How interesting.... NORAAD

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

mrmom2 said:
Just the facts wrote
That's what military's do - they draw up scenarios and plan contingencies. If there was no Plan Red, the indy media would be screaming and shouting about how unprepared the military is.
Thats right JTF just like Operation Northwoods 8O US military needed a plan to fly commercial airliners into buildings you have to be prepared you know :p
[/quote]

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal, the President (John Kennedy) removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward.

The plan didn't include flying planes into buildings, hijacking of a plane, yes.

When a job entails devising ways of killing people (military), what else is there to talk about? You have to have loose nuts to begin with even to think about scenarios like these.
 

SilentSwirl

Nominee Member
Mar 13, 2005
76
0
6
Rivendell
Re: How interesting....

I think not said:
When a job entails devising ways of killing people (military), what else is there to talk about?
Develop contingencies, more contingencies, more contingencies.
I think not said:
You have to have loose nuts to begin with even to think about scenarios like these.
Not true! The topic (the "job") is the survival of the state.

In any great nation (am referring specifically to the US in this instance) the best minds and people are always applied to developing and executing the contingencies needed to do this "job".

Only apply for the "job" if you have common sense, real imagination, a propensity for skulduggery, "fighting spirit" and are willing to risk the means to achieve the ends.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

SilentSwirl said:
I think not said:
When a job entails devising ways of killing people (military), what else is there to talk about?
Develop contingencies, more contingencies, more contingencies.
I think not said:
You have to have loose nuts to begin with even to think about scenarios like these.
Not true! The topic (the "job") is the survival of the state.

In any great nation (am referring specifically to the US in this instance) the best minds and people are always applied to developing and executing the contingencies needed to do this "job".

Only apply for the "job" if you have common sense, real imagination, a propensity for skulduggery, "fighting spirit" and are willing to risk the means to achieve the ends.

There is always an element of powerplay, SilentSwirl. Those with big guns are always itching to use them.

And the ends doesnt always justify the means.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

I think not said:
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal, the President (John Kennedy) removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward.

The plan didn't include flying planes into buildings, hijacking of a plane, yes.

When a job entails devising ways of killing people (military), what else is there to talk about? You have to have loose nuts to begin with even to think about scenarios like these.

The shocking aspect of Operation Northwoods was that the Joint Chiefs actually pitched the plan to McNamara to kill American citizens to sufficiently enrage the public so that they demand the immediate invasion of Cuba...

Not unlike the sinking of the Lusitania being an attempt to thrust the US into WWI...

Not unlike Pearl Harbour allowed FDR to get approval from congress to enter into WWII...

And not unlike 9/11 begat the Global War on Terror, and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan, and the illegal invasion of Iraq...

...to dismiss the intent of the document is to be willfully ignorant of what motivates a rogue nation to take unilateral action...and what motivates those who would profit greatly by the country being in a state of war...

McNamara quashed Northwoods...but who's to say that Rumsfeld held the same moral reservations?

That may never be known for certain, but one cannot conclude that the possibility does not exist...

As to the invasion of Canada, I believe that they've had a comprehensive plan drawn up for a long time, and that had the separtists succeeded in splitting the country in 1995, the plan would have been put into play...and that the Joint Chiefs are likely waiting with baited breath even now...
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

Vanni Fucci said:
I think not said:
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal, the President (John Kennedy) removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward.

The plan didn't include flying planes into buildings, hijacking of a plane, yes.

When a job entails devising ways of killing people (military), what else is there to talk about? You have to have loose nuts to begin with even to think about scenarios like these.

The shocking aspect of Operation Northwoods was that the Joint Chiefs actually pitched the plan to McNamara to kill American citizens to sufficiently enrage the public so that they demand the immediate invasion of Cuba...

Yes, sick mind he was. Never actually happened though, did it?

Not unlike the sinking of the Lusitania being an attempt to thrust the US into WWI...

Consirpacy theories, interesting but back it up

Not unlike Pearl Harbour allowed FDR to get approval from congress to enter into WWII...

Consirpacy theories,interesting but back it up

And not unlike 9/11 begat the Global War on Terror, and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan, and the illegal invasion of Iraq...

Consirpacy theories, interesting back it up

...to dismiss the intent of the document is to be willfully ignorant of what motivates a rogue nation to take unilateral action...and what motivates those who would profit greatly by the country being in a state of war...

McNamara quashed Northwoods...but who's to say that Rumsfeld held the same moral reservations?

Nobody, why twist this from MacNamara to Rumsfeld?

That may never be known for certain, but one cannot conclude that the possibility does not exist...

I most certainly agree with you

As to the invasion of Canada, I believe that they've had a comprehensive plan drawn up for a long time, and that had the separtists succeeded in splitting the country in 1995, the plan would have been put into play...and that the Joint Chiefs are likely waiting with baited breath even now...

I see, but I suppose "Defence Scheme Number 1" was a Sunday morning stroll. And is there any point by the way waiting for Quebec to separate Vanni? What do you think the US military fears that stops them from invading Canada while Quebec is still part of it? What military might does Quebec have to deter the US from invading Canada?
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

I think not said:
I see, but I suppose "Defence Scheme Number 1" was a Sunday morning stroll. And is there any point by the way waiting for Quebec to separate Vanni? What do you think the US military fears that stops them from invading Canada while Quebec is still part of it? What military might does Quebec have to deter the US from invading Canada?

I've not read Defence Scheme Number 1, 2 or 3, do you have a link to it? Not having read it, I can't be sure, but I would think that having the word "Defence" in the title would pretty much mean that it's not a plan for invasion, as was "Joint Plan Red".

...and as to the rest, the reason for waiting for separation is quite political...the entire world would be outraged if the US pre-emptively attacked Canada...

...but after separation of Quebec, the US could send troops to bolster border security, and into Quebec to help quell civil unrest, and to protect their fragile infrastructure...well who could blame them...they're just being concerned neighbours after all...and then one morning after the US has annexed Quebec, we Canadians, wake up to find there's an American military presence in Ottawa to provide security for the President of the United States while he sits in Parliament to sign the "Newer Deal"...

There was an article similar to this scenario on the PNAC site...I'll see if I can dig that up...also I've read some separtist sites stating that separtists should try to gain support from the US, because they would make annexation easier...

...so you may be able to sit there in New York and say "that can never happen Vanni, you're just being paranoid"...well, maybe so, but as the future of my country is in the balance here, I think I have cause for some concern...
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

Well Vanni you and Rev are fixiated by me being in "my little haven" as Rev said once. I actually get flattered here and there when you pay more attention to the US than you do Canada, for whatever reasons you do.

I can't imagine why we didn't invade to prevent your Confederation, or after WWI or WWII. You do have oil and gas after all, and who cares what the international community thinks, we didnt when we invaded Iraq. Or do you think the British, French and Germans will sail across the pond to help you?

Well maybe we're just waiting for you all to actually build up your military just to offer some sort of a fight, or better yet, we're waiting for Air Canada to smash into a New York City skyscraper (of course the US government would be responsible for this, remote controlled of course).

I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens with Quebec since they appear to be the key.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

I think not said:
I can't imagine why we didn't invade to prevent your Confederation, or after WWI or WWII. You do have oil and gas after all, and who cares what the international community thinks, we didnt when we invaded Iraq. Or do you think the British, French and Germans will sail across the pond to help you?

...but that's the thing...they need to have a premise before they will attack...

What Really Caused World War 1?

The True Cause of World War 1

History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914.

This is the typical explanation. But the "revisionist historian" knows just what caused and what the purpose was of the conflagration of World War I.

Up until America's entry into this war, the American people had followed the wise advice of President George Washington given in his farewell address, delivered to the nation on September 17, 1796. President Washington said: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?'

President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe. But in 1914, it was not to be. There were those who were secretly planning America's involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not.
The Plan to Involve America in World War 1

The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee stated: "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909."

So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the "life of the entire people could be altered." This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to "peace."

The method by which the United States was drawn into the war started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England.

Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: "From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)... this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization... has been steadily growing."

The second key appointment made during the pre-war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis."

The Sinking of the Lusitania

The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government.

The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid in their war against Germany.

It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. "As Secretary [Bryan] had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods."

England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that "By the end of January, 1915, [British Intelligence was] able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for patrol... ."

This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France.

The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk.

Secretary Bryan promised that "he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel [aboard the Lusitania]. No such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing... ."

Even though Wilson proclaimed America's neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:

Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?

House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.

On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk in the English Channel by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking.

This sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as "the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas."

But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the "flame of indignation" did not sweep the United States as had been planned.

Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: "We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war."

After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American government in 1918. Mr. Simpson has written that "Both sets of archives... contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel."

But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard. The cover-up was now official.

But there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.

The Los Angeles Times reviewed Mr. Simpson's book and concluded: "The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill."

President Wilson was seeking re-election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of "keeping us out of the War" during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

What Really Caused WWI -- Part 2

The Real Reason for World War 1

But behind the scenes, Wilson was secretly plotting America's entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson's major advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: "The House-Grey memorandum... pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany would not come promptly to the peace table. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election."

But the real reason the War was being fought was slowly emerging. One of the first revelations occurred on May 27, 1916, when President Wilson urged the creation of the League of Nations in a speech entitled League to Enforce Peace. Wilson argued that what the world needed to prevent the recurrence of a similar war was a world government.

Some were not happy with the slowness of America's entry into the war. One of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who:

In the early months of 1917 [before the official declaration of war by the United States government] he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues.

For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the "agony of Gethsemane."

He opposed convoying [the intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the German Navy]. He opposed the arming of merchant ships [intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war].

Roosevelt favored both.

And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm [the ships]. He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican "warhawks" [Roosevelt was a Democrat]. It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root [one of the founders of the CFR].

The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt's diary, "how to make Administration steer a dear course to uphold rights."

This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in indents and involve the United States in the war.

Roosevelt's badgering apparently paid off, for on April 2, 1917, President Wilson asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and it was granted on April 6. The United States was now in the war "to end all wars," and "to make the world safe for democracy."

The war wound its horrible course through the destruction of human lives and ended on November 11, 1918.

Historian Walter Millis wrote the following about the purpose of the war and about House's basic intent: "The Colonel's sole justification for preparing such a batch of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order [a world government] of peace and security...."
The Outrageous Treaty of Versailles

The official treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Versailles, where representatives of all sides sat down at a conference table and wrote the treaty.

Several interesting personalities attended these meetings. In the British delegation was the British economist John Maynard Keynes, and representing the American banking interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother. Max, the head of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg and Company, of Hamburg, Germany, and who "was not only in charge of Germany's finances but was a leader of the German espionage system" was there as a representative of the German government.

The Treaty was written to end the war, but another delegate to the conference. Lord Curzon of England, the British Foreign Secretary, saw through what the actual intent was and declared: "This is no peace; this is only a truce for twenty years." Lord Curzon felt that the terms of the Treaty were setting the stage for a second world war, and he correctly predicted the year it would start: 1939.

Lord Curzon was indeed a prophet: he picked the actual year that World War II would start!

One of the planks of the Treaty called for large amounts of war reparations to be paid to the victorious nations by the German government. This plank of the Treaty alone caused more grief in the German nation than any other and precipitated three events:

1. The "hyperinflation" of the German mark between 1920 and 1923;

2. The destruction of the middle class in Germany; and

3. The bringing to power of someone who could end the inflation: a dictator like Adolf Hitler.

This plank was written by John Foster Dulles, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, and later the Secretary of State to President Dwight Eisenhower.

Even John Maynard Keynes became concerned about the Treaty. He wrote: "The peace is outrageous and impossible and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it".

In addition to writing the Treaty of Versailles, the nations who were victorious in the war also wrote the Charter of the League of Nations, which was ratified on January 10, 1920, and signed by President Wilson for the American government. Wilson brought the treaty back to the United States and asked the Senate to ratify it The Senate, remembering George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements and reflecting the views of the American people who did not wish to enter the League, refused to ratify the treaty. President Wilson was not pleased, possibly because he saw himself, as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was quick to point out, as: "... a future President of the world."

It is now apparent that Wilson intended to head up the world government the war was fought to give the world, and he became depressed when the Treaty was not ratified. Imagine the disappointment of one who had come so close to becoming the very first President of the World, only to have it taken away by the actions of the Senate of the United States. Imagine the sense of incredible power that Wilson must have felt, thinking he would become the very first individual in the history of mankind to rule the world. Others had tried and failed, but Wilson was confident that he would succeed.

But the American people, expressing their displeasure through the Senate, would not let him.

The Rich Get Richer


Others were not so disappointed, however. "The war, in brief, provided an unparalleled opportunity for the richest families to grab [exorbitant profits] at the expense of the public and, without exception, they made the most of this opportunity. The rich families, to be sure, wanted the war to be won, but they took care that the victory was expensive to the common taxpayers. They uttered no cries for government economy... so long as the public treasury was at their disposal."

One of the families who reaped the exorbitant profits were "the Rockefellers, who were very eager for the United States to enter World War I, [and who] made far more than $200,000,000 from that conflict."

But support for the League of Nations continued. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry of France was one which advised all of its members: "It is the duty of universal Freemasonry to give its full support to the League of Nations...."

As could have been anticipated, the League of Nations became a major issue during the Presidential election of 1920.

The Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was on record as opposing the League and further attempts to ratify the charter: "It will avail nothing to discuss in detail the League covenant, which was conceived for world super-government In the existing League of Nations, world governing with its super-powers, this Republic will have no part."

He was opposed in the Republican primaries by General Leonard Wood, one of the Republican "warhawks," who was ".. .backed by a powerful group of rich men who wish(ed) a military man in the White House."

The American people, once again manifesting their disapproval of the League, voted for Harding as an evidence of that distrust and concern. Harding outpolled his opposition by a greater margin than did President Wilson who had "kept us out of the war" during the election of 1916. Wilson got only fifty-two percent of the vote, and Harding got sixty-four percent

Harding was a supporter of William Howard Taft, the President who opposed the bankers and their Federal Reserve Bill. After his election, he named Harry M. Daugherty, Taft's campaign manager, as his Attorney General.

His other Cabinet appointments were not as wise, however, as he unexplainably surrounded himself with men representing the oil industry.

For instance:

* his Secretary of State was Charles Evans Hughes, an attorney of Standard Oil;

* his Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, owner of Gulf Oil;

* his Postmaster General was Will Hays, an attorney for Sinclair Oil; and

* his Secretary of the Interior was Albert Fall, a protégé of the oil men.

It was Mr. Fall who was to be President Harding's downfall, as he later accepted a bribe from Harry Sinclair in exchange for a lease of the Navy's oil reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.

There are many who believe that the scandal was intended to discredit the Harding administration in an attempt to remove him from office for two very important reasons:

1. Harding was consistently vocal against the League of Nations, and there was still a chance that its supporters could get the United States to join as the League had survived the Senate's prior refusal to ratify the treaty, and

2. Attorney General Daugherty had been prosecuting the oil trusts under the Sherman anti-trust laws.

These activities did not please the oil interests who had created the Teapot Dome scandal. But Harding unfortunately did not live to see the full repercussions of the artificial scandal, as he died on August 2, 1923, before the story completely surfaced. (There are those who believe that there were some who couldn't wait for the Teapot Dome Scandal to remove President Harding, and that he was poisoned.)

But the oil interests allowed it to completely play its course as a warning to future Presidents of the United States not to oppose the oil interests.

The warning has been generally heeded. Not many have chosen to contend with the true rulers of the United States.
 

LockJaw

New Member
May 13, 2005
6
0
1
USA
Re: How interesting....

The United States never did take part in the Versailles treaty. Infact the US was the main advocate of scaling back reparations. While Britain and France were bent on revenge, the US was actually transferring money to Germany in order to avert an international crisis.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

So basically Vanni what you believe is that the US is waiting for an excuse to invade Canada. Am I correct in assuming so?
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

LockJaw said:
The United States never did take part in the Versailles treaty. Infact the US was the main advocate of scaling back reparations. While Britain and France were bent on revenge, the US was actually transferring money to Germany in order to avert an international crisis.

Aversion of international crisis...how noble of them...

I have a 6 volume set of books, aptly called The Second World War, that were written by Sir Winston Churchill...well actually, they are in the possession of by brother...at any rate, in the first volume, entitled The Gathering Storm, Sir Winston places the blame for the rearming of post-WWI Germany on the shoulders of US investors and Swiss bankers...any money flowing into Germany at that time, had no such noble purpose...
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

I think not said:
So basically Vanni what you believe is that the US is waiting for an excuse to invade Canada. Am I correct in assuming so?

No, you are not correct, in addition to an excuse, your government would need to have an event that would generate sufficient national indignation...disruption of the flow of Canadian natural resources to your eastern seaboard might do it... :wink:

You do remember the blackout in August of 2003? What if that blackout were to last a month?
 

SilentSwirl

Nominee Member
Mar 13, 2005
76
0
6
Rivendell
Re: How interesting....

LockJaw said:
While Britain and France were bent on revenge, the US was actually transferring money to Germany in order to avert an international crisis.
Agree that France was bent on revenge and reparations, however, Great Britain was bent on:

- securing middle eastern oil supplies for the navy.
- expanding the empire to protect the "Jewel in the Crown".

Woodrow Wilson tried to moderate French demands but unfortunately the French were still mad about their territorial losses in 1871.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

Vanni Fucci said:
I think not said:
So basically Vanni what you believe is that the US is waiting for an excuse to invade Canada. Am I correct in assuming so?

No, you are not correct, in addition to an excuse, your government would need to have an event that would generate sufficient national indignation...disruption of the flow of Canadian natural resources to your eastern seaboard might do it... :wink:

You do remember the blackout in August of 2003? What if that blackout were to last a month?

Well which ever way you slice it, event, excuse, combination of both, assuming this all were to happen, we would invade Canada, correct?

And if the blackout lasted a month how would that provoke th eUS to invade Canada?
 

LockJaw

New Member
May 13, 2005
6
0
1
USA
Re: How interesting....

Aversion of international crisis...how noble of them...
Yeah, I would say so. Maybe you should read over the fourteen points and compare them to France and Britains demands. Then get back to me on who was more interested in lasting peace.
I have a 6 volume set of books, aptly called The Second World War, that were written by Sir Winston Churchill...well actually, they are in the possession of by brother...at any rate, in the first volume, entitled The Gathering Storm, Sir Winston places the blame for the rearming of post-WWI Germany on the shoulders of US investors and Swiss bankers...any money flowing into Germany at that time, had no such noble purpose...
Oh so the money provided in the Dawes plan was really a secret American plan to fund Hitlers invasion of the World. Staballization of the German currency was just a front.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

I think not said:
Well which ever way you slice it, event, excuse, combination of both, assuming this all were to happen, we would invade Canada, correct?

And if the blackout lasted a month how would that provoke th eUS to invade Canada?

If the power to your factories were to be abruptly halted, and your industry were to grind to a halt because of political turmoil in Canada, I'm pretty sure there would be sufficient national indignation to warrant the sending of troops to secure the power grid...

By the way, I'm not saying this will or won't happen, I'm just throwing out a scenario where this could be possible, given the history of your country's approach to war, and the nut job you have living in the White House...

Here's another take on it...
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: How interesting....

LockJaw said:
Oh so the money provided in the Dawes plan was really a secret American plan to fund Hitlers invasion of the World. Staballization of the German currency was just a front.

The Dawes Plan for reparation payment would have kept Germany as a third world country for at least 60 years. Added to that, the US would have controlled all German banking...so in your opinion, bankrupting a country, and stealing their sovereignty is a noble act?

Not to worry though, American investors were soon to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution...

Walll Street Paves the Way for Hitler
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: How interesting....

Vanni: I read all three of Lackjaw's (not a typo) posts. If he was slightly more competent he might manage to rise to the level of troll. Likely not though.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: How interesting....

You know Vanni, I agree there is a nut job in the White House, I don't like him, never have, never will. I feel he is one of those Christians with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

I don't know what goes on in the White House and what military strategists say about plans invading Canada.

I do know this however, I more often than not encounter people [Americans] on forums having something nice to say about Canadians and Canada.

I know that when I travel throughout the US, NOBODY has ever told me why I include Canadian students within our program guidelines (you can reference my website for more info)

I do know that Americans were dissapointed with Canada on Iraq (and this is pretty strange really, because you did offer support, but thats another topic) not because you didnt help us, but because most Americans feel Canadians are their brothers and sisters.

It is so preposterous to me that any Canadian lives in fear of the sleeping elephant, that I am constantly confounded everytime this issue comes up, whether I see it in person when traveling throughout Canada or online.

I can tell you this, if you people have so much fear, you should all march into Ottawa and demand you increase your military spending. Why don't you do that? If you feel we are waiting for an excuse. What is holding you back? Why don't you all unite in the name of fear and do it?

Because deep down you know it isn't true, so you can all sit and say whatever you like, the United States will never attack Canada. We may have differences and we may argue and disagree. But we always do that peacefully. Despite popular brainwashing the US never attacked Canadians in the war 1812, we attacked the Brits and they started it. And yes to us there was a big difference between Canadians and Brits back then and our history books are a testament to that.

And for those of you that will quote neo-con agendas, I'll remind you there is alot less of them than there are of us.

There are idiots in my country as much as in yours, there are mis-conceptions in my country about Canada as much as there is in yours about the US, there are differences in perceptions and so what? For hundreds of years we have been at peace, thats what matters. For hundreds of years there has been an exchange of culture, of people, of attitudes, of trade, thats what matters. For hundreds of years there has been compassion when the going gets tough, thats what matters. For hundreds of years we both have strived to better our standards of living, thats what matters. For hundreds of years we have each vacationed and laughed and marveled in each others country, thats what matters.

And if none of this matters to any of you who believe the US will eventually invade Canada, well then take a pill and wake up in the morning fearing you'll see American soldiers roaming around in your streets. I personally sleep well knowing that a Canadian is in charge of NORAD (including September 11th) half of the time.