur not to go near the Yalu, because the threats
from China had been received.
Post by Howard Duck
KOREAN WAR FACTS: WASHINGTON ASSURES LIN PIAO
"Chinese commander General Lin Piao was to say later, 'I never would
have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I
had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur
from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply
and communication.'"
Probably true. I have no information on that. But it makes sense. If
MacArthur had been happy just to defeat the NKPA, the war would have ended then
and there.
Post by Howard Duck
KOREAN WAR FACTS: MACARTHUR DISMISSED, REPLACED BY FUTURE CFR MEMBER
General Douglas MacArthur made a public appeal to Congress for help on
the matter and was subsequently dismissed from his duties on April 10,
1951. "He was replaced by General Matthew B. Ridgeway, who later
became a CFR member.
MacArthur made the statement I quoted above. Ridgway is misspelled in your
post, Howard. Whomever you are quoting does not read carefully.
Post by Howard Duck
"The MacArthur plan for a diversionary attack by Taiwan was never to
be. This plan had been blocked by an order from Truman only two days
after the North Koreans attacked… General Marshall also rejected an
offer by Chiang Kai-shek to send Nationalist Chinese to aid Americans
in Korea."
The quote is not given a source. But think of it, Taiwan had just taken in the
defeated Nationalist Chinese Army and it is supposed to make a diversionary
attack??????
Post by Howard Duck
KOREAN WAR FACTS: MACARTHUR’S LATER COMMENT
"MacArthur, noting that for the first time in its military history,
the United States had failed to achieve victory, was later to state,
'Never before has this nation been engaged in mortal combat with a
hostile power without military objective, without policy other than
restrictions governing operations, or indeed without even formally
recognizing a state of war.'
No source of quote given. MacArthur had gone over the edge.


Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
2008-02-08 05:50:32 UTC
Permalink
I was not in a position to know the facts, and I doubt that you were
either. All you can do is rely upon your source of information, and
there is no point declaring it to be official. If we hear from those
who were really in a position to know the facts at the time, and we
know they have no agenda but to tell the truth, then maybe we can know
somewhat more than we do now.
--
Howard
Elf
2008-02-08 08:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
I was not in a position to know the facts, and I doubt that you were
either. All you can do is rely upon your source of information, and
there is no point declaring it to be official. If we hear from those
who were really in a position to know the facts at the time, and we
know they have no agenda but to tell the truth, then maybe we can know
somewhat more than we do now.
There are ways to distinguish reliable sources of information from less
reliable from the fantastical.

It's really not that hard.

Let's take as an example a book I actually possess -- "The Growth of
Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayer.

The book is 974 pages long.

First, the author is one of the pivotal figures of 20th Century biology.
Not just a biologist, or a science writer or an interested lay person doing
the best he can, but one of the best scientific minds of the century
writing about the subject he worked on his entire professional life.

So the book is written by an actual authority in the field, and one of the
best authorities IN that field.

That the book is long does not by itself mean much- but the fact that the
bibliography (called in this case "References") is 62 of those pages,
roughly 6.4% of the total pages in the book IS important. There are lots of
references for his asserted facts.

If I feel the need to check those references, and I can't do it adequately
over the public internet, I can track down many of them through university
library collections that have become searchable on line. If I want to READ
the references, I need go no further than my nearest Jr.
College --- I can get almost every one of them through an inter-library
loan.

Then check the references of the reference.

Anything I *can't* get is proably in a special reserve collection or
otherwise available, you just have to go to it. But it still doesn't take
an act of congress to see the reference. Usually anyone can see them. Some
special collections require special handling, so you might not get to put
your own fingers on it absent a validated research project to examine the
original document AND permission -- but just to see it? No problem.

The kind of historical sources Francis is using are if anything even more
replete with references and some of the original documents are fragile and
sometimes in private collections where the original itself may be harder to
actually get to -- but they do in fact exist and can be physically located.

But YOUR authors sources? Odds are 1.) Many of the asserted facts have no
reference, let alone have one provided. 2.) Where something is referenced,
if you try to find it you'll find yourself on a snipe hunt, and the harder
you try to track it down the more elusive it gets. And I can be confident
of that without even looking at your reference.

Been there, done that, don't need to repeat the performance.

elf
Howard Duck
2008-02-09 04:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elf
There are ways to distinguish reliable sources of information from less
reliable from the fantastical.
It's really not that hard.
Let's take as an example a book I actually possess -- "The Growth of
Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayer.
The book is 974 pages long.
First, the author is one of the pivotal figures of 20th Century biology.
Not just a biologist, or a science writer or an interested lay person doing
the best he can, but one of the best scientific minds of the century
writing about the subject he worked on his entire professional life.
So the book is written by an actual authority in the field, and one of the
best authorities IN that field.
That the book is long does not by itself mean much- but the fact that the
bibliography (called in this case "References") is 62 of those pages,
roughly 6.4% of the total pages in the book IS important. There are lots of
references for his asserted facts.
If I feel the need to check those references, and I can't do it adequately
over the public internet, I can track down many of them through university
library collections that have become searchable on line. If I want to READ
the references, I need go no further than my nearest Jr.
College --- I can get almost every one of them through an inter-library
loan.
Then check the references of the reference.
Anything I *can't* get is proably in a special reserve collection or
otherwise available, you just have to go to it. But it still doesn't take
an act of congress to see the reference. Usually anyone can see them. Some
special collections require special handling, so you might not get to put
your own fingers on it absent a validated research project to examine the
original document AND permission -- but just to see it? No problem.
The kind of historical sources Francis is using are if anything even more
replete with references and some of the original documents are fragile and
sometimes in private collections where the original itself may be harder to
actually get to -- but they do in fact exist and can be physically located.
But YOUR authors sources? Odds are 1.) Many of the asserted facts have no
reference, let alone have one provided. 2.) Where something is referenced,
if you try to find it you'll find yourself on a snipe hunt, and the harder
you try to track it down the more elusive it gets. And I can be confident
of that without even looking at your reference.
Been there, done that, don't need to repeat the performance.
elf
Well, I count Antony Sutton and Carroll Quigley, both professors of
long standing to be in the category you consider to be without
question. Sutton, first of all, did his research at the prestigious
Hoover Institute at Sanford over a ten year period. Even though there
was no question about the authenticity of his findings about the
financing of Hitler's Nazi regime or of the USSR, Washington didn't
like it and the Hoover Institute didn't either. All of his writings
are well documented as you might expect of an academic. Quigley was
professor emeritus at Georgetown U. in the field of political science
and history after many years teaching at other ivy league universities
like Yale and Harvard. Bill Clinton considered him to be his mentor,
and he was highly respected among other academic scholars. His book,
Tragedy and Hope, is very large and has an extensive reference list,
but moreover, he said in the book that he was very close to the upper
echelon of the elite for many years and was privy to their own secret
documents. Quigley did not expect his book to fall into the hands of
so-called "right-wing" extremists, but it did and it became a source
of proof for them that their contentions about conspiracy were
correct. The book was originally published by Macmillan and company,
but the company was later bought by other people who did not want to
republish the book. The book was originally in two volumes and the
second volume was mysteriously lost. Later, someone who had an
original copy photocopied the whole thing and bound it as a single
tome. They sold the book underground for a number of years, but it
finally became public domain and is now available:
http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202528005&sr=1-1

Quigley was in favor of the CFR global agenda, but he thought it
should not be a secret from the public. He thought that the world
should be governed by a select few, and that they should be of the
financial elite. To some others, this amounts to conspiracy. He
tells quite a long and detailed history including financial hegemony,
corporate hegemony, and the formation of secret societies by Cecil
Rhodes which developed into the RIIA and CFR. He points out that
there is a group that functions very much like right-wingers have
attributed to Communist conspirators. He said they have no qualms
about dealing with the Communists and very often do. They are, you
see, quite above the tensions between East and West, Communism and
Capitalism.

Most of the academic body is dependent upon big foundations for grants
and publications - so are the universities themselves. Therefore, in
order to be successful in the academic world, one must be careful what
he reveals about the agenda and the methods of the financial elite.
This puts a shadow over the accepted writings of many academics, and
the length of their reference lists has little to do with it. If you
want to know what happened at Pearl Harbor, would you be more assured
of the truth by reading accepted (filtered) academic accounts with
lots of references, or by reading what Admiral Kimmel and General
Wedemeyer have to say about it?

Daniel Estulin is not an academic, but he has long experience with the
espionage community, and has followed as closely as possible the
meetings of the Bilderberg Group for ten years. He has gained inside
information which will remain unpublished by the media for general
public consumption. More and more people are realizing that things
are very wrong in politics and media coverage. Many are beginning to
seek out underground sources of information, even though much
disinformation is there also.

See, I have tried to reply to you in a reasonable way. But I have
said many of these things here before... to no avail. Many of these
things are never heeded. They go in one ear and out the other. Those
like yourself usually disregard the reasonableness of what I am
telling you. Francis is the champion for ignoring what I have said
and shown by various sources to be true. He still supposes he is
right about his processed information. Or then again, maybe it's not
because he really believes what I am saying is wrong; maybe it serves
some other purpose for him to oppose the truth.

Revisionists historians like Charles A. Beard and Harry Elmer Barnes,
though extremely well though of in their day, are now seldom heard of.
What they had to tell is not well accepted by the gristmill of modern
propaganda. Anyway, what you consider to be substantial and reliable
among academic books, may not be at all complete and true, reference
lists notwithstanding. They may be down right misleading.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
2008-02-10 06:09:51 UTC
Permalink
The silence is deafening.
--
Howard
Elf
2008-02-11 05:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
The silence is deafening.
--
Howard
Elf;

Alas, I have a life apart from chasing down the endless rabbit trails of
assorted conspiracy theories. Plus, of course, the fact that for every one
of your little theories that I DO have the background and references at
hand I've demonstrated - at least to my satisfaction - that they are all
fantasies you use to protect your central religious beliefs. So researching
the Korean war in detail just to beat down one more fantasy when you've
already ignored the other meatgrinders you've been through really doesn't
fit into my schedule or priorities.

On top of that, sometimes I don't post here at all for days and not much for
weeks anyway when I get busy - so don't throw your arm out of joint trying
to pat yourself on the back just yet.

elf
Howard Duck
2008-02-12 04:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Hah! Just as I thought.
Francis A. Miniter
2008-02-12 04:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
Hah! Just as I thought.
Perhaps, you are retired, Howard. But I have been working on two briefs last
week and this and they have deadlines.


Francis A. Miniter
john sumner
2008-02-12 06:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Perhaps, you are retired, Howard. But I have been working on two
briefs last week and this and they have deadlines.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis why do you give howard the time of day?
i have killfiled him so i dont have to see his
rantings.
Elf
2008-02-12 09:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Howard Duck
Hah! Just as I thought.
Perhaps, you are retired, Howard. But I have been working on two briefs
last week and this and they have deadlines.
Oh lets see, I'm working on Linux+ quals, trying to get up to speed on PHP
scripts, bash shell scripts, server management with Plesk (still haven't
figured out why I can't POP the email account on the server), catch up on
general reading and after stuffing myself with up to 45,000 micrograms of
B-12 a day (normal is about .5 mcg, but I have absorption problems - and
sustained B-12 deficiency causes a long list problems) my general mental
fog is slowly lifting and am even making progress on getting my house
cleaned up. It's hell to get much done when you're physically exhausted ALL
THE TIME and generally too depressed to even feel like trying (yes folks,
I'm personally painfully aware humans are biological critters just like
every other animal on earth).

But though I'm feeling a bit feistier these days than I have in awhile, I do
have more than a little bit on my plate. I can only spend so much time
trying to break through Howard's fantasies.

elf

Howard Duck
2008-02-07 06:34:05 UTC
Permalink
You and some of your sidekicks here sound just like high school
textbooks. I was never very good at history in school because I never
believed they were teaching important truth. I also never trusted the
newspapers on political issues. Dr. Monteith said the thing that
really got him thinking about the history that is commonly taught was
when he read Rene Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence.

What famous newsman said that if journalists told what they truly
believe they would be out of a job?
--
Howard
Elf
2008-02-08 08:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
You and some of your sidekicks here sound just like high school
textbooks.
I hope I do a bit better than 10th grade history texts.
Post by Howard Duck
I was never very good at history in school because I never
believed they were teaching important truth.
Well, hmm, that would explain a lot.

You can't possibly understand "where you're at" if you have no idea how you
got there.

Every idea in your head, the very words you use to communicate them, the
way you dress, what you think about gender roles in society are *all*
products of processes that worked themselves out over time --- i.e. through
history.

And while the etymology of words is (unless it's tied in with your
profession) mostly just fun to know -- knowing the history of the major
philosophical and or moral positions you wish defend is critical if you
wish to actually be able to defend them, or even just to get anyone else to
take them seriously.

elf
Howard Duck
2008-02-07 13:12:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese.
Where did the Communists get their armaments? America gave them to
them. Read Professor Antony Sutton, formerly a researcher with the
Hoover Institute of Stanford University: 'The Best Enemy Money Can
Buy' and 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union'.
--
Howard
Francis A. Miniter
2008-02-07 18:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Struebing
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese.
Where did the Communists get their armaments? America gave them to
them. Read Professor Antony Sutton, formerly a researcher with the
Hoover Institute of Stanford University: 'The Best Enemy Money Can
Buy' and 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union'.
--
Howard
The only time that the US gave military aid to the USSR was during WWII, because
not only were they our ally then, but if the USSR fell, a western invasion of
Europe would become impossible. After that, it all went cold - as in "Cold
War", Howard.

Oh yeah, the US never produced AK-47s, though a lot of our GIs in Viet Nam
wished it had.


Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
2008-02-08 03:57:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:44:59 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Wes Struebing
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese.
Where did the Communists get their armaments? America gave them to
them. Read Professor Antony Sutton, formerly a researcher with the
Hoover Institute of Stanford University: 'The Best Enemy Money Can
Buy' and 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union'.
--
Howard
The only time that the US gave military aid to the USSR was during WWII, because
not only were they our ally then, but if the USSR fell, a western invasion of
Europe would become impossible. After that, it all went cold - as in "Cold
War", Howard.
Oh yeah, the US never produced AK-47s, though a lot of our GIs in Viet Nam
wished it had.
Francis A. Miniter
I believe you're wrong about America's help to the USSR. I understand
that our corporations built a tractor factory(?) and a truck factory,
and our big banks gave very large loans to them. You should check
further. Also read Antony Sutton - his research found much that you
apparently are not aware of.
--
Howard
Francis A. Miniter
2008-02-08 05:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:44:59 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Wes Struebing
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
In Viet Nam, the US risked turning a local war into a global war if it attacked
North Viet Nam as the USSR and China were both giving aid and support to the
North Vietnamese.
Where did the Communists get their armaments? America gave them to
them. Read Professor Antony Sutton, formerly a researcher with the
Hoover Institute of Stanford University: 'The Best Enemy Money Can
Buy' and 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union'.
--
Howard
The only time that the US gave military aid to the USSR was during WWII, because
not only were they our ally then, but if the USSR fell, a western invasion of
Europe would become impossible. After that, it all went cold - as in "Cold
War", Howard.
Oh yeah, the US never produced AK-47s, though a lot of our GIs in Viet Nam
wished it had.
Francis A. Miniter
I believe you're wrong about America's help to the USSR. I understand
that our corporations built a tractor factory(?) and a truck factory,
and our big banks gave very large loans to them. You should check
further. Also read Antony Sutton - his research found much that you
apparently are not aware of.
--
Howard
No, Howard, you should check further. You are asserting the proposition.


Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
2008-02-08 05:53:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:00:01 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
Post by Howard Duck
I believe you're wrong about America's help to the USSR. I understand
that our corporations built a tractor factory(?) and a truck factory,
and our big banks gave very large loans to them. You should check
further. Also read Antony Sutton - his research found much that you
apparently are not aware of.
--
Howard
No, Howard, you should check further. You are asserting the proposition.
Francis A. Miniter
I'm giving you my sources. That's all either of us can do. Don't
pretend that you know your source to be more authentic than mine.
--
Howard
Elf
2008-02-08 08:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Duck
I'm giving you my sources. That's all either of us can do. Don't
pretend that you know your source to be more authentic than mine.
Howard, given the track record of your sources to date, it's as close to a
given as it can be that Francis' sources are, oh, about 100X more reliable
than yours.

elf
Howard Duck
2008-02-08 11:36:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:44:59 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
Post by Francis A. Miniter
The only time that the US gave military aid to the USSR was during WWII, because
not only were they our ally then, but if the USSR fell, a western invasion of
Europe would become impossible. After that, it all went cold - as in "Cold
War", Howard.
The following excerpt is taken from
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/sutton.html
Please go there to read more completely the researched findings of
Antony Sutton on the building and funding of the USSR.
----------

The testimony was later reprinted in full in Human Events (under the
title of "The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex") and Review of the
News (under the total of "Suppressed Testimony of Anthony C. Sutton").
It was also reprinted and extensively distributed throughout the
United States by both the American Party and the Libertarian Party
during the 1972 election campaign.

The following is the text of this testimony as it was originally
presented in Miami Beach and made available to UPI and AP.

The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex

The information that I am going to present to you this afternoon is
known to the Administration. The information is probably not known to
the Senator from South Dakota or his advisers. And in this instance
ignorance may be a blessing in disguise.

I am not a politician. I am not going to tell you what you want to
hear. My job is to give you facts. Whether you like or dislike what I
say doesn't concern me. I am here because I believe - and Congressman
Ashbrook believes - that the American public should have these facts.

I have spent ten years in research on Soviet technology. What it is?
what it can do? and particularly, where it came from. I have published
three books and several articles summarizing the work. It was
privately financed. But the results have been available to the
Government. On the other hand I have had major difficulties with U.S.
Government censorship.

I have about 15 minutes to tell you about this work.

In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology.

Almost all - perhaps 90-95 percent - came directly or indirectly from
the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the
NATO countries have built the Soviet
{p. 254} Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This
massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in
1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants,
equipment, and technical assistance.
-----

Also see:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Enemy-Money-Can-Buy/dp/0937765015
--
Howard
Loading...