How many are Pro-War?

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
If you hold a real weapon in your hand,
you will feel its character strongly.
It begs to be used. It is fearsome.
Its only purpose is death,
and its power is not just in the material
from which it is made,
but also from the intention of its maker.
It is regrettable that weapons must be used,
but occasionally, survival demands it.
The wise go forth with weapons
only as a last resort.
They never rejoice in the skill of weapons,
nor do they glorify war.
When death, pain and destruction are visited
upon what you hold to be most sacred,
the spiritual price is devastating.
What hurts more than one's own suffering
is bearing witness to the suffering of others.
The regret of seeing
human beings at their worst
and sheer pain of not
being able to help the victims
can never be redeemed.
If you go personally to war,
you cross the line yourself.
You sacrifice ideals for survival
and fury of killing.
That alters you forever.
That is why no one rushes to be a soldier.
Think before you want to change
so unalterably
The stakes are not merely one's life,
but one's very own humanity.

Deng-Ming Dao, a Taoist monk
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
As Scott Ritter said, he swore an oath to uphold our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I agree with that statement. Our fair republic is descending into an authoritarian morass, blinded with bloodlust and misdirected thirst for revenge. No one is above our Constitution, even the Commander-in-Chief.

Collin Baber, USAF, 1994-1998

A chickenhawk political hack like Bush shouldn't be making decisions that put our kids in harm's way. Let him and his family members take rifles and personally go fight Saddam Hussein -- while we watch. It's his war, not ours. There are enough issues here at home that need attention. I am a Vietnam combat veteran.

Mark S. Stowe, US Army, 1968-1986


Leaders who make war should be required to have participated in one.

Glen Kuhlmeier, USAF, 26 Years


I do not believe that 1 drop of American blood should be wasted attacking Iraq for reasons apparent only to a madman.

John Duckworth, US Army, 1967-1969


I fought in what was considered by many to be a just war. I now believe that every undeclared war that we have fought since then has been unjust and not in our country's best interest. I hate war and consider myself a true patriot and gladly join my fellow veterans in this statement

Martin Harwayne, US Army, WW II


The whole concept that the United States government would use it's military to conduct a "regeme change" when presented with a government it doesn't like is a blantant violation international law and the spirit of the U.S. constitution.

Joel Lowrie, US Army, 6 Years

Let's hear from some veterans on this issue not chickenhawks.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Sorry Ratwell, this rubs me the wrong way. It is amazing to read this, who are these people and why should I care what they say?

It shows me that they question the country they defended and what we stand for.

It shows me that they don't understand the accountably of the entire country, not one person. We are all responsible for going into a war, we all have a responsibility to ourselves first and then to the world.

If they want to say that one man is at fault for one war, then we must start reexamining all our involvement in the world, not just one war. Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson all had made serious mistakes and cost more lives than Bush.

No one questioned going to war in 1917, but we were under the control of the French and English to a point and that cost us a lot of lives for what? No one complained then. When we were attacked in 1941, we didn't have embedded journalist who told what was going on to warn the enemy and cost American lives.

I want to know why is these people complaining about the system and one man but fail to complain about the real problems that cost lives.

The last statement tells me that the author does not know what the constitution is all about or what sovereignty means.

Sad...

My friend and her friends, all Iraqi vets and all wounded consider it is bad taste to complain like this. It don't matter who the person is, it takes away from the sacrifices that they made. Her point is what I said, if they really want to complain, complain about the problems that actually causes deaths and undermine the ability to do the job they were sent there to do - it is not the guy in the WH.

Oh did you know that every major war we were in in the 20th century happened under a democratic president?
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
Greg,

Is it not what makes this country so great? Freedom of expression even for those that do not share your same views.

Bottom line, the differences of opinions help us learn something new when we open our minds to other possibilities.

I still respect your views. Your post have enlightened me. I do not get mad at other's views because they help me see when I am in the wrong. Otherwise I will walk around ignorant until someone tells me otherwise. What is knowledge if it is not shared?
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
I am a veteran. I proudly served my country. My dad did two tours in Vietnam. His life was spared from the bullet but his soul was tortured by what he had to do there. What do you tell people that have lost limbs, family members, buddies, etc.? I have lost. We all lose something.
 

Crazynuff

Veteran Expediter
Greg , I don't think complaining takes away from the sacrifices . The right to speak shows the sacrifices are working . I'm a Viet Vet and saw the sacrifices firsthand . I may not like what some people say or agree with what they say but to deny them the right to say it would make the sacrifices wasted . When opinions are expressed it offers the opportunity for debate and helps determine if actions are truly justified .
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Point well taken but here is the issue, it is not whether or not someone has the right to speak, it is the impact that the speech makes to others who are still involved or feel unsure if they did the right thing after returning home.

I remember the rhetoric from Vietnam protesters, they were clear that the troops were baby killers, we were trying to colonize Vietnam and so on. I understand this was a bad thing to do, they didn't support the troops or for that matter the country but my feelings were that these guys went over there and they have the right to respect, not to be told it was wrong to be over their or the war was for nothing by anyone.

Since I have known this girl who served in Iraq, I come to understand more of what is going on. I only looked at the Iraqi's and our point of view but I see hers and her friends. She is clear, things that are said like that was posted cheapens her sacrifice. She read those and think there is no reason to listen to them, they don't speak about facts, just emotion. What she said is it seems that for many retuning, they hear how this is a worthless war, how it is an illegal war, how we are spending a lot of money on a waste effort and many feel that the troops are not being supported by the people at all. She made a point to convince herself a while ago that the worst people to say anything are the ones who served with her. She and her friends feel that this make them feel used and cheapens the sacrifice - her words, not mine.

I have to agree with her and her friends, seeing how vets returning home were treated by the VFW and other people and how many ended up with ruined lives. I don't want to see that happen with this group and we don't take lessons from history but blinded by things we think are the only way to solve problems we got into.

Now with that said, in another thread it speaks about Harvard study that shows when there is negativity in the press, the killing increases. I bet you my truck (which is not worth much) if someone did a study about the killing in the cities by bombs and shootings between 1967 and 1975 in Vietnam they will most likely find the same effect. The enemy knows distention it one way to win, tire the population down and it will turn in the favor of the enemy. This goes to further reinforce my point that people who support the troops have to support the mission and leadership but work on changing things from the inside.

As for the vets out there, Thanks for what you have done, she also thanks you too and hopes you understand that things have changed for the worst - "we are fighting not only an enemy but we are fighting ourselves".
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed
from The New Hampshire Gazette
Vol. 248, No. 1, October 10, 2003

By John Buchanan


WASHINGTON - After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and FBI, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.

Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial baron for nearly eight months after the U.S. entered the war.

No Story?

For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported by the mainstream U.S. media. The essential facts have appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes. This story has also escaped the attention of “official” Bush biographers, Presidential historians and publishers of U.S. history books covering World War II and its aftermath.

The White House did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.

The Summer of ‘42

The unraveling of the web of Bush-Harriman-Thyssen U.S. enterprises, all of which operated out of the same suite of offices at 39 Broadway under the supervision of Prescott Bush, began with a story that ran in the New York Herald-Tribune on July 30, 1942. By then, the U.S. had been at war with Germany for nearly eight months.

“Hitler’s Angel Has $3 Million in U.S. Bank,” declared the headline. The lead paragraph characterized Fritz Thyssen as “Adolf Hitler’s original patron a decade ago.” In fact, the steel and coal magnate had aggressively supported and funded Hitler since October 1923, according to Thyssen’s autobiography, I Paid Hitler. In that book, Thyssen also acknowledges his direct personal relationships with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Rudolf Hess.

The Herald-Tribune also cited unnamed sources who suggested Thyssen’s U.S. “nest egg” in fact belonged to “Nazi bigwigs” including Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, or even Hitler himself.

Business is Business

The “bank,” founded in 1924 by W. Averell Harriman on behalf of Thyssen and his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. of Holland, was Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York City. According to government documents, it was in reality a clearing house for a number of Thyssen-controlled enterprises and assets, including as many as a dozen individual businesses. UBC also bought and shipped overseas gold, steel, coal, and U.S. Treasury and war bonds. The company’s activities were administered for Thyssen by a Netherlands-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named Cornelis Lievense, who served as president of UBC. Roland Harriman was chairman and Prescott Bush a managing director.

The Herald-Tribune article did not identify Bush or Harriman as executives of UBC, or Brown Brothers Harriman, in which they were partners, as UBC’s private banker. A confidential FBI memo from that period suggested, without naming the Bush and Harriman families, that politically prominent individuals were about to come under official U.S. government scrutiny as Hitler’s plunder of Europe continued unabated.

After the “Hitler’s Angel” article was published Bush and Harriman made no attempts to divest themselves of the controversial Thyssen financial alliance, nor did they challenge the newspaper report that UBC was, in fact, a de facto Nazi front organization in the U.S.

Instead, the government documents show, Bush and his partners increased their subterfuge to try to conceal the true nature and ownership of their various businesses, particularly after the U.S. entered the war. The documents also disclose that Cornelis Lievense, Thyssen’s personal appointee to oversee U.S. matters for his Rotterdam-based Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V., via UBC for nearly two decades, repeatedly denied to U.S. government investigators any knowledge of the ownership of the Netherlands bank or the role of Thyssen in it.

UBC’s original group of business associates included George Herbert Walker, who had a relationship with the Harriman family that began in 1919. In 1922, Walker and W. Averell Harriman traveled to Berlin to set up the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.

The Walker-Harriman-created German industrial alliance also included partnership with another German titan who supported Hitler’s rise, Friedrich Flick, who partnered with Thyssen in the German Steel Trust that forged the Nazi war machine. For his role in using slave labor and his own steel, coal and arms resources to build Hitler’s war effort, Flick was convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to seven years in prison.

The Family Business

In 1926, after Prescott Bush had married Walker’s daughter, Dorothy, Walker brought Bush in as a vice president of the private banking and investment firm of W.A. Harriman & Co., also located in New York. Bush became a partner in the firm that later became Brown Brothers Harriman and the largest private investment bank in the world. Eventually, Bush became a director of and stockholder in UBC.

However, the government documents note that Bush, Harriman, Lievense and the other UBC stockholders were in fact “nominees,” or phantom shareholders, for Thyssen and his Holland bank, meaning that they acted at the direct behest of their German client.

Seized

On October 20, 1942, under authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. Congress seized UBC and liquidated its assets after the war. The seizure is confirmed by Vesting Order No. 248 in the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian and signed by U.S. Alien Property Custodian Leo T. Crowley.

In August, under the same authority, Congress had seized the first of the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entities, Hamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126, also signed by Crowley. Eight days after the seizure of UBC, Congress invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act again to take control of two more Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses - Holland-American Trading Corp. (Vesting Order No. 261) and Seamless Steel Equipment Corp (Vesting Order No. 259). In November, Congress seized the Nazi interests in Silesian-American Corporation, which allegedly profited from slave labor at Auschwitz via a partnership with I.G. Farben, Hitler’s third major industrial patron and partner in the infrastructure of the Third Reich.

The documents from the Archives also show that the Bushes and Harrimans shipped valuable U.S. assets, including gold, coal, steel and U.S. Treasury and war bonds, to their foreign clients overseas as Hitler geared up for his 1939 invasion of Poland, the event that sparked World War II.

That’s One Way to Put It

Following the Congressional seizures of UBC and the other four Bush-Harriman-Thyssen enterprises, The New York Times reported on December 16, 1944, in a brief story on page 25, that UBC had “received authority to change its principal place of business to 120 Broadway.” The Times story did not report that UBC had been seized by the U.S. government or that the new address was the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian. The story also neglected to mention that the other UBC-related businesses had also been seized by Congress.

Still No Story?

Since then, the information has not appeared in any U.S. news coverage of any Bush political campaign, nor has it been included in any of the major Bush family biographies. It was, however, covered extensively in George H.W. Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. Chaitkin’s father served as an attorney in the 1940s for some of the victims of the Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.

The book gave a detailed, accurate accounting of the Bush family’s long Nazi affiliation, but no mainstream U.S. media entity reported on or even investigated the allegations, despite careful documentation by the authors. Major booksellers declined to distribute the book, which was dismissed by Bush supporters as biased and untrue. Its authors struggled even to be reviewed in reputable newspapers. That the book was published by a Lyndon LaRouche’s organization undoubtedly made it easier to dismiss, but does not change the facts.

The essence of the story been posted for years on various Internet sites, including BuzzFlash.com and TakeBackTheMedia.com, but no online media seem to have independently confirmed it.

Likewise, the mainstream media have apparently made no attempt since World War II to either verify or disprove the allegations of Nazi collaboration against the Bush family. Instead, they have attempted to dismiss or discredit such Internet sites or “unauthorized” books without any journalistic inquiry or research into their veracity.

Loyal Defenders

The National Review ran an essay on September 1 by their White House correspondent Byron York, entitled “Annals of Bush-Hating.” It begins mockingly: “Are you aware of the murderous history of George W. Bush - indeed, of the entire Bush family? Are you aware of the president’s Nazi sympathies? His crimes against humanity? And do you know, by the way, that George W. Bush is a certifiable moron?” York goes on to discredit the “Bush is a moron” IQ hoax, but fails to disprove the Nazi connection.

The more liberal Boston Globe ran a column September 29 by Reason magazine’s Cathy Young in which she referred to “Bush-o-phobes on the Internet” who “repeat preposterous claims about the Bush family’s alleged Nazi connections.”

Poles Tackle the Topic

Newsweek Polska, the magazine’s Polish edition, published a short piece on the “Bush Nazi past” in its March 5, 2003 edition. The item reported that “the Bush family reaped rewards from the forced-labor prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp,” according to a copyrighted English-language translation from Scoop Media (Scoop - New Zealand News). The story also reported the seizure of the various Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.

Still Not Interested

Major U.S. media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News, The New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times and Miami Herald, have repeatedly declined to investigate the story when information regarding discovery of the documents was presented to them beginning Friday, August 29. Newsweek U.S. correspondent Michael Isikoff, famous for his reporting of big scoops during the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual affair of the 1990s, declined twice to accept an exclusive story based on the documents from the archives.

Aftermath

After the seizures of the various businesses they oversaw with Cornelis Lievense and his German partners, the U.S. government quietly settled with Bush, Harriman and others after the war. Bush and Harriman each received $1.5 million in cash as compensation for their seized business assets.

In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past. There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.
 

Dreamer

Administrator Emeritus
Charter Member
I'm sorry... I just lost track here for a minute...

Is this thread about whether we are pro war, pro Iraq war, or whether it's all Bush's fault?

Just so I know....

Thanks :p

Dale
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
I'm sorry... I just lost track here for a minute...

Is this thread about whether we are pro war, pro Iraq war, or whether it's all Bush's fault?

Just so I know....

Thanks :p

Dale

Subject being Pro War. Any war. Your thoughts whether that means you want to blame Bush for everything or not. I included this Prescott Bush article so people are more informed. It is relative to my speaking against WAR.

Differences of opinions are welcome. I for one do not believe this Iraq War to be just Bush but found this article to be very interesting.

::: Political Chowder ::: "Made with fresh politiics since 2007."

National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

http://www.nhgazette.com/the-bushnazi-stories/
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
Taxpayers in St. Louis County, Missouri have paid $1.9 billion for the Iraq War thus far. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

723,894 People with Health Care for One Year OR
1,683,121 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR
49,291 Public Safety Officers for One year OR
35,893 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year OR
263,806 Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR
214 New Elementary Schools OR
19,358 Affordable Housing Units OR
695,530 Children with Health Care for One Year OR
285,868 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR
38,252 Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR
30,822 Port Container Inspectors for One year

Notes and Sources
Go to Cost of War Counter

Copyright 2007 National Priorities Project
[email protected]
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I'm sorry... I just lost track here for a minute...

Is this thread about whether we are pro war, pro Iraq war, or whether it's all Bush's fault?

Just so I know....

Thanks :p

Dale

Dreamer, who knows.

I find the Nazi/Bush thing just funny.

No one seems to remember that we had a lot of connections to Germany in the 30's and 40's or that many feel Che and Castro are heroes in today's world without understanding that the terror that Hitler and his people caused is the same that Che and Castro promoted.

It seems to me that many hold up socialism and Marxism as the path to a utopia but fail to read Lenin and Trotsky or understand what the Red Terror is all about. What about the connection to our institutes to higher learning and the professors who limit free speech and espouse Lenin ideology?

Who cares about the connection between Bush and any Nazi, no one cared that our space program was made up of Nazis.
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
The Hitler connection, not our connection or interaction with Germany prior to Hitler, is what the article is speaking of.

I don't find it funny. I see no humor at all.


"Fight the rich, not their wars!"
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
"War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. It degrades and stupefies with the sense that you are not responsible, that 'tis not yours to think and reason why, but to do and die,' like the hundred thousand others doomed like yourself. War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder."
—Alexander Berkman, What Is Communist Anarchism?
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
"It seems that 'we have never gone to war for conquest, for exploitation, nor for territory'; we have the word of a president [McKinley] for that. Observe, now, how Providence overrules the intentions of the truly good for their advantage. We went to war with Mexico for peace, humanity and honor, yet emerged from the contest with an extension of territory beyond the dreams of political avarice. We went to war with Spain for relief of an oppressed people [the Cubans], and at the close found ourselves in possession of vast and rich insular dependencies [primarily the Philippines] and with a pretty tight grasp upon the country for relief of whose oppressed people we took up arms. We could hardly have profited more had 'territorial aggrandizement' been the spirit of our purpose and heart of our hope. The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations."
—Ambrose Bierce, Warlike America

"PATRIOT, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors."
— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
"Every patriot believes his country better than any other country . . . In its active manifestation—it is fond of killing—patriotism would be well enough if it were simply defensive, but it is also aggressive . . . Patriotism deliberately and with folly aforethought subordinates the interests of a whole to the interests of a part . . . Patriotism is fierce as a fever, pitiless as the grave and blind as a stone."
—Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works


"War is the health of the state."
—Randolph Bourne, The State

"In your reaction to an imagined attack on your country or an insult to its government, you draw closer to the herd for protection, you conform in word and deed, and you insist vehemently that everybody else shall think, speak, and act together. And you fix your adoring gaze upon the State, with a truly filial look, as upon the Father of the flock."
—Randolph Bourne, The State
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
BOOTLICKING, n. A popular American mass participation sport which is rapidly displacing baseball as 'the national pastime.'"
—Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)

"COLLATERAL DAMAGE, n. Dead and maimed civilians. See also 'Regrettable Necessity.'"
—Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)

"COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so—all to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly termed 'courageous.'"
—Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)

DUTY, n. A concept of slaves, a tool of tyrants. Doing what other people want you to do because they want you to do it. (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde)
—Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)


I choose to think as an individual and not as a collective whole. I belong to no beehive. I choose to read things other than gov't propaganda.
 
Top