PDA

View Full Version : Analyzing and debating 10th's favorite quote:



JCam0331
06-21-07, 10:37 PM
“See that our Congress writes into law a command that no American soldier, sailor or Marine be used for any purpose except to protect the coastline of the United States, and protect his home-and I mean, his home-not an oil well in Iraq - in short, not an American investment anywhere except at home! . . . Let Congress say to all foreign investors: “Come on home or let your money stay out of the country-we will not defend it." ~ General Smedley D. Butler
<!-- / sig -->

Is this even possible? General Butler lived from 1881 to 1940. He died before the United States formally entered World War Two.

What he suggests here is OUTRIGHT ISOLATIONISM.

Is that in the best interests of the United States in 2007? (As opposed to 1907) in the current vastly globalized world?

I believe that not only is this not in the best interests of the United States, it is not feasible and completely impractical in 2007 terms.

The interests of Americans are often closely tied to the interests of our allies around the world. Keeping all our men at home instead of patrolling the streets of the world to protect American interests and to make the world a better place is impractical.

Technology has evolved to such an extent that ballistic missiles, aircraft and naval combatants of hostile states increase their power projection exponentially. We can no longer hide in isolation under the protection of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Ballistic missiles, aircraft and naval combatants are not greatly restricted by natrual obstacles, while we have experienced that terrorism knows no geographical limits.


I'm just on a rant here to stimulate some conversation and friendly argument to see what everyone thinks. I personally believe that the world is a better place with an involved America than with an isolated America. Sure there have been screw ups (Iraq) but many of our military engagements have been with noble intentions.

As for national defense, what I believe is that isolationism is akin to a turtle shrinking back into its protective shell. While it seems like a much less vulnerable and much more defensible position, a predator can now attack with relative impunity...and once the shell has been turned on its back, the turtle will die.

10thzodiac
06-22-07, 08:24 AM
I just went over your rant and got the drift what you are saying. <br />
<br />
All I have to say this is the Nuclear age, boarders are irrelevant except for keeping terrorist out, not to mention the invasion...

jetdawgg
06-22-07, 09:28 AM
10Z OOOOOOHHHHHRAAAHHHHH:usmc:

JCam0331
06-22-07, 10:59 AM
I'll respond to this tonight lol

drumcorpssnare
06-22-07, 01:44 PM
:D So...some would have us believe that Gen. Butler would have insisted on America remaining neutral, even after Pearl Harbor. (Remember, Hawaii was just a territory back then, and therefore NOT "part of our country.")

The other thing we're supposed to believe, is that the world is now, just as it was in Smedley's heyday. It's like a time-warp! Nothing has changed! WW II had no effect, whatsoever, on the social, political, ecenomic, or military situation in the world.

Smedley Butler would surely have been just fine with the Soviet encroachment into eastern Europe, or for that matter, the communists could control the entire world (except for America, of course). He probably would have said something like, "The Russian takeover of Canada and Mexico is just a ploy by big business to get Americans to send our young boys off to die in the name of oil and money! Don't you believe it! There are no Communists within the borders of our nation, so there's nothing to worry yourselves about."

Smedley was like that, ya know.:D
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

erased
06-22-07, 01:57 PM
But... but... I thought rabid conservatives were against changing with the times.

Really, who cares if communism controls the entire world? A free-trade system doesn't work for everyone, just like socialism and communism don't work for everyone.

The difference between us going to Iraq to die for oil and money, and Russia taking Canada and Mexico, is one is actually happening.

jetdawgg
06-22-07, 02:11 PM
But... but... I thought rabid conservatives were against changing with the times.

Really, who cares if communism controls the entire world? A free-trade system doesn't work for everyone, just like socialism and communism don't work for everyone.

The difference between us going to Iraq to die for oil and money, and Russia taking Canada and Mexico, is one is actually happening.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/3/3/x/c334074p2xx.jpg

The Land Of Make Believe!!!!!

Zulu 36
06-22-07, 02:24 PM
Have you taken a college level macro-economics course? You would know why communism is not a good thing, economically. Communism must be enforced through repression and terror otherwise people will...

jetdawgg
06-22-07, 02:28 PM
Have you taken a college level macro-economics course? You would know why communism is not a good thing, economically. Communism must be enforced through repression and terror otherwise people will...

Zulu 36
06-22-07, 03:08 PM
That makes no difference. The French might be starting to wake up and slow the Muslim immigration. They will be stricter than we are on our borders. They will also pitch some of the existing Muslim population out of France.

The French people are getting a little tired of socialism I think.

erased
06-22-07, 03:11 PM
&quot;If we are dying for oil in Iraq, why are we paying $3.00 per gallon for gas? Why are we still buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela and the other places that charge for it? Oh wait, I...

drumcorpssnare
06-22-07, 03:21 PM
Okay then...getting back on track. Gen. Butler was a staunch isolationist. He stated his views before WW II. Had America followed Butler's lead, and remained neutral, surely the Axis powers would have had a much easier time of it. It's conceivable the Naxis could have conquered all of Europe, and Russia. The Japanese could have conquered the remainder of Asis and probably Australia. Then they likely would have simultaneously "tag-teamed" America's east and west coasts. Possibly succeeding...

All because one General thought we should not spend a dime to fight anywhere in the world...except to defend our shores.

Meanwhile, while we were vigilantley guarding our borders...Hitler's scientists were working on extending the range of the V-2 rocket. Ultimately, the rocket is able to reach Quebec, Montreal, Halifax, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Charleston, Savannah.
Once Hitler decides to share this technology with Tojo, the Japanese are able to launch rockets from Oahu to Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

All this because someone thought it better to fight our enemies here, instead of defeating them in their homeland.

So, yeah...according to Smedley's rant, we should never have gotten involved in WW II, even after Pearl Harbor was attacked. (kinda like how we were attacked on 9/11)

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

erased
06-22-07, 04:10 PM
So, yeah...according to Smedley's rant, we should never have gotten involved in WW II, even after Pearl Harbor was attacked. (kinda like how we were attacked on 9/11)

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

The difference here is that he didn't say that about Pearl Harbor, you did.

Kinda like 9/11? When are we planning to go after the ones who did that? I mean I'm sure the dreaded Cobra Commander... er... I mean Osama wouldn't be too hard to find if we were looking for him. Seriously, how hard could it be to find a 6+ft tall Arab on dialysis?

HOLM
06-22-07, 04:22 PM
KGB spent/spends more of their money time and reasources on PROPGANDA than anything else...


Has anyone else noticed the large numbe of soviet symbols on .... Well just about every ****** thing in the middle east...


Oil is strategic these days... former KGB is running the show in the USSR....

10thzodiac
06-22-07, 07:12 PM
:D So...some would have us believe that Gen. Butler would have insisted on America remaining neutral, even after Pearl Harbor. (Remember, Hawaii was just a territory back then, and therefore NOT "part of our country.")

The other thing we're supposed to believe, is that the world is now, just as it was in Smedley's heyday. It's like a time-warp! Nothing has changed! WW II had no effect, whatsoever, on the social, political, ecenomic, or military situation in the world.

Smedley Butler would surely have been just fine with the Soviet encroachment into eastern Europe, or for that matter, the communists could control the entire world (except for America, of course). He probably would have said something like, "The Russian takeover of Canada and Mexico is just a ploy by big business to get Americans to send our young boys off to die in the name of oil and money! Don't you believe it! There are no Communists within the borders of our nation, so there's nothing to worry yourselves about."

Smedley was like that, ya know.:D
drumcorpssnare:usmc:


The Myth of Pearl Harbor
On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that decimated the US Pacific Fleet and forced the United States to enter WWII. That's what most of us were taught as school children... But, except for the date, everything you just read is a myth.

In reality, there was no sneak attack. The Pacific Fleet was far from destroyed. And, furthermore, the United States took great pains to bring about the assault.

On January 27, 1941, Joseph C. Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, wired Washington that he'd learned of the surprise attack Japan was preparing for Pearl Harbour.

On September 24, a dispatch from Japanese naval intelligence to Japan's consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. The transmission was a request for a grid of exact locations of ships in Pearl Harbour. Surprisingly, Washington chose not to share this information with the officers at Pearl Harbour. Then, on November 26, the main body of the Japanese strike force (consisting of six aircraft carriers, two battleships, three cruisers, nine destroyers, eight tankers, 23 fleet submarines, and five midget submarines) departed Japan for Hawaii.

Despite the myth that the strike force maintained strict radio silence, US Naval intelligence intercepted and translated many dispatches. And, there was no shortage of dispatches: Tokyo sent over 1000 transmissions to the attack fleet before it reached Hawaii. Some of these dispatches, in particular this message from Admiral Yamamoto, left no doubt that Pearl Harbour was the target of a Japanese attack: "The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow.

The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order."

Even on the night before the attack, US intelligence decoded a message pointing to Sunday morning as a deadline for some kind of Japanese action. The message was delivered to the Washington high command more than four hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour. But, as many messages before, it was withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders.

Although many ships were damaged at Pearl Harbour, they were all old and slow. The main targets of the Japanese attack fleet were the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers, but Roosevelt made sure these were safe from the attack: in November, at about the same time as the Japanese attack fleet left Japan, Roosevelt sent the Lexington and Enterprise out to sea. Meanwhile, the Saratoga was in San Diego.

Why did Pearl Harbour happen? Roosevelt wanted a piece of the war pie. Having failed to bait Hitler by giving $50.1 billion in war supplies to Britain, the Soviet Union, France and China as part of the Lend Lease program, Roosevelt switched focus to Japan. Because Japan had signed a mutual defence pact with Germany and Italy, Roosevelt knew war with Japan was a legitimate back door to joining the war in Europe.

On October 7, 1940, one of Roosevelt's military advisors, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, wrote a memo detailing an 8-step plan that would provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Over the next year, Roosevelt implemented all eight of the recommended actions.

In the summer of 1941, the US joined England in an oil embargo against Japan. Japan needed oil for its war with China, and had no remaining option but to invade the East Indies and Southeast Asia to get new resources. And that required getting rid of the US Pacific Fleet first.

Although Roosevelt may have got more than he bargained for, he clearly let the attack on Pearl Harbour happen, and even helped Japan by making sure their attack was a surprise. He did this by withholding information from Pearl Harbour's commanders and even by ensuring the attack force wasn't accidentally discovered by commercial shipping traffic. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner stated in 1941: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic."

jebollenbach
06-22-07, 08:36 PM
10th that is very interesting. Where did you get this info, I would love to read more.

10thzodiac
06-22-07, 08:53 PM
10th that is very interesting. Where did you get this info, I would love to read more.

I'm very familiar with Operation Northwoods & Mongoose listed here and it is legit. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/operation_northwoods.htm

As you requested:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/10_False_Flag_Operations.html

Also Hitler new Roosevelt was planning to declare war on Germany anyways and just beat him to to it ! The name of the operational plan is in one of my prior posts, either you or I can look for it.

BTW, during the Japanese criminal war trials, a sitting judge (India) found the Japanese were not guilty.

10thzodiac
06-22-07, 09:19 PM
I found it Gunny:

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on the United States on December 11, four days after the Japanese attack. Hitler and Mussolini were under no obligation to declare war under the mutual defense terms of the Tripartite Pact. However, relations between the European Axis Powers and the American leadership had deteriorated since 1937. Earlier in 1941, the Nazis learned of the U.S. military's contingency planning to get troops in Continental Europe by 1943; this was Rainbow Five, made public by sources unsympathetic to Roosevelt's New Deal, notably the Chicago Tribune. Hitler seems to have decided war with the United States was unavoidable, and the Pearl Harbor attack, the publication of the Rainbow Five plan, and Roosevelt's post-Pearl Harbor address, which focused on European affairs as well as the situation with Japan, probably contributed.

10thzodiac
06-22-07, 09:26 PM
The McCollum Memo:
The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the_mccollum_memo.htm

greensideout
06-22-07, 10:01 PM
BTW, during the Japanese criminal war trials, a sitting judge (India) found the Japanese were not guilty.


The Japanese were not guilty of what? They did bomb Pearl Harbor, right?

erased
06-22-07, 10:12 PM
Of war crimes, I'd imagine.

greensideout
06-22-07, 10:17 PM
They wrote the book on war crimes!

erased
06-22-07, 10:20 PM
Maybe of war crimes relating to Pearl Harbor then...

greensideout
06-22-07, 10:26 PM
War crimes of WW-II. They had many!
10th's statement is not complete, that was my question.

bbearmills
06-22-07, 10:59 PM
It's very interesting that 10th would cite the "sources" he cited as proof of anything. Operation Northwoods was a so-called plan to incite Americans to invade Cuba(circa 1962, not 1942). Mongoose was the so-called plan to overthrow Castro(circa 1961).
The second link is to a guy who, in the same article(large portions of which 10th qouted verbatim), says that a Jew bought, then took out a large insurance policy on the WTC weeks before the faked terrorist bombing of the WTC. Some proof, eh? The sites listed are for the tin-foil hat wearing types.

bbearmills
06-22-07, 11:17 PM
Hey Greenside, I researched the "acquittal" 10th mentioned. There was one Indian judge on the tribunal that sentenced many Japanese to hanging for war crimes. BTW, the dissenting Indian judge, Radhabinad Pal, was also part of the puppet government the Japanese had set up in India. He was the only judge, out of at least 13, to urge complete acquittal. So, the statement "a sitting judge...not guilty", is misleading. Seven were sentenced to death, sixteen to life, and others got several years in prison.

erased
06-22-07, 11:47 PM
As for Larry Silverstein, here:

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

I know, Wikipedia is just communist propaganda, but the references included are not.

3077India
06-23-07, 12:03 AM
“See that our Congress writes into law a command that no American soldier, sailor or Marine be used for any purpose except to protect the coastline of the United States, and protect his home-and I mean, his home-not an oil well in Iraq - in short, not an American investment anywhere except at home! . . . Let Congress say to all foreign investors: “Come on home or let your money stay out of the country-we will not defend it." ~ General Smedley D. Butler
<!-- / sig -->

Is this even possible? General Butler lived from 1881 to 1940. He died before the United States formally entered World War Two.

What he suggests here is OUTRIGHT ISOLATIONISM.

Is that in the best interests of the United States in 2007? (As opposed to 1907) in the current vastly globalized world?

I believe that not only is this not in the best interests of the United States, it is not feasible and completely impractical in 2007 terms.

The interests of Americans are often closely tied to the interests of our allies around the world. Keeping all our men at home instead of patrolling the streets of the world to protect American interests and to make the world a better place is impractical.

Technology has evolved to such an extent that ballistic missiles, aircraft and naval combatants of hostile states increase their power projection exponentially. We can no longer hide in isolation under the protection of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Ballistic missiles, aircraft and naval combatants are not greatly restricted by natrual obstacles, while we have experienced that terrorism knows no geographical limits.


I'm just on a rant here to stimulate some conversation and friendly argument to see what everyone thinks. I personally believe that the world is a better place with an involved America than with an isolated America. Sure there have been screw ups (Iraq) but many of our military engagements have been with noble intentions.

As for national defense, what I believe is that isolationism is akin to a turtle shrinking back into its protective shell. While it seems like a much less vulnerable and much more defensible position, a predator can now attack with relative impunity...and once the shell has been turned on its back, the turtle will die.Based on what I understand of General Butler, I don't think he was necessarily suggesting that we take a position of ISOLATION, but rather a position of NON-INTERFERENCE. He advocated that we look after our own shores first and foremost rather than get involved all over the world as we are today.

10thzodiac
06-23-07, 06:57 AM
The Japanese were not guilty of what? They did bomb Pearl Harbor, right?

Undeniably they bombed Pear Harbor, but what do you think America would of done if the situation was reversed ? Let say Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez cut off Bush's war machine's oil supply in the middle of his WMD war against Saddam ? Do you think Bush would let him get away with that ?

The documentary I saw where the Indian judge dissented at the Japanese war trial addressed that very issue, United States provoked Japan into attacking America.

Just like our brother 3077India said, that Smedley was saying, we should be minding our own business not somebody else's ! I like to add also, that Smedley believed and advocated in a strong national defense.

For all you drumscorpssnares of the world who think Smedley's isolationism would eventually lead to the Germans & Japanese occupying America's heartland I say this: So we defeated Japan and Germany, who took their place ? I'll tell you who, China and Russia, so WTF is the difference, over ?

I know what drumscorpssnare is going to say now, "Truman should of let MacArthur and Patton at 'em !

Rome fell because it couldn't control the world and Truman knew that much, apparently *[I]musician's don't, lol.

SF

10thz

BTW, I hope JCam0331 is okay http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/06.gif

<TABLE class=tborder id=post255139 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>JCam0331 (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/member.php?u=43719)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_255139", true); </SCRIPT>
Marine
Free Member (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/payments.php)

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/avatars/lcpl.gif (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/member.php?u=43719)

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Elk Grove Village
Posts: 90







</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_255139><!-- message -->I'll respond to this tonight lol





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

* Nero & Drumscorpssnare http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

jetdawgg
06-23-07, 09:54 AM
10Z thanks for the drops. Fantastic insight. This will keep me reviewing material for weeks.

You are a hell of a Marine:usmc:

bbearmills
06-23-07, 12:28 PM
Hey, Erased,
Yeah, I know about Silverstein. My point was that the gist of the tinfoil hat guy who wrote the piece was that Silverstein had the towers destroyed because of asbestos in them that was too expensive to clean out without the towers coming down. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

erased
06-23-07, 01:31 PM
Well, he turned several billion dollars of liability into several billion dollars of profit. It ended up being unimaginably profitable (in more ways than just money) for quite a few people who are very high on the food chain. Huge conspiracy or not, it worked out great for a very rich few.

3077India
06-24-07, 01:45 AM
I recall from my studies of history there was a time when a threat to a nation was a threat to its GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES, the PEOPLE WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES, and THEIR WAY OF LIFE; everything else was relegated to the realm of national interests. In those days it was conceiveable that, and acceptable for, a nation to go to war to protect or expand its interests abroad.

Today, going to war simply to protect national interests is unacceptable; so that is why our gov't says, "We are fighting to protect our freedoms and way of life and oil [as they mumble under their breath]," but we had to go to Iraq to do it?:confused: The only threat to our way of life (ie liberty) I've noticed has been coming from our own gov't through various laws such as the Patriot Act. I didn't exactly notice the Iraqis landing on our shores and threatening our people right here.

America was sold a bill of goods that wound up not being what we were told they were. Ever since we found out, we've been trying to get our money back. So far we've had no luck. Iraq was a mistake. If the Iraqi people didn't have the back bone to remove a tyrant, then why did we have to sacrifice our troops to do it for them? Now that we've done it, why are we still there?

Our government has completely mis-read the will of the people, if anything many people (if not a majority) would prefer a foreign policy of NON-INTERFERENCE as opposed to what we have now. Where does it say in the UN's Charter that the US has to be the World's police? General Butler was right, we need to take care of our PEOPLE FIRST, secure our borders and protect our shores. (I know, not exactly a Butler quote, but that is still what he meant.)

10thzodiac
06-24-07, 07:21 AM
3077India your children and grandchildren are blessed having you !

Semper Fidelis

Rich

jetdawgg
06-24-07, 01:28 PM
3077India I am firmly with you Marine. America First, Second, Third...

Why do we have to sacrifice ourselves for the greed of others? We don't do a decent job of protecting our borders from illiegal immigrants.....:usmc: