What generals generally do

Reading a McChrystal thread elsewhere, I came across someone quoting a
US general

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

>     I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
> during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
> Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
> racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
> especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
> make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
> collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
> American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
> Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
> 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
> sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the
> American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it
> that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I
> might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to
> operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three
> continents.[12]
> 

Well, I wish the current generals would admit 1/1000 that much!

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
6/24/2010 4:14:13 AM
📁 embarcadero.off-topic
📃 3759 articles.
⭐ 1 followers.

💬 56 Replies
👁️‍🗨️ 8189 Views

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
>>     I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
>> during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
>> Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...

Yeah... There is an Englishman <memory fails> who exposed
the "Backyard" as the call it... Central America.

Basically, we treat the rest of the Americas like a used rag.

It's on youtube if anyone wants me to look it up.

Craig.
0
Craig
6/24/2010 11:48:41 AM
Igor Ivanov wrote:

> Reading a McChrystal thread elsewhere, I came across someone quoting a
> US general
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
> 
> >     I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
> > during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
> > Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
> > racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
> > especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
> > make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys
> > to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
> > Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped
> > purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown
> > Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic
> > for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
> > right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I
> > helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
> > Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The
> > best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
> > operated on three continents.[12]
> > 
> 
> Well, I wish the current generals would admit 1/1000 that much!

Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their country?
That would be disasterous for morale and unit cohesion. Isn't our
military run by civilians? Wouldn't it be better for Americans to vote
out or identify those civilians that promote "war profiteering"?

Do you think overseas US business interests, contracts and treaties are
not worth defending? If not, then why bother being an industial nation?
Why not just revert back to a pacifist agrarian society waiting for the
next invasion force to burn our coastal cities and pillage our
resources?
0
James
6/24/2010 1:23:14 PM
James David wrote:
> waiting for the next invasion force to burn our coastal cities and
> pillage our resources?

You assume that all other nations are like the US.
0
Dominic
6/24/2010 1:31:13 PM
"James David" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

> Do you think overseas US business interests, contracts and treaties are
> not worth defending? If not, then why bother being an industial nation?
> Why not just revert back to a pacifist agrarian society waiting for the
> next invasion force to burn our coastal cities and pillage our
> resources?

yeah. sort of like enforcing our treaties with the indians!
0
Kirt
6/24/2010 2:34:12 PM
James David wrote:

> Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their country?

Because I wish more people to be aware that the US government does not
follow the principles it espouses.

> That would be disasterous for morale and unit cohesion. 
> Isn't our military run by civilians? Wouldn't it be better for
> Americans to vote out or identify those civilians that promote
> "war profiteering"?

Better than what?

> Do you think overseas US business interests, contracts and treaties
> are not worth defending?

If we are defending our business interests, we should not pretend to be
fighting for altruistic reasons like bringing democracy to the world.

> If not, then why bother being an industial
> nation?  Why not just revert back to a pacifist agrarian society
> waiting for the next invasion force to burn our coastal cities and
> pillage our resources?

Pillage and burn before someone does it to us is a somewhat brutal
world view, but you probably come by it honestly.

-- 
Emil Lizardo
0
John
6/24/2010 2:57:56 PM
In article <[email protected]>,
 James David <[email protected]> wrote:

> Why not just revert back to a pacifist agrarian society waiting for the
> next invasion force to burn our coastal cities and pillage our
> resources?

   Because false dichotomies are so much fun...
-- 
-David
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced 
- Frank Zappa
0
Bo
6/24/2010 5:53:15 PM
James David wrote:

> Igor Ivanov wrote:

> 
> Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their country?
> That would be disasterous for morale and unit cohesion. Isn't our
> military run by civilians? Wouldn't it be better for Americans to vote
> out or identify those civilians that promote "war profiteering"?
> 
> Do you think overseas US business interests, contracts and treaties
> are not worth defending? If not, then why bother being an industial
> nation?  Why not just revert back to a pacifist agrarian society
> waiting for the next invasion force to burn our coastal cities and
> pillage our resources?

I don't know what answers you expect to get to these questions.
Something like "why do you cheat on your wife, Comrade James?"?

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
6/24/2010 6:29:35 PM
> You assume that all other nations are like the US.

I assume one general is generally like another general.
0
Craig
6/24/2010 10:27:26 PM
Here... watch this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8LWoU7ii9E
0
Craig
6/24/2010 11:13:15 PM
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:13:15 -0700, Craig Leidy wrote:

> Here... watch this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8LWoU7ii9E

Too long. Watch this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxez1u7DwU

-- 
Mart

Follow M.A.R.T. at http://elmarto.wordpress.com
El Marto Photography @ www.elmarto.com
I'm soundtracking my life
To email me, remove clothes
0
Mart
6/24/2010 11:40:59 PM
Good Lord!
0
Craig
6/25/2010 3:52:12 AM
"John Sunlight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> If we are defending our business interests, we should not pretend to be
> fighting for altruistic reasons like bringing democracy to the world.

There are some things you don't talk about directly in polite company.
0
Samuel
6/25/2010 4:23:41 AM
Mart [TeamD] wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxez1u7DwU

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."
0
Dominic
6/25/2010 9:11:07 AM
> "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

That's a shame.
Two better tits, I doubt you'll soon see.
0
Craig
6/25/2010 11:46:32 AM
"Mart [TeamD]" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

> Too long. Watch this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxez1u7DwU

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. "
0
Kirt
6/25/2010 12:54:42 PM
"Craig Leidy" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

>> "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."
>
> That's a shame.
> Two better tits, I doubt you'll soon see.

oh. is that all i missed?
0
Kirt
6/25/2010 12:55:15 PM
Dominic Willems wrote:

> Mart [TeamD] wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxez1u7DwU
> 
> "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

chicken overchoking?

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
6/25/2010 3:23:23 PM
Samuel Kaas wrote:

> "John Sunlight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> 
> > If we are defending our business interests, we should not pretend
> > to be fighting for altruistic reasons like bringing democracy to
> > the world.
> 
> There are some things you don't talk about directly in polite company.

I will keep that in mind When next I find myself in polite company.

-- 
Emil Lizardo
0
John
6/27/2010 4:57:40 AM
"John Sunlight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Samuel Kaas wrote:
>
> > "John Sunlight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> > > If we are defending our business interests, we should not pretend
> > > to be fighting for altruistic reasons like bringing democracy to
> > > the world.

> > There are some things you don't talk about directly in polite company.

> I will keep that in mind When next I find myself in polite company.

My comment wasn't about you, much less bpot. It was an explanation of why
things are the way they are.
0
Samuel
6/27/2010 4:46:27 PM
James David wrote:

> > Well, I wish the current generals would admit 1/1000 that much!
> 
> Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their country?

Is that how you see if if a general talks the truth? OK, I am not
really surprised. You don't care for the truth, just for the glory and
the honour, whatever that may be.
-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"If one acknowledges a group or a nation willing to commit
 atrocities, then one must also acknowledges the existence of a
 nation willing to commit atrocities to blame on the first
 nation."
 -- Michael Rivero
0
Rudy
6/27/2010 6:30:10 PM
Craig Leidy wrote:

> > You assume that all other nations are like the US.
> 
> I assume one general is generally like another general.

Why? Just like in any other profession, they can differ. And history
has shown they do.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"Benny Goodman plays the clarinet. I play music." 
 -- Artie Shaw
0
Rudy
6/27/2010 6:31:25 PM
Igor Ivanov wrote:

> Reading a McChrystal thread elsewhere, I came across someone quoting a
> US general
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
> 
> >     I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
> > during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
> > Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
> > racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
> > especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
> > make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys
> > to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
> > Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped
> > purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown
> > Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic
> > for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
> > right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I
> > helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
> > Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The
> > best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
> > operated on three continents.[12]


Interesting review of 100 year old history. IIRC, it was during this
same period that most European countries were running around the world
colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia,
SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on. Throughout history, the Brits,
Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and of
course the Germans, were far more successful in conquering other lands
than our pathetic little efforts.

The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and businesses
from whatever dictator won the last coup. You know, the Ortega, Noriega
and Chavez types. I guess the USA should have tried harder and
colonized more of those areas like the Europeans did. <g>
0
Don
6/27/2010 10:26:25 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> Igor Ivanov wrote:
> 
> > Reading a McChrystal thread elsewhere, I came across someone
> > quoting a US general
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
> > 
> > >     I spent 33 years and four months in active military service
> > > and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class
> > > thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short,
> > > I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make
> > > Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in
> > > 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
> > > National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the
> > > raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit
> > > of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International
> > > Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to
> > > the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.
> > > I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in
> > > 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went
> > > on its way unmolested.  Looking back on it, I might have given Al
> > > Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his
> > > racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.[12]
> 
> 
> Interesting review of 100 year old history. IIRC, it was during this
> same period that most European countries were running around the world
> colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia,
> SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on. Throughout history, the Brits,
> Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and of
> course the Germans, were far more successful in conquering other lands
> than our pathetic little efforts.
> 
> The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and
> businesses from whatever dictator won the last coup. You know, the
> Ortega, Noriega and Chavez types. I guess the USA should have tried
> harder and colonized more of those areas like the Europeans did. <g>

The only reason that didn't happen is because (in case you forgot) we
were one of the colonies. By the time we broke free, all the good stuff
was taken.



-- 
"Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the 
 things in the world that just don't add up." -- James Magary.
0
Glynn
6/28/2010 1:52:36 AM
> Why? Just like in any other profession, they can differ.
> And history has shown they do.

STFU
0
Craig
6/28/2010 1:56:27 AM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> James David wrote:
> 
> > > Well, I wish the current generals would admit 1/1000 that much!
> > 
> > Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their
> > country?
> 
> Is that how you see if if a general talks the truth? OK, I am not
> really surprised. You don't care for the truth, just for the glory and
> the honour, whatever that may be.


The general was giving his opinion of those events, not the "truth.",
Kind of like people here in this NG were saying that Bush went into
Iraq for the oil. The people here were obviously wrong about Iraq and I
would say that the general was showing his prejudices by grossly
mischaracterizing the military actions he discussed.
0
Don
6/28/2010 2:04:49 AM
On 28.06.2010 00:26, Don Abel wrote:
> Igor Ivanov wrote:
>
>> Reading a McChrystal thread elsewhere, I came across someone quoting a
>> US general
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>>
[snip]

> Interesting review of 100 year old history. IIRC, it was during this
> same period that most European countries were running around the world
> colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia,
> SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on. Throughout history, the Brits,
> Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and of
> course the Germans, were far more successful in conquering other lands
> than our pathetic little efforts.
>
> The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and businesses
> from whatever dictator won the last coup. You know, the Ortega, Noriega
> and Chavez types. I guess the USA should have tried harder and
> colonized more of those areas like the Europeans did.<g>

IIRC, Noriega was a CIA installed strawman, that did what they all do 
with time. He considered himself strong enough to do his own things, 
eventually counter the US.
0
Rene
6/28/2010 9:47:22 AM
Craig Leidy wrote:
> STFU

LOL!
0
Dominic
6/28/2010 10:20:26 AM
"Don Abel" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

> Interesting review of 100 year old history. IIRC, it was during this
> same period that most European countries were running around the world
> colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia,
> SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on.

no, i think they most had what they wanted by then. we were late to the 
game, and more likely to install friendly govts than take over.

> Throughout history, the Brits,
> Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and of
> course the Germans,

"of course, the germans"? as i recall, they got mostly overlooked scraps.

> were far more successful in conquering other lands
> than our pathetic little efforts.

> The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and businesses

not sure our citizens have ever been much at risk, except for the 
occassional missionary seeking martyrdom. business is the real reason.
0
Kirt
6/28/2010 12:44:04 PM
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:44:04 -0700, Kirt Grubbs wrote:

> "of course, the germans"?

Typo. Should be "zee germans".

-- 
Mart

Follow M.A.R.T. at http://elmarto.wordpress.com
El Marto Photography @ www.elmarto.com
I'm soundtracking my life
To email me, remove clothes
0
Mart
6/28/2010 1:52:15 PM
"Mart [TeamD]" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

>> "of course, the germans"?
>
> Typo. Should be "zee germans".

not my typo. i just copied it from him!
0
Kirt
6/28/2010 1:54:41 PM
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:54:41 -0700, Kirt Grubbs wrote:

>>> "of course, the germans"?
>>
>> Typo. Should be "zee germans".
> 
> not my typo. i just copied it from him!

Never said it was yours :^)

-- 
Mart

Follow M.A.R.T. at http://elmarto.wordpress.com
El Marto Photography @ www.elmarto.com
I'm soundtracking my life
To email me, remove clothes
0
Mart
6/28/2010 1:56:21 PM
"Don Abel" <[email protected]> wrote

> IIRC, it was during this
> same period that most European countries were running around the world
> colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia,
> SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on. Throughout history, the Brits,
> Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and of
> course the Germans, were far more successful in conquering other lands
> than our pathetic little efforts.
>
> The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and businesses

What skewed logic. If you want to see a colonizer, look in the mirror. USA
is *the* colony. Present day Brits are descendants of those who stayed in
their home land (at that time anyway) and minded their own business. Present
day Americans are descendants of the aggressors and colonizers from Britain,
Spain, Portugal... etc who invaded other peoples' lands.
0
Samuel
6/28/2010 3:22:29 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> 
> > James David wrote:
> > 
> > > > Well, I wish the current generals would admit 1/1000 that much!
> > > 
> > > Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their
> > > country?
> > 
> > Is that how you see if if a general talks the truth? OK, I am not
> > really surprised. You don't care for the truth, just for the glory
> > and the honour, whatever that may be.
> 
> 
> The general was giving his opinion of those events, not the "truth."

He admitted exactly what he had done. Is that opinion? Well, I guess
you'd love to twist it that way.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?"
 -- Ursula K. LeGuin
0
Rudy
6/28/2010 4:42:14 PM
> Kind of like people here in this NG were saying that Bush went into
> Iraq for the oil. The people here were obviously wrong about Iraq...

Amazing... every facet of the Iraq war reinforces my belief that
it was all about oil (and a continued presence in an oil rich area).
No WMDs (we hashed that out for years)...
No exit strategy (because we don't plan to leave)...
Sadam's dead and we're still there (so it sure wasn't about him)

I don't see a single item that points to any rational "defense".

Is it just an accident we have issues with Iran and Venezuela?

Are you sure you've stepped back and taken in the big picture?

:-)
0
Craig
6/28/2010 5:30:34 PM
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:04:49 -0700, Don Abel wrote:

> The people here were obviously wrong about Iraq

What? Don't tell me you still believe the WMD reason after all those
years?

-- 
Mart

Follow M.A.R.T. at http://elmarto.wordpress.com
El Marto Photography @ www.elmarto.com
I'm soundtracking my life
To email me, remove clothes
0
Mart
6/28/2010 5:34:10 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> The general was giving his opinion of those events, not the "truth.",
> Kind of like people here in this NG were saying that Bush went into
> Iraq for the oil. The people here were obviously wrong about Iraq and
> I would say that the general was showing his prejudices by grossly
> mischaracterizing the military actions he discussed.

Stick to engineering, Don... :-)

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
6/28/2010 6:09:54 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> Don Abel wrote:
> 
> > Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> > 
> > > James David wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Well, I wish the current generals would admit 1/1000 that
> > > > > much!
> > > > 
> > > > Why do you wish more generals would publicly disparage their
> > > > country?
> > > 
> > > Is that how you see if if a general talks the truth? OK, I am not
> > > really surprised. You don't care for the truth, just for the glory
> > > and the honour, whatever that may be.
> > 
> > 
> > The general was giving his opinion of those events, not the "truth."
> 
> He admitted exactly what he had done. Is that opinion? 


He KNEW that he was involved in military actions. That is what he had
DONE. This is not opinion.

But based on his biases, he went on to speculate (guess) as to why he
was sent to do those things. That is his OPINION.
0
Don
6/28/2010 8:53:11 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> > He admitted exactly what he had done. Is that opinion? 
> 
> 
> He KNEW that he was involved in military actions. That is what he had
> DONE. This is not opinion.
> 
> But based on his biases, he went on to speculate (guess) as to why he
> was sent to do those things. That is his OPINION.

The latter is pure speculation on YOUR part. Now mine is that he was
explicitly told all those things by the people who sent him.

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
6/28/2010 9:15:36 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> > He admitted exactly what he had done. Is that opinion? 
> 
> 
> He KNEW that he was involved in military actions. That is what he had
> DONE. This is not opinion.
> 
> But based on his biases, he went on to speculate (guess) as to why he
> was sent to do those things. That is his OPINION.

No, that is not his "opinion". I'm sure he knew what he was doing and
why he was doing it. He was given goals to achieve.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"I have four children which is not bad considering I'm
 not a Catholic." -- Peter Ustinov.
0
Rudy
6/28/2010 9:54:53 PM
Igor Ivanov wrote:

> Don Abel wrote:
> 
> > > He admitted exactly what he had done. Is that opinion? 
> > 
> > 
> > He KNEW that he was involved in military actions. That is what he
> > had DONE. This is not opinion.
> > 
> > But based on his biases, he went on to speculate (guess) as to why
> > he was sent to do those things. That is his OPINION.
> 
> The latter is pure speculation on YOUR part. Now mine is that he was
> explicitly told all those things by the people who sent him.

Mine too. You don't send some general to some place and just give him
exact instructions what to do (take that hill, take that town, etc.),
like some silly robot. You tell him what he should achieve, wehat the
goal of his mission is, and that is exactly what he talked about.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of 
 justice." -- Lord Acton
0
Rudy
6/28/2010 9:57:16 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> Kind of like people here in this NG were saying that Bush went into
> Iraq for the oil. 

Not for the oil. For the control over the flow of oil. A subtle but
important difference. And heck, that was confrimed more than once by
the Bush administration, so why don't you know it yet? Do you only read
things that confirm what you think?

> The people here were obviously wrong about Iraq

If, with "here", you mean the right wing camp, you are right. You were
wrong.

> And I would say that the general was showing his prejudices by grossly
> mischaracterizing the military actions he discussed.

You're talking about that general as if he was some dumb foot soldier
instructed exactly what to do. Such people (I mean generals) are chosen
for their brains, and they don't switch them off when talking to their
superiors. It is pretty clear he knew what he was talking about.

It surprises me that you can't see the reality of it. That you really
think that the US, unlike any other country in this world, is some
holy, innocent country, only doing noble things. The US are no more
innocent or noble than any other country in this world. Power corrupts,
and that is also true for the US.
-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."
 -- African proverb
0
Rudy
6/28/2010 10:08:05 PM
Poor Don... This time he's seriously outnumbered.
:-)

I guess this is what it takes to rekindle the group.

Still... in general... about generals... I don't get it.
Does this kid grow up thinking, "I'm going to be
the best general ever. I'll kill more of 'them' and
set the record for legal murder."

I just don't get the general mindset.

If they were really that smart... they'd be doing
something else.

:-)
0
Craig
6/28/2010 11:06:03 PM
Mart [TeamD] wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:44:04 -0700, Kirt Grubbs wrote:
> 
> > "of course, the germans"?
> 
> Typo. Should be "zee germans".

Sieh Tschermans? Vot are zay?

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)        http://www.teamb.com

"I am sufficiently proud of my knowing something to be modest
 about my not knowing everything."
 -- Vladimir Nabokov
0
Rudy
6/28/2010 11:07:42 PM
Craig Leidy wrote:


> I just don't get the general mindset.
> 
> If they were really that smart... they'd be doing
> something else.

I have a client who was an active duty general when we first met.
Through him I have met a few other generals (two referrals). They
really are that smart. And they tell the most interesting stories. <g>
0
James
6/29/2010 4:22:09 AM
Samuel Kaas wrote:

> "John Sunlight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Samuel Kaas wrote:
> > 
> > > "John Sunlight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > 
> > > > If we are defending our business interests, we should not
> > > > pretend to be fighting for altruistic reasons like bringing
> > > > democracy to the world.
> 
> > > There are some things you don't talk about directly in polite
> > > company.
> 
> > I will keep that in mind When next I find myself in polite company.
> 
> My comment wasn't about you, much less bpot. It was an explanation of
> why things are the way they are.

I know.  *My* comment was indeed about bpot, but mostly in jest.  I
should have used a smiley.

-- 
Emil Lizardo
0
John
6/30/2010 3:11:32 PM
Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

> On 28.06.2010 00:26, Don Abel wrote:
> > Igor Ivanov wrote:
> > 
> >> Reading a McChrystal thread elsewhere, I came across someone
> quoting a >> US general
> > > 
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
> > > 
> [snip]
> 
> > Interesting review of 100 year old history. IIRC, it was during this
> > same period that most European countries were running around the
> > world colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> > Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South
> > Asia, SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on. Throughout history, the
> > Brits, Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch,
> > Portuguese, and of course the Germans, were far more successful in
> > conquering other lands than our pathetic little efforts.
> > 
> > The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and
> > businesses from whatever dictator won the last coup. You know, the
> > Ortega, Noriega and Chavez types. I guess the USA should have tried
> > harder and colonized more of those areas like the Europeans did.<g>
> 
> IIRC, Noriega was a CIA installed strawman, that did what they all do 
> with time. He considered himself strong enough to do his own things...


Yes, like starting to run drugs and handling drug cartel money. The Us
was right to turn against him.
0
Don
7/3/2010 7:14:33 PM
Kirt Grubbs wrote:

> "Don Abel" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]
> 
> > Interesting review of 100 year old history. IIRC, it was during this
> > same period that most European countries were running around the
> > world colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> > Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South
> > Asia, SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on.
> 
> no, i think they most had what they wanted by then. we were late to
> the game, and more likely to install friendly govts than take over.
> 
> > Throughout history, the Brits,
> > Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and
> > of course the Germans,
> 
> "of course, the germans"? as i recall, they got mostly overlooked
> scraps.

You forget what they tried to do in WWI and WWII


> > were far more successful in conquering other lands
> > than our pathetic little efforts.
> 
> > The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and
> > businesses
> 
> not sure our citizens have ever been much at risk, except for the 
> occassional missionary seeking martyrdom. business is the real reason.

OK.
0
Don
7/3/2010 7:18:46 PM
Samuel Kaas wrote:

> "Don Abel" <[email protected]> wrote
> 
> > IIRC, it was during this
> > same period that most European countries were running around the
> > world colonizing everything they could occupy. Central America, the
> > Caribbean, South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, South
> > Asia, SE Asia, Oceana, the list goes on. Throughout history, the
> > Brits, Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch,
> > Portuguese, and of course the Germans, were far more successful in
> > conquering other lands than our pathetic little efforts.
> > 
> > The only thing that the USA did was protect its citizens and
> > businesses
> 
> What skewed logic. If you want to see a colonizer, look in the
> mirror. USA is the colony. Present day Brits are descendants of those
> who stayed in their home land (at that time anyway) and minded their
> own business. Present day Americans are descendants of the aggressors
> and colonizers from Britain, Spain, Portugal... etc who invaded other
> peoples' lands.

Huh?

If you want to make a point that the British were imperialistic
colonizers, you may have a point. But if you want to show that the
country of America is a colonizer, your argument is completely without
merit. America wasn't even a country when immigrants came here. And
it's pretty desperate to go back 300 to 500 years to make your point.

Now, if you want to make an argument that AMERICA is imperialist, then
show me cases where AMERICA was the imperialist.
0
Don
7/3/2010 7:28:01 PM
Igor Ivanov wrote:

> Don Abel wrote:
> 
> > > He admitted exactly what he had done. Is that opinion? 
> > 
> > 
> > He KNEW that he was involved in military actions. That is what he
> > had DONE. This is not opinion.
> > 
> > But based on his biases, he went on to speculate (guess) as to why
> > he was sent to do those things. That is his OPINION.
> 
> The latter is pure speculation on YOUR part. Now mine is that he was
> explicitly told all those things by the people who sent him.


So, in your opinion, the general was word for word explicitly sent to:

"be a "high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers"

"a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico
safe for American oil interests"

"helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in."

"I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for
the benefit of Wall Street."

"I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown
Brothers in 1902 and 1912."

"I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar
interests in 1916."

"I helped make Honduras right for the> American fruit companies in
1903."

"In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way
unmolested."


If this general didn't get orders that used these words, then he has
colored the meaning of his orders according to his biases. IOW, once
again, these are his opinions of his orders.
0
Don
7/3/2010 7:38:56 PM
Craig Leidy wrote:

> > Kind of like people here in this NG were saying that Bush went into
> > Iraq for the oil. The people here were obviously wrong about Iraq...
> 
> Amazing... every facet of the Iraq war reinforces my belief that
> it was all about oil (and a continued presence in an oil rich area).
> No WMDs (we hashed that out for years)...
> No exit strategy (because we don't plan to leave)...
> Sadam's dead and we're still there (so it sure wasn't about him)
> 
> I don't see a single item that points to any rational "defense".
> 
> Is it just an accident we have issues with Iran and Venezuela?

You make a good point. To say that oil isn't a factor is not correct,
but not for the reasons that most US critics give. Most people
criticize the US for wanting to directly take control of the oil
fields, or at least the revenue stream. This isn't correct, but IMHO I
would say that the US is interested in the stability of these areas.

But then again, we do mess around in places like Afghanistan and the
old Yugoslavia that don't have any oil.


> Are you sure you've stepped back and taken in the big picture?

Big picture? What's that? 

:-)
0
Don
7/3/2010 8:25:47 PM
Igor Ivanov wrote:

> Don Abel wrote:
> 
> > The general was giving his opinion of those events, not the
> > "truth.", Kind of like people here in this NG were saying that Bush
> > went into Iraq for the oil. The people here were obviously wrong
> > about Iraq and I would say that the general was showing his
> > prejudices by grossly mischaracterizing the military actions he
> > discussed.
> 
> Stick to engineering, Don... :-)


Since I've been blessed with an unusually high level of logic, common
sense, wisdom and intellectual capacity, I figure that it's my
responsibility to return the benefits of these gifts to help all of
mankind.

You're welcome.

:-)
0
Don
7/3/2010 8:39:11 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> > The latter is pure speculation on YOUR part. Now mine is that he was
> > explicitly told all those things by the people who sent him.
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, the general was word for word explicitly sent to:
> 
> "be a "high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
> bankers"
> 
> "a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially
> Tampico safe for American oil interests"
> 
> "helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
> boys to collect revenues in."
> 
> "I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for
> the benefit of Wall Street."
> 
> "I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of
> Brown Brothers in 1902 and 1912."
> 
> "I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar
> interests in 1916."
> 
> "I helped make Honduras right for the> American fruit companies in
> 1903."
> 
> "In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way
> unmolested."
> 
> 
> If this general didn't get orders that used these words, then he has
> colored the meaning of his orders according to his biases. IOW, once
> again, these are his opinions of his orders.

Nah Don, they told him "go spread some freedom and democracy in Central
America, you dumb blind chicken!" Sounds better?

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
7/3/2010 8:43:19 PM
Craig Leidy wrote:

> Poor Don... This time he's seriously outnumbered.
> :-)

<g> 

No need to be concerned about us "RWLs", We're use to it. <g>
In fact, I typically find it amusing. <g>

But in this case, the main reason I jumped in was to give James a
break. He's been hauling all the right wing water lately. <g>

 
> I guess this is what it takes to rekindle the group.

I'm pleased to be of service. <g>


> Still... in general... about generals... I don't get it.
> Does this kid grow up thinking, "I'm going to be
> the best general ever. I'll kill more of 'them' and
> set the record for legal murder."
> 
> I just don't get the general mindset.
> 
> If they were really that smart... they'd be doing
> something else.

I have no idea (for once). 

:-)
0
Don
7/3/2010 8:54:27 PM
Igor Ivanov wrote:

> Don Abel wrote:
> 
> > > The latter is pure speculation on YOUR part. Now mine is that he
> > > was explicitly told all those things by the people who sent him.
> > 
> > 
> > So, in your opinion, the general was word for word explicitly sent
> > to:
> > 
> > "be a "high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
> > bankers"
> > 
> > "a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially
> > Tampico safe for American oil interests"
> > 
> > "helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City
> > Bank boys to collect revenues in."
> > 
> > "I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics
> > for the benefit of Wall Street."
> > 
> > "I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of
> > Brown Brothers in 1902 and 1912."
> > 
> > "I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar
> > interests in 1916."
> > 
> > "I helped make Honduras right for the> American fruit companies in
> > 1903."
> > 
> > "In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its
> > way unmolested."
> > 
> > 
> > If this general didn't get orders that used these words, then he has
> > colored the meaning of his orders according to his biases. IOW, once
> > again, these are his opinions of his orders.
> 
> Nah Don, they told him "go spread some freedom and democracy in
> Central America, you dumb blind chicken!" Sounds better?


Yup. Much. <g>
0
Don
7/3/2010 9:01:06 PM
Don Abel wrote:

> Igor Ivanov wrote:
> 
> > Don Abel wrote:
> > 
> > > > The latter is pure speculation on YOUR part. Now mine is that he
> > > > was explicitly told all those things by the people who sent him.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, in your opinion, the general was word for word explicitly sent
> > > to:
> > > 
> > > "be a "high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
> > > bankers"
> ...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If this general didn't get orders that used these words, then he
> > > has colored the meaning of his orders according to his biases.
> > > IOW, once again, these are his opinions of his orders.
> > 
> > Nah Don, they told him "go spread some freedom and democracy in
> > Central America, you dumb blind chicken!" Sounds better?
> 
> 
> Yup. Much. <g>

Aha... Wanna buy a perfect getaway - a luxurious sunny beachside
property on Baffin Island? Cheap!

-- 
Igor
0
Igor
7/3/2010 9:18:12 PM
"Don Abel" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

>> > Throughout history, the Brits,
>> > Spanish, Italians (Romans), French, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and
>> > of course the Germans,
>>
>> "of course, the germans"? as i recall, they got mostly overlooked
>> scraps.
>
> You forget what they tried to do in WWI and WWII

johnny come latelys aren't what i'd call "throughout history"

or do you mean to include the franks, visigoths, etc? that's not really what 
we think of in terms of the "colonial era", or even the last 100 years. 
ditto for the romans.
0
Kirt
7/6/2010 1:29:04 PM
Reply: