To say that you will not intervene (Nonintervention) in a foreign war is the equivalent of encouraging War 10 04 2013
Russia took this policy with Germany in WWII. But then Russia swept in and helped defeat Germany. What is Russia known for great Chess Players! And they indeed get 1/2 of Germany out of it!
The United States also had a policy of nonintervention in WWII. Until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor! But the question becomes, "What was the communication between the United States and Adolf Hitler with regard to United States Intervention?" Hitler had to have known what a military powerhouse the United States was or had become! We had a very strong history of winning large scale wars! Was there communication? That policy of nonintervention came back to haunt the United States when Japan who entered the War took action against the United States and bombed us! The chain reaction of hatred took a while to get to the United States but it did!
I will never forget watching the United States Diplomat to IRAQ tell him that the U.S. would not intervene in IRAQ with regard to Saddam's I believe the term was expansion plans. But it was not too long until we did! The chain reaction took a while to get back to the United States but it did didn't it- with September 11 2001! I know what you are going to say that it was unprovoked! But that middle eastern mindset is a bit different than that of the United States (or at least we were.) They smoke opium don't they? Giant "heroin fields in Pakistan?" Who in there right mind would believe people wired on those drugs are not going to see Arabs like them wired on drugs getting shot and not retaliate? We never believed they had the capability that they did to organize 911! But indeed they were taught at United States Universities! And indeed they were very rich from United States oil company deals with them? Did we not know that the prime terrorist in the middle east was indeed a billionaire that we bought our oil from? The point is that we should have went solar energy 40 years ago but did not! Instead Kennedy was shot in the head by a Communist Minded American who had briefly defected to Russia and worked for a high tech aerospace company there!
But what is the point with regard to these three scenarios? It is very simple instead of saying, "We don't believe you should start a war we chose a policy of "non-intervention." And in each case the party that chose non-intervention ended up getting its citizens in the War and in Harms Danger! So the policy with regard to War when we are asked should always be, "Just don't start one! Because we might ended up being the ones to decimate you!"
The United States stance should openly be if you start a war and it ever involves us we will decimate you, instead of a policy of nonintervention! The nonintervention would seem to be a little underhanded or have a hidden motive to it? It makes me want to analyze the cash inflows and outflows of all those involved in oil transactions and correlate it to what the MARKET price of oil is on the public markets? Is there more money coming in to those oil companies than should be based on the current price we would have to pay for oil from Middle East countries on what would be believed to be the open market?
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 10 04 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
'
Russia took this policy with Germany in WWII. But then Russia swept in and helped defeat Germany. What is Russia known for great Chess Players! And they indeed get 1/2 of Germany out of it!
The United States also had a policy of nonintervention in WWII. Until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor! But the question becomes, "What was the communication between the United States and Adolf Hitler with regard to United States Intervention?" Hitler had to have known what a military powerhouse the United States was or had become! We had a very strong history of winning large scale wars! Was there communication? That policy of nonintervention came back to haunt the United States when Japan who entered the War took action against the United States and bombed us! The chain reaction of hatred took a while to get to the United States but it did!
I will never forget watching the United States Diplomat to IRAQ tell him that the U.S. would not intervene in IRAQ with regard to Saddam's I believe the term was expansion plans. But it was not too long until we did! The chain reaction took a while to get back to the United States but it did didn't it- with September 11 2001! I know what you are going to say that it was unprovoked! But that middle eastern mindset is a bit different than that of the United States (or at least we were.) They smoke opium don't they? Giant "heroin fields in Pakistan?" Who in there right mind would believe people wired on those drugs are not going to see Arabs like them wired on drugs getting shot and not retaliate? We never believed they had the capability that they did to organize 911! But indeed they were taught at United States Universities! And indeed they were very rich from United States oil company deals with them? Did we not know that the prime terrorist in the middle east was indeed a billionaire that we bought our oil from? The point is that we should have went solar energy 40 years ago but did not! Instead Kennedy was shot in the head by a Communist Minded American who had briefly defected to Russia and worked for a high tech aerospace company there!
But what is the point with regard to these three scenarios? It is very simple instead of saying, "We don't believe you should start a war we chose a policy of "non-intervention." And in each case the party that chose non-intervention ended up getting its citizens in the War and in Harms Danger! So the policy with regard to War when we are asked should always be, "Just don't start one! Because we might ended up being the ones to decimate you!"
The United States stance should openly be if you start a war and it ever involves us we will decimate you, instead of a policy of nonintervention! The nonintervention would seem to be a little underhanded or have a hidden motive to it? It makes me want to analyze the cash inflows and outflows of all those involved in oil transactions and correlate it to what the MARKET price of oil is on the public markets? Is there more money coming in to those oil companies than should be based on the current price we would have to pay for oil from Middle East countries on what would be believed to be the open market?
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 10 04 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
'
No comments:
Post a Comment