Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on July 13, 2006, 03:33:15 PM
-
Provacative read when put in this context.
Regards
Sun
America At War 7/11/2006
Armageddon Looms Large
Revised 07/11/06 - HL
The “War To End All Wars” concluded with the 1919 signing of the Treaty of Versailles. One of its provisions called for the establishment of a "League of Nations" to ensure that the First World War really WOULD be 'the war to end all wars'.
The League was set up by the victorious Allied powers under the terms of a document known as ‘The Covenant’. It outlined the League’s mission: “To promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security”
The League was the brainchild of US president Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. But the United States was never a member. The Senate refused to ratify membership; correctly concluding that membership would subordinate U-S sovereignty to the League.
In 1931, Imperial Japan invaded Manchuria and established a puppet republic called Manchukuo. When the League of Nations objected, Tokyo resigned its membership. The League of Nations blustered and fumed and sent many letters of protest, which Japan ignored until the organization tired of sending them.
Four years later, Benito Mussolini, noting the League's ineffective response to Japanese aggression, invaded Ethiopia. The League condemned Italy, sent many letters of protest, and threatened sanctions.
In 1936, Mussolini's forces occupied Addis Ababa and Ethiopia became part of Italy. Adolph Hitler watched this response carefully and took notes. This encouraged him to test the League’s resolve in 1936.
Hitler marched his storm troopers into the Rhineland to claim the Ruhr as German territory, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles. The French protested but did nothing. The League of Nations explained this action away as an understandable redress of excessive measures imposed on Germany after World War One. It did nothing.
Hitler’s stature grew with the German people. Even the German military officers were amazed that the League of Nations did nothing. Some industrial leaders who, for economic reasons backed Hitler because they thought they could control him, were dumbfounded.
Some were even disappointed that the Western nations did nothing. On March 11, 1938, Hitler annexed Austria into the Third Reich. When the Austrian Chancellor – forced to resign by Hitler – refused to name a Nazi as his successor, Hitler marched his troops into Vienna and took over without a shot being fired.
Again, the League of Nations took no effective action against this clear violation of the 1919 treaty of Saint Germain. It was an act of aggression that was not met with force.
Emboldened by his success at facing down the entire free world, Hitler persuaded British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to surrender a part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. He spoke of the need for German “Lebensraum”. This was a coined Nazi word for “living space” for the German people.
Representing the League of Nations, Chamberlain surrendered to this demand without even consulting the Czechoslovakian President. Now Hitler’s stature grew to mythical proportions. This enabled him to crush Czechoslovakia with a new kind of war known as “blitzkrieg” or lightning war. The Allies were unable to respond. There was no stopping Hitler after this.
On behalf of the League of Nations, Chamberlain issued guarantees of protection to Poland. Hitler, now confident that the League was a ‘toothless tiger,’ invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. World War Two had begun. Hitler’s audacity and boldness quieted every voice of reason in Germany.
And the enormous tragedy of it all is that it could probably have been prevented if the League of Nations had boldly stood against Hitler and backed him down at the beginning. World War Two concluded with the replacement of the League of Nations by the United Nations. The new organization’s purpose was to prevent, through international cooperation, another ‘war to end all wars.’
The historical parallels between the 1930’s and the 1990’s are unmistakable. Throughout the 1990’s, what President George W Bush aptly dubbed ‘the Axis of Evil’, took turns testing U-N resolve and noting the reaction of the global community. First, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and survived the U-N-led war to push his troops back across the Iraqi border.
His Axis counterparts watched as he defied the U-N’s repeated resolutions with impunity. By the way, when Saddam’s Iraq finally fell twelve years later, it was at the hands of a United States-led coalition AND it was over the vociferous objections of the United Nations that Saddam had so blatantly defied. After observing the U-N’s response to Iraqi aggression, Kim Jong-il pushed the envelope still further with the first North Korean nuclear standoff in 1994.
That resulted in the international community bribing Pyongyang not to develop nuclear weapons. President Clinton gave him all sorts of ‘goodies’ to get him to back off his nuke program. Like any good extortionist, Kim Jong-il took the bribe but ignored the terms.
He got away with it for eight years while the U-N blustered and threatened him with letters of diplomatic protest. He learned that he could get all kinds of rewards by rattling his missiles and then allowing the West to bribe him to stop.
Meanwhile, even more dangerous aggressors were taking note. Iran’s mad mullahs took careful notice of the United Nations response. Iran, the third member of the ‘Axis of Evil’, began testing the U-N in 1998 when its own nuclear program was uncovered. It has managed to hold the international community at bay by creating the diplomatic equivalent of a Mexican standoff, thanks to its fostering of Islamofacism and the threat of escalating the war.
Now, Iran is only a few months, if that, from nuclear capability. And once again, we have North Korean missile tests, carried out in open defiance of the United Nations. To add insult and intensify the provocation; the tests coincided with both our 4th of July and the launch of the space shuttle Discovery.
The Taepodong test was deemed a ‘failure’ by the U-S because the missile exploded only 40 seconds after launch and at an undetermined altitude. But it’s worth noting that a powerful nuclear weapon detonated 180 miles above the United States could generate an ElectroMagneticPulse that experts say would instantly plunge half the country into the technological 1890's.
North Korea is now preparing several more missiles for ‘test’ launch. The United Nations is in a tither. Diplomatic letters of protest are flying like confetti. Military and intelligence analysts warn darkly of all the important lessons learned by Pyongyang, even though the test itself was considered a failure.
Maybe it wasn’t Pyongyang that the July 4th missile tests were intended to educate. If the ‘Axis of Evil’ analogy holds true to its historical template, the lessons were really intended for the mad mullahs in Tehran. It’s now their turn to move. Even casual observation should teach us that only ‘the aggressors’ learn from history. ‘The appeasers’ NEVER learn.
But the stakes today are far more dangerous than ever before. Armageddon
looms large before us.
http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=13115
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
And once again, we have North Korean missile tests, carried out in open defiance of the United Nations.
What law(s) did NK break?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What law(s) did NK break?
Laws? North Korea? LOLOLOLOLLLll
you kill me Sandy!
Mac
-
laws? we don need no stinkn laws.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What law(s) did NK break?
I re-read that Sandy and for the life of me...I don't see the ward Law.
I think the word used was defiance.
-
It's funny. Around here it's always, "**** the U.N. We're the U.S. and we can do what we want." The moment some other country does likewise, people start predicting WWIII.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's funny. Around here it's always, "**** the U.N. We're the U.S. and we can do what we want." The moment some other country does likewise, people start predicting WWIII.
Sandy here's a question for ya...Just cause I like ya.
If the U.N. would DO and ENFORCE things that they say , do you think the world would be in the shape it is in now? Even take it back to it's inception.
IF they would have enforced the sanctions and IF the would have a serious effort in putting together a STRONG peace keeping force for certain things , would things be this out of control?
Just asking. No slamming just a question.
-
I doubt it. AFAICT, peace keeping forces and economic sanctions are rarely effective.
Really not my point. For the U.S. the U.N. is a cudgel of convenience. We hate 'em if they disagree and we wave their flag when it suits us.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I doubt it. AFAICT, peace keeping forces and economic sanctions are rarely effective.
Really not my point. For the U.S. the U.N. is a cudgel of convenience. We hate 'em if they disagree and we wave their flag when it suits us.
Ok...but don't you think every country does the same thing? Politics has become totally what have you done for me latley. We jump in bed with our enemy when we need to and shoot at em later. It's been that way since before you and I were born.
I just don't see where they do anything with any real backbone. Other than send mail back and forth and go on tv saying how they are dipleased with something.
I don't know...maybe I am missing something.
-
Hmmm... other than Gulf War I, when was the last time the U.N. had a good strong consensus on any position?
Unlike a country, the U.N. cannot behave in a unilateral manner. The U.N. has as much backbone as the member countries allow.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... other than Gulf War I, when was the last time the U.N. had a good strong consensus on any position?
Unlike a country, the U.N. cannot behave in a unilateral manner. The U.N. has as much backbone as the member countries allow.
Point 1.....exactly.
Point 2.....I think they can act in a unilateral manner if the member countries all get on the same page.
Which leads me to this...They won't therfore the U.N. becomes useless. Contries talk smack to one another over CNN just as easy as they do in the U.N. building.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... other than Gulf War I, when was the last time the U.N. had a good strong consensus on any position?
Unlike a country, the U.N. cannot behave in a unilateral manner. The U.N. has as much backbone as the member countries allow.
1950 Korea, and look how that turned out.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What law(s) did NK break?
None; the only laws North Korea is bound by are the laws of their own country. Just like us shooting down their missle, we broke no laws if we did shoot it down ( & I think we did, tee-hee )
the u.n. sucks, screw the u.n., if they had done the job the first time we went into korea for them, we wouldn't be in this mess now & china wouldn't have nearly the population they have today to fuel that massive military they have.
-
"If the ‘Axis of Evil’ analogy holds true to its historical template, the lessons were really intended for the mad mullahs in Tehran. It’s now their turn to move."
Hmm...looks like Tehran IS moving in their current sponsored war between Israel and Lebanon.
Regards
Sun
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What law(s) did NK break?
Well, incest for a start... just look at Kim Jong Il
-
The only unilateral thing I got from reading the "article" is that the U.N. is JUST AS useless as the League of Nations.
-
Yup.. as the first thing, UN should bring George W. Bush to Haag's war tribunal. That would make the world respect the UN.
-
The United States should withdraw from the UN. The UN should be summarily ejected from the United States and deposited somewhere in LaLaland, either the netherlands or belgium. the next step would be to knock out all of korea's infrastructure with conventional weapons. that could be accomplished with a single CG. but the first step would be to privately warn china that we would pull out of their economy if they even squeak a disagreement. if the chinese get huffy then there's always the three gorges dam that could be bombed.
-
I would be quite happy for the US to pull out of the UN no matter what the circumstance. There is no reason to be a part of that farce.
I am one of the ones who said **** the UN.... I see no reason to have changed my mind.
That being said... we can still deal with other countries, friendly and unfriendly. We don't need a bunch of cannibals on a human rights commitee to do it is all.
lazs
-
Yup yup.. all the while US has once again vetoed a UN resolution. Keep up the "good" work.
-
If we can't withdraw from the UN and send it to belgium or the some ice bear country then the best thing we can do is to veto any of it's socialist one world, weak resolutions.
I am not so much against the UN because they are weak an ineffective and wrong but against them because they meddle in social issues that are none of their business.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not so much against the UN because they are weak an ineffective and wrong but against them because they meddle in social issues that are none of their business.
lazs
My sentiments exactly.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Point 2.....I think they can act in a unilateral manner if the member countries all get on the same page.
If the member countries are on the same page than by definition the action would be multilateral.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not so much against the UN because they are weak an ineffective and wrong but against them because they meddle in social issues that are none of their business.
lazs
Hear hear, the UN should have kept only to it's orginal intent. The prevention of wars of agression.