|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I came across this the other day. Chilling stuff. It prety much supports my fears regarding the Military/Industrial Neocons. My beleif is that this mentality precedes 9/11 with the PNAC and the neocons.
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.
But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a “soldier’s general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.’s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:
President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”
On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
“I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.
“If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?”
The Pentagon’s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, “it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ‘Aha, this will be the ace of spades.’”
Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.
“The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won’t say that’ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.”
Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. “It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
....i really worry about you whomod, you have such a slanted view on life, in the article i read what Gen Franks fears would happen, and you take it as his hope or policy.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
[censored]Yes[censored]. [censored]What[censored] [censored]General[censored] [censored]Franks[censored]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Yes. What Franks says is not that Bush or "neocons" in his administration will push for this, but that widespread public demand in the U.S. (and possibly popular demand within the entire free world) for tighter security could bring tighter security through vastly restricted freedoms. Several quotes I found particularly hard-hitting: Quote:
from the article above:
Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:
President Bush: "As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he's not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he's very, very bright. And I suspect that he'll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we'll think of him in years to come as an American hero."
On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president's decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein."
"I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.
"If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country? "
Reagan was regarded as an idiot as well, but he brought about the collapse of Soviet control of Eastern Europe, and the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
I didn't vote for G.W Bush, but largely support his military decisions.
And it's good to hear Bush get some deserved praise from a White House/Pentagon insider.
General Franks' remarks about Iraq match my own perspective, about Saddam's hostile intent being clear, regardless of whether WMD's are found in Iraq. He clearly doesn't buy the anti-war crowd's argument that dwells on technicalities and bypasses the thrust of the evidence, which clearly called for invasion to eliminate Saddam's threat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Some kind of weird system glitch occurred when I tried to edit the quote marks and apostrophe's in the article script. Weird.
So I re-posted, in non-computer english.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
....i really worry about you whomod, you have such a slanted view on life, in the article i read what Gen Franks fears would happen, and you take it as his hope or policy.....
actually, i took it as it was presented. As his FEAR. I don't know why you're so snippy or accusing me of taking it some other way. Perhaps you're misreading the title of the thread and adding your own opinions of what I meant or something.
I wanted you guys to read what this well known General thought was the direction we were headed because I happen to agree. I'm about the only one here who sees it though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Well, this is what bothers me about a lot of the public. They seem to have forgotten that liberty is the most important thing. NO MATTER WHAT. My sig line pretty much sums up my opinion on this. My opinion (I could be wrong) on a lot of the right is that they wouldn't care if we had a dictatoship just so long as it was conservative christians doing the dictating. That way "the liberals" wouldn't be able to object to anything they wanted to push through. As for Bush, I really don't see him as anything other than the figurehead for the neocons. Whether he's a "nice guy" or doesn't want to be a dictator means nothing to me. What does Wolfowitz want? "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - GW. Bush See CNN transcript from 12/18/2000 http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Quote:
Gen. Franks' Military Dictatorship
Quote:
actually, i took it as it was presented. As his FEAR. I don't know why you're so snippy or accusing me of taking it some other way. Perhaps you're misreading the title of the thread and adding your own opinions of what I meant or something.
I wanted you guys to read what this well known General thought was the direction we were headed because I happen to agree.
yes but you editorialized that he things the "neocons will do this when he said "“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.” His belief according to the article is that the population ie majority will want this, not the imaginary right wing conspiracy group...
Quote:
I'm about the only one here who sees it though.
....we all agree but i cant afford tin foil to cover my head this month, so if i agreed the goverment would read my thoughts and come get me....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,233 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,233 Likes: 1 |
I read this as Franks talking about the imposition of martial law if there was a nuclear strike on the US, and that this martial law would be favoured by the US electorate. I don't think he was actually advocating it, unless I misread it. And its not an unreasonable proposition, given how many people were in favour of putting security above the US Bill of Rights immediately post 9/11. Quote:
Reagan was regarded as an idiot as well, but he brought about the collapse of Soviet control of Eastern Europe, and the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
I should spread that stuff over my garden, but I wouldn't want to get it under my fingernails. Gorbachev brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, not Reagan. Reagan just happened to be president.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Quote:
I read this as Franks talking about the imposition of martial law if there was a nuclear strike on the US, and that this martial law would be favoured by the US electorate. I don't think he was actually advocating it, unless I misread it. And its not an unreasonable proposition, given how many people were in favour of putting security above the US Bill of Rights immediately post 9/11.
Skip through it again Dave without reading every word, you'll see the "neocons" are trying to bury the constitution.....you really should disregard anything that points otherwise...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,233 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,233 Likes: 1 |
...nope, still reads the same way, sorry. There is some inpropriety in a retired general saying he thinks the military would rule the country in the event of a nuclear strike on the US, but otherwise it was just speculative opinion, not policy.
I think his conclusion is alarming, but, sadly, not inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
....i think most people assume if there was a major disaster resulting in mass chaos there would have to be some sort of martial law until stability was restored....im mean if you have chaos/anarky there is no constitution being upheld anyways...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
</[censored]font[censored]><[censored]blockquote[censored]><[censored]font[censored] [censored]class[censored]="[censored]small[censored]">[censored]Quote[censored]:</[censored]font[censored]><[censored]hr[censored]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Something majorly screwed up happens when I use the edit function. Here's how the above post should read: Quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Reagan was regarded as an idiot as well, but he brought about the collapse of Soviet control of Eastern Europe, and the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
Quote:
originally posted by Dave:
I should spread that stuff over my garden, but I wouldn't want to get it under my fingernails. Gorbachev brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, not Reagan. Reagan just happened to be president.
That's unnecessarily abrasive, the way you phrase that. I could just as easily compare YOUR opinion on the matter to fertilizer (i.e., crap) if I were so inclined.
The fact of the matter is that Reagan oversaw a huge U.S. military build-up, that made the Soviets realize they couldn't possibly compete militarily with the U.S., and hastened the Soviet Union to collapse under its own economic weight.
During the entire Cold War, military spending for the U.S. has consistently been about 10% of our federal budget, whereas it cost the Soviet Union 45% or more of their budget. It was a huge drain on their economy. In addition to the inefficiency and waste within Russia's industrial system.
There's also the close cooperation between Reagan and the Pope, utilizing the Catholic church to rally the solidarity movement in Poland, which brought Poland its freedom and created a crack in the Warsaw Pact, that eventually spread to the other Russian sattelite nations of Eastern Europe. This was well-planned, and didn't "just happen."
The conspiracy between Reagan and the Pope was a cover story for TIME magazine.
It was very helpful that Gorbachev was in power, but the wheels of progress were already in motion before Gorbachev ever took power.
Gorbachev enacted freedoms ( glasnost, perestroika) in the Soviet Union that made the collapse a lot less violent than it might have been, but the economic collapse that split the Soviet Union in 1991 would have occurred anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Quote:
Gen. Franks' Military Dictatorship
I wanted you guys to read what this well known General thought was the direction we were headed because I happen to agree.
yes but you editorialized that he things the "neocons will do this when he said "“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.” His belief according to the article is that the population ie majority will want this, not the imaginary right wing conspiracy group...
....we all agree but i cant afford tin foil to cover my head this month, so if i agreed the goverment would read my thoughts and come get me....
And now why would the American public DEMAND more rigid control? Could it be an incessant clamor for anyone who actually has a contrary (to the neocon) position to be seen as TRAITORS? Could it be years of listening that pretty much ANYTHING not from the right wing and Republican (or "liberal") is WRONG and everything right wing and republican is absolutely irrefutably correct? Where exactly does that leave room for debate and democracy? In this scenario, anyone opposed to the neocons is an impediment to safety and America itself. Sounds like the seeds of an eager and vigorous call to dictatorship to me.
To me, you don't really have to announce that say, Dec 24, 2008 will be the day Democracy dies. You just chip away at Constitutional freedoms bit by little bit. You start tracking dangerous correspondense (for national security of course) and eventually work your way up to "leftist affiliations". You promote an extreme nationalism that borders on jingoism and anyone who asks too many questions is Unamerican and thus a danger to your safety. It's as old as the Reichstag Fire.
I take Gen. Franks' comments to be a warning. Much like the final warning of another famous General.
Quote:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Farewell Address
President Dwight D. Eisenhower. January 17, 1961
In the penultimate draft of his final address, President Eisenhower warned of the "growing influence of the military-industrial-congressional complex" but decided to strike the word "congressional" because he thought it was "not fitting...for a President to criticize Congress.
I hope he had his tin-foil helmet on as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Farewell Address
President Dwight D. Eisenhower. January 17, 1961
I guess you watched Oliver Stone's JFK movie recently. This was quoted in the opening minutes of the movie.
~
While I do think that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, this movie takes every far-out conspiracy there is, and slaps them all together into one incredible way-out conspiracy, and hypes it as fact.
It concerns me that so many out there look to movies like JFK as if they were true history, and not as the ultra-hyperbolic distortions of info-tainment that they truly are.
According to Stone, the CIA, FBI, Cuban nationalists, and the Mafia were ALL in on the conspiracy theory.
That Eisenhower quote you duplicated here is as abused as the Franklin quote you use in your signature footnote.
As I've pointed out often, if you go to www.stormfront.org , you'll see they use the very same Franklin quote to rationalize their own white-supremacist/anti-Semitic rallying cry.
Patriotic words can be invoked in the cause of decidedly UNpatriotic causes.
In any case, the Franks interview comments are speculative, a LOT of things predicted don't come true.
Once in a while, just for laughs, I like to re-run the David McCallum Ancient Prophecies documentaries from 1992 and 1993 that I have on video.
If what THEY predicted was true, the whole West coast would have dropped into the Pacific Ocean, and a third of the continent as well. And Salt Lake City would be an Island off the Pacific Coast, Atlantis would have risen off the coast of Florida, and the U.S. would have been split in two by a gigantic earthquake, forming huge gulf along the former Missisippi river.
It's kind of like a live-action version of KAMANDI, without the talking animals.
That's one of the wilder predictions. But even the predictions of more informed people like Alvin and Heidi Toffler have proven innaccurate on many points, about the development of technology and the economy.
But in defense of what General Franks has said, the Patriot Act that passed in Congress after 9-11 was passed so quickly, because clearly the public demanded it, as assurance that another 9-11 could not happen again. Which certainly confirms through previous example the likelihood of what Franks says.
All the same, I've heard it argued that the Patriot Act was unneccessary, and if we simply gave maximum enforcement of pre-9/11 existing laws, we would be just as safe. And the widespread reporting of that, and having a nation more psychologically prepared if/should a second attack occur, would foretell a more cushioned and less extreme public reaction in the event of another 9-11 type attack.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Quote:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Farewell Address
President Dwight D. Eisenhower. January 17, 1961
I guess you watched Oliver Stone's JFK movie recently. This was quoted in the opening minutes of the movie.
~
While I do think that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, this movie takes every far-out conspiracy there is, and slaps them all together into one incredible way-out conspiracy, and hypes it as fact.
It concerns me that so many out there look to movies like JFK as if they were true history, and not as the ultra-hyperbolic distortions of info-tainment that they truly are.
According to Stone, the CIA, FBI, Cuban nationalists, and the Mafia were ALL in on the conspiracy theory.
That Eisenhower quote you duplicated here is as abused as the Franklin quote you use in your signature footnote.
As I've pointed out often, if you go to www.stormfront.org , you'll see they use the very same Franklin quote to rationalize their own white-supremacist/anti-Semitic rallying cry.
Patriotic words can be invoked in the cause of decidedly UNpatriotic causes.
Perchance, did you happen to see Peter Jennings' JFK special during the Anniversary of the assasination?? Now I AGREE THAT THE OLIVER sTONE FILM TAKES SOME LICENSE WITH SOME EVENTS. HOWEVER, in almost all of the cases, they are presented as such IN THE FILM. Just because they're filmed doesn't mean that one has to take every-single-scene as gosphel. He presented a collection of what-if's, we think, and the government thinks, scenarios all together. If some people are too stupid to pay attention when they're being shown on the screen, that can hardly be considered Stone's fault.
Now i've been into JFK and the assasination in particular LONG before JFK came out in um...'91 or so. I think i've been fascinated by JFK as far back as the late 70's from what I can recall. So it was with great dissapointment that I sat down to watch what was in essence an incredibly one-sided and vicious attack not on the assasination theory of conspiracy but on Oliver Stone's film and Jim Garrison. Not once did they even interview any witnesses or experts that differ from the Warren Commision. So there was no way to even think it might have been objective. I lost a great deal of respect for Peter Jennings after that night since he seemed to entertain the notion that people think of conspiracy BECAUSE of the movie JFK. NO, I have dozens of books and documentaries that i've read and watched with witnesses and experts on the subject that say conspiracy. So his "proofs" of the Warren Commision being correct were pretty easy to dismiss just in the knowledge of what the special ommitted and what it dwelled on.
Quote:
In any case, the Franks interview comments are speculative, a LOT of things predicted don't come true.
Once in a while, just for laughs, I like to re-run the David McCallum Ancient Prophecies documentaries from 1992 and 1993 that I have on video.
If what THEY predicted was true, the whole West coast would have dropped into the Pacific Ocean, and a third of the continent as well. And Salt Lake City would be an Island off the Pacific Coast, Atlantis would have risen off the coast of Florida, and the U.S. would have been split in two by a gigantic earthquake, forming huge gulf along the former Missisippi river.
It's kind of like a live-action version of KAMANDI, without the talking animals.
Actually, some people claim Atlantis did rise, if just a bit, off the coast of Florida. Some people take some giant blocks that look like a road, as a sign of Atlantis rising. I don't though.
Quote:
That's one of the wilder predictions. But even the predictions of more informed people like Alvin and Heidi Toffler have proven innaccurate on many points, about the development of technology and the economy.
But in defense of what General Franks has said, the Patriot Act that passed in Congress after 9-11 was passed so quickly, because clearly the public demanded it, as assurance that another 9-11 could not happen again. Which certainly confirms through previous example the likelihood of what Franks says.
All the same, I've heard it argued that the Patriot Act was unneccessary, and if we simply gave maximum enforcement of pre-9/11 existing laws, we would be just as safe. And the widespread reporting of that, and having a nation more psycholically prepared for a second attack, would foretell a more cushioned and less extreme public reaction in the event of another 9-11 type attack.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,233 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,233 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Something majorly screwed up happens when I use the edit function. Here's how the above post should read:
Quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Reagan was regarded as an idiot as well, but he brought about the collapse of Soviet control of Eastern Europe, and the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
Quote:
originally posted by Dave:
I should spread that stuff over my garden, but I wouldn't want to get it under my fingernails. Gorbachev brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, not Reagan. Reagan just happened to be president.
That's unnecessarily abrasive, the way you phrase that. I could just as easily compare YOUR opinion on the matter to fertilizer (i.e., crap) if I were so inclined.
The fact of the matter is that Reagan oversaw a huge U.S. military build-up, that made the Soviets realize they couldn't possibly compete militarily with the U.S., and hastened the Soviet Union to collapse under its own economic weight.
During the entire Cold War, military spending for the U.S. has consistently been about 10% of our federal budget, whereas it cost the Soviet Union 45% or more of their budget. It was a huge drain on their economy. In addition to the inefficiency and waste within Russia's industrial system.
There's also the close cooperation between Reagan and the Pope, utilizing the Catholic church to rally the solidarity movement in Poland, which brought Poland its freedom and created a crack in the Warsaw Pact, that eventually spread to the other Russian sattelite nations of Eastern Europe. This was well-planned, and didn't "just happen."
The conspiracy between Reagan and the Pope was a cover story for TIME magazine.
It was very helpful that Gorbachev was in power, but the wheels of progress were already in motion before Gorbachev ever took power.
Gorbachev enacted freedoms ( glasnost, perestroika) in the Soviet Union that made the collapse a lot less violent than it might have been, but the economic collapse that split the Soviet Union in 1991 would have occurred anyway.
OK, I agree with all that, but its not what you originally posted - ie. he brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is crap, but its hardly original to you, Dave. Its touted by the same people who see Reagan as someone worthy of having his face up on Mount Rushmore.Reagan no more envisaged the collapse of the Soviet Union's economy than he could enviasage the rise of Gorbachev. Reagan was engaged in knee-jerk arms racing, the sort of thing which lead to WW1. He was playing chicken, and it just so happened that Gorbachev came into power and veered off (and then, to extend the analogy, the wheels fell off his car).
If Reagan had a master plan, to push the Soviet economy to breaking point through an arms race, then I'd be inclined to give him kudos. But it just happened that way. Reagan was misled by the CIA's purposive over-estimates of Soviet military strength, and so it can't even be said that his arms build-up was even the right thing to do in the reality of the situation.
Reagan's timing was fortuitous. He, and the rest of the West, got lucky, but that's all that can be said of Reagan's Soviet policy.
Even Gorbachev can't be properly credited with the collapse fo the Eastern Bloc (the view held by most Europeans especially Germans, where Gorbachev is still extremely popular) - he thought that perestroika and glasnost would allow more openness and freedom for people, not the non-Russian Soviet republics - not result in the Baltics doing their own thing, and thereafter the Germans, etc etc. Gorby gave it a shake, but didn't think it would turn to dust in his hands.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Whomod,
I only watched a few minutes of the Jennings/ABC special on the JFK assassination. My impression was that the Jennings special was not the best documentary coverage of the assassination, and I lost interest and channel-surfed.
One of the best documentaries I've seen was a NOVA episode on PBS, out about the same time as the Oliver Stone movie, that investigated each of the theories of the forensic evidence.
Oliver Stone's movie mocks the idea that any of the theories are plausible. But the NOVA episode shows that many of the ridiculed theories have been reproduced within the Warren Commission conclusions, such as Lee Harvey Oswald's ability to get off three shots in the given time, one of the bullets found being able to remain pristine, if it didn't impact hard against bones inside Kennedy or Connally, and the "magic bullet" theory (one bullet going through Kennedy and Conally, and doing virtually all the damage to both) being possible, since Kennedy and Connally were turned and leaning in various directions, that in forensic studies make it possible for the single bullet to pass through both in exactly the way the Warren report concludes. Despite mockery by those who reject that theory, the exact circumstances have been reproduced, and it is therefore very possible.
There was an article in Gallery magazine written in 1975 by Fletcher Prouty (the military officer portrayed as "X" in the JFK movie, and played by Donald Sutherland) and his insights were largely explored as well in the NOVA episode.
I'm glad I had the forethought to videotape this NOVA episode, it's a very enlightening show. If you haven't seen it, virtually all episodes are available on video from PBS ( www.pbs.org ), and probably for far less on e-bay.
~
T-Dave, clearly we're not going to reach an agreement on the level of credit due to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union and its dominion over Eastern Europe.
And I'm content to leave it at that, you've made your case, I've made my case.
The simple fact is that both Gorbachev and Reagan made it clear they wanted to leave their mark on history in the late 80's and leave a better legacy.
And Reagan wasn't a hardline prick at the end, he'd earlier had the build-up in the early and mid-80's, and when Gorbachev was willing to negotiate, Reagan was as well. And Reagan had the advantage of negotiating from a position of maximum strength.
It just seems odd to me that this all happened so quickly in Poland during Reagan's reign, and then the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, and the rest of Soviet power in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself crumbled very quickly, from 1989-1991. It just seems incredible to me to rationalize that it was dumb luck that this happened during Reagan's term. Classic liberal revisionism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Whomod,
One of the best I've seen Oliver Stone movie, that investigated each of the theories of the forensic evidence. Oliver Stone's movie mocks the idea that any of the theories are plausible. But the NOVA episode shows that many of the ridiculed theories have been reproduced within the Warren Commission conclusions, such as Lee Harvey Oswald's ability to get off three shots in the given time, the bullet being able to remain pristine if it didn't hit bones inside Kennedy or Connally, and the "magic bullet" theory (one bollet going through Kennedy and Conally, and doing virtually all the damage to both) being possible, since Kennedy and Connally were turned and leaning in various directions, that in forensic studies make it possible for the single bullet to pass through both in exactly the way the Warren report concludes. Despite mockery by those who reject that theory, the exact circumstances have been reproduced, and it is therefore very possible.
There was an article in Gallery magazine written in 1975 by Fletcher Prouty (the military officer portrayed as "X" in the JFK movie, and played by Donald Sutherland) and his insights were largely explored as well in the NOVA episode.
I'm glad I had the forethought to videotape it, it's a very enlightening show. If you haven't seen it, most are available on video from PBS ( www.pbs.org ), and probably for less on e-bay.
Well, seeing as how I try to collect this stuff (admittedly not as obsessively as I do comics and DVD's though), I now want to see it. I try to collect all sides of this mystery which is why i've even plunked down money to read what Gerald Posner's book and Roger Moore's idiotic "KGB JFK Files" video had to say. You don't happen to have DVD burning capabilities on your comp do you? I'd be willing to do a trade on TV specials from that Anniversary week last month or even convert some of Groden's videos to DVD.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
If one is familiar with Executive Orders given to and by Presidents by themselves and previous holders of office you will see some alarming stuff. Seizure of money and assets, martial law in nearly any circumstance, and other crazy stuff. Executive orders signed by Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 are absolutely incredible if you look at them with the Constitution and Bill of Rights along with them.
Don't take my word for it dig around and find them and you will see what I mean...which just adds to Whomods original post about ...well, Frank's frankness...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Quote:
Whomod,
One of the best I've seen Oliver Stone movie, that investigated each of the theories of the forensic evidence. Oliver Stone's movie mocks the idea that any of the theories are plausible. But the NOVA episode shows that many of the ridiculed theories have been reproduced within the Warren Commission conclusions, such as Lee Harvey Oswald's ability to get off three shots in the given time, the bullet being able to remain pristine if it didn't hit bones inside Kennedy or Connally, and the "magic bullet" theory (one bullet going through Kennedy and Connally, and doing virtually all the damage to both) being possible, since Kennedy and Connally were turned and leaning in various directions, that in forensic studies make it possible for the single bullet to pass through both in exactly the way the Warren report concludes. Despite mockery by those who reject that theory, the exact circumstances have been reproduced, and it is therefore very possible.
There was an article in Gallery magazine written in 1975 by Fletcher Prouty (the military officer portrayed as "X" in the JFK movie, and played by Donald Sutherland) and his insights were largely explored as well in the NOVA episode.
I'm glad I had the forethought to videotape it, it's a very enlightening show. If you haven't seen it, most are available on video from PBS ( www.pbs.org ), and probably for less on e-bay.
Well, seeing as how I try to collect this stuff (admittedly not as obsessively as I do comics and DVD's though), I now want to see it. I try to collect all sides of this mystery which is why i've even plunked down money to read what Gerald Posner's book and Roger Moore's idiotic "KGB JFK Files" video had to say. You don't happen to have DVD burning capabilities on your comp do you? I'd be willing to do a trade on TV specials from that Anniversary week last month or even convert some of Groden's videos to DVD.
Whomod, I'm afraid I don't have disc-burning capability. But I can still dub my VHS copy onto another VHS tape for you, and mail it, if you want. Just private e-mail me an address to mail it to you.
Here's what I was able to find about the program on PBS' site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/search-results.html?q=kennedy+assassination
Quote:
Who Shot President Kennedy?
Using previously unavailable technology, NOVA probes the available evidence surrounding the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Original broadcast date: 11/15/88
Topic: medicine/forensic
Unfortunately, it seems that they don't have this one available on video. But I'd be happy to copy it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
In reviewing this thread, does anyone else realize that the prospect of terrorists nuking America doesn't seem to bother whomod--except inasmuch as it might lead to a curtailment of his rights?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
G-Man. Are you trying to deliberately be an a-hole or is it just instinctive to you?
Obviously a nuke in America would be catastrophic. So would a military dictatorship. That would essentially mean Osama won. Our way of life was destroyed. Democracy lost. I get the feeling that, as I said, it wouldn't bother YOU so long as it was right wing conservative christians doing the dictating. I'd even go so far as to wager that if such a scenario came into being, you'd eagerly and happily start pointing fingers and turning people in for their dangerous "unpatriotic" views.
As I said, look at my sig line. THAT is what is important. For it is what America is about.
And if you're going to ridicule me as this being my "fantasy", why don't you stop to remember who actually said/warned about this in the 1st place.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-03 5:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Dave. Thanks for the offer. I'll contact you shortly. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
as if any of us are going to be alive after the aliens invade....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The point, whomod, is that Franks said the constitution would not survive if, and only if, we were attacked with WMDs (ie, nuclear weapons, etc.). Franks did not imply, as you seem to want us to think, that a dictatorship will occur PRIOR to the attack.
So, in order for your nightmare scenario to come about we would first have to be nuked.
Your concern, as amply demonstrated by this thread, is not the millions who would die in a WMD attack, either in the blast itself or in any subsequent fallout, but the subsequent effect on your rights.
As such, I am forced to stand by my earlier comments regarding your priorities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
What i'm bothered by is the fact that you keep referring to it as "my rights". They're your rights too.
And where do I imply that Franks' scenario would come about PRIOR to an attack?
I do beleive though that with the Patriot Act, with the far right media attacking anything that even hints at questioning the administration and with a fearful populace willing to trust imlicitly, the seeds are already in place for just such a scenario to occur. And yes, because of public demand partly fueled by right wing media and partly by the always alarmist mass media.
However, as Franks says, it would take just such a nightmare scenario for anyone to actually be able to get away with it.
I'm focusing on that aspect because frankly, right now in the here and now, that is more easy to visualize than the unthinkable.
And you're still a jerk for trying to paint me as somehow being insensitive to mass murder.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-04 8:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
So, in other words, you are implicitly conceding that the only way we become a dictatorship under President Bush is if there is a nuclear attack on the United States?
I would respectfully submit that, in such an event, there is a strong likelihood of martial law being imposed regardless of who the president is.
In fact, a careful reading of Franks's comments in the initial article would appear to indicate that this was HIS point...and not, in any way, the indictment of the Bush administration that you fantasized it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Thats the way I understood it too, if there was mass chaos as would follow a nuclear attack that martial law might be inacted. It's a very likely hypothisi always has been I dont know why whomod is so suprised now by it. Like you said this could happen under Bush, coulda happened under Carter.......whomod you need to remember that under anarchy you would not be protected by the constituion either, it would be survival of the fitest not democracy....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
OP
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
You seem to think I don't know anything about the conditions of martial law. Remember, i'm from Los Angeles. We were under martial law for a few days during the L.A. riots. Franks isn't discussing martial law. He's discussing the real possibility of a new form of Government.
True, I emphasized the current Administration. It's just easy to do with the Patriot Act and their "watch what you say" attitude. A White House spokesman remarked that the president "considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." Treason? In his campaign, Bush joked in October 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." After Sept. 11, he told a reporter: "I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.". As i said, easy.
I realistically wouldn't expect Franks to emphazize the Bush Administration, just as I wouldn't expect any other top level military man to either, no matter who is President. Still, the fact that he offered his grim vision at all needs to be heeded and looked at with something more than mere derision and disbeleif.
I do agree at least that martial law would be imposed (for a time) under ANY President following a nuclear strike. Again though, that is not what he's saying.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-05 7:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
