The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Blitzkrieg or Shock and Awe...take yer pick.

Blitzkrieg or Shock and Awe...take yer pick.

Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Saturday, May 30 2015, 17:25:55 (UTC)
from *** - ***

Mexico -

Windows NT -

Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

What's the real difference? Both are intended to terrorize and frighten people into death or acquiescence...and both were unleashed on unoffending and totally innocent people who'd done nothing to anyone. They were just “in the way”... the Russians had the land Hitler wanted and Saddam had the oil Bush wanted. I know, I know, we're the “good guys”...but the Germans certainly didn't see themselves as the bad guys. I guess what matters most is how the people you're Blitzing or Shocking and Awing see you...and there can't be any difference there.

What was Eisenhower talking about when he warned us in a public speech to watch out for warmongers...to keep an eye on them etc.? That was sort of strange coming from the commander of the greatest military force ever assembled...a commander who certainly knew he depended on warmongers to get him the equipment he needed. Eisenhower's message ranks right up there with General Smedley's comments that modern American warfare is all about Coca-Cola and resources and markets and money, with a generous cover of patriotism to blind the foolish.

Why did Eisenhower want us to keep our eyes on the military contractors and the politicians they buy? What was he afraid would happen to us and our country if we didn't listen to him and continued on the path he feared?

They say if you want to know what's what, follow the money. Who benefited from the Korean War?.....the Vietnam War?.....the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Did basic American families and citizens benefit from any of them? The warmongers will say, yes of course...we were kept safe. But were we ever really in danger from Koreans or Vietnamese or Iraqis or Afghans? Really? In actuality each had more reason to hate us and wish to do us harm AFTER we declared unnecessary wars on them...unnecessary for most of us, that is. And the warmongers are reaping dividends to this day as we continue to feed Communist North Korea, for you never know when you'll need an enemy again....and this “total” war on terror all over the world is a marketer's dream....profits forever.

A sinister new twist has been added which perhaps Eisenhower could foresee...that we would MAKE enemies if there were no actual ones. We did that by crying “communist” every chance we got...we did it by lying that we had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin and we're doing more and more lying AND provoking where Muslims are concerned. Eisenhower didn't warn us about communists, or rice farmers, or religious groups, and he certainly didn't see Algerian pirates in the 1800s as a potential threat....surely he knew very well what a real threat looked like....which is the reason he saw the great danger in war as a profit-making, privatized, enterprise.

The only ones to benefit from these wars are the people who make fortunes from them...and who have a real interest in keeping war alive and perpetual.....that was what Eisenhower was warning us of...that through bought and paid for politicians they would, someday, create the conditions for attacks against America counting on our blood-red patriotism and fear of thinking too much to rush us into war, for us, and huge cash taken from our Treasury and children and national health for the warmongers, who could count on receiving our blessings and thanks on top of it all.

What else could he have meant?

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

***