Also what most people don't know especially those that are racist was he's part Jew but do to the fact back in WW2 he was literally the most powerful figure all records were sealed away

Are you are assuming that the internet is accessible and unfiltered? There are many people in this world without access to technologically advanced forms of communications, and still more where that access is highly filtered and/or distorted. Of course, the internet can provide enlightenment; but it can just as easily be the source of brainwashing.

FYI Unknown, Hilter's Jewish heritage is taught in most American schools. It is far from being undisclosed information since at least the 1950s.

POWER corrupts.

Are you are assuming that the internet is accessible and unfiltered? There are many people in this world without access to technologically advanced forms of communications, and still more where that access is highly filtered and/or distorted. Of course, the internet can provide enlightenment; but it can just as easily be the source of brainwashing.



Yes I realise that-- I am aware that not everyone has access to the net, but there is a lot out there already.

I am unsure if china is still blocking the net from their own people.


I guess when Japan was isolated for a long time that there was an opportunity to keep secret and closed. If a japanese was not allowed to leave the country or any stranger enter-- it would of course isolate them from what is going on out side.

When I grew up during the war here in UK I only heard what was allowed to be broadcast. I was pretty ignorant about what was going on out there apart from the war. I certainly was ignorant about the Pacific war. Ignorant about many things as our history lessons were more about our Kings and Queens than real every day life.

It is harder to hide things nowadays and of course plenty of opportunity to manipulate.

Its too bad people in Germany did not know this prior to voteing for him or else things would have been different.Then again he had the SS and numerous other organizations backing him up

Germany was the main target, always was. FDR's main purpose was to free Europe from Hitler. We fought a holding war against Japan for 2 years because Germany came first.

Brass tacks here, nobody cares about alliances and who signed what treaty, each nation will do what it sees in it's best interest first and formost, allways. FDR was an opurtunist and worked it to the best advantage possible. By war's end he had manouvered the US into the only world power.

I don't care about supposed conspiracies , nor am I condemning the guy here, he did great to do that, massive kudos are due. I may not have done it the same way he did, but I certainly would have tried to ensure American dominance by the end. Just like Stalin was trying to do for Russia and Mao was doing for China and Chruchill was doing for Britain and all the rest of the national leaders were doing for thier respective countries.

again sorta not
 

wrong again dude? At the end of WW2 1939-1945 the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two most powerful military forces on the planet. Both would be l8tr described as 'super powers'. goggle (Cold War 1945-1989' )

Russia was decimated, 20 million dead, and those are the ones Stalin didn't kill, most of their territory was in ruins, not to mention half their equipment was built from steel and raw resources we gave them. Plus they didn't develope a nuke until 1949, that nuclear ability is what gave them "world power" status, aside from that they were barely above poverty level. So no, they weren't in the same league as the US at the end of WW2, reguardless of what they like to claim.

again sorta not
 

At the end of WW2 the United States and Soviet Union were the two most powerful military forces on the planet. period.

The Soviet Union prior to outbreak of hostilities and invasion by Germany as early as 1939' through 1941' had moved it's industrial base especially it's oil refining and heavy industry such as steel production out of reach of the Germans, untouched and functioning during after WW2.

The Soviet Union did not get majority of raw materials from the United States and had plenty of resources , oil, natural gas, steel and especially strategic metals such as titanium . Roughly 90% of the worlds titanium resources are located in the Soviet Union. Especially useful for high tech aircraft construction.

The Soviet Union after VE-Day WW2 included all the satellite states of eastern europe including 1/2 Germany all of Berlin, etc. including all the industrial resources of same countrys. Also known as the ( Warsaw Pact ).
Further sources of uranium used for early Soviet Union nuclear bomb program - were located in mines in East Germany

Most importantly it had a standing army on the doorstep of western europe.

The United States although temporarily ahead in nuclear technology on paper, it's entire nuclear arsenal had been totally used up in WW2 against Japan - a total of 2 nuclear bombs had been expended.
( not counting the test device used at Los Alamos, New Mexico.)

The first in Europe Soviet nuclear reactor F-1 (nuclear chain reaction was initiated on December 25, 1946) . And the first Soviet bomb was detonated in 1949'.

The United States and the Soviet Union after WW2 would face off against each other for several decades in a epic struggle known as the 'Cold War'.

That's were the Kriegsmarine comes into effect.Hitler had U-Boats doing recon all around the US and is the reason Allied commanders had to rethink routes when traveling in certain water(s)

Russia's vast resources are predominately in Siberia and at the time difficult for them to gain access too. They had a huge army true enough and massive numbers of field artillery. However the US had superior air power and that is what controles wars these days.

They never should have gotten the "east block" nations to begin with, that was a tactical error on the US part. Though that was one of the motivateing factors to us the Abomb in Japan. Russia tended to not give anything back and we didn't want a split Japan like Germany was.

Wether the "cold war" came about as a series of tactical blunders or by political design who knows. I think Chruchill was behind some of the "containment" policy implamented. I suspect the countries involved were war weary by then and just didn't want to do anything, thus 50 years of proxy wars ensued.

again sorta not
 

...,maybe you should tell the Taliban , Al Qaeda and assorted insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq about the United States superior airpower?
Since Oct 7 2001' US Operation Enduring Freedom the war grinds into it's ninth (9) year in Afghanistan with no end in sight .
Iraq since 2003' Operation Iraqi Freedom none of the goals outlined by US has ever been reached .

Because politicians won't let the military use what it has in it's arsenal. They are too Mamby Pamby about it. Those "insurgents" wouldn't be alive now if we were allowed to really go after them, and we dont need nukes to do it either. I'm ex military, my brother serves currently, we have conventional weapons that would make thier blood turn cold if they knew we got the go ahead to deploy them.

The US should go back to doing what we did early in Afganistan, what drove the Taliban out in a few months. If they hid in a mountain cave, we just collapsed the top of the mountain onto them. If they hid in a hospital... we blew it up, if they hid in a school... we blew it up, if they hid in a mosque... we blew it up. We used fuel air bombs that not only destroyed bunkers, it sucked the oxygen out of an entire area. That's why Osama's own son left him early in the fight, cause he was sure the US was out to kill them all.

We have the weapons, and equipment, we know the tactics that work. It's Washington that stoped it, it's like the left hand is afraid of what the right hand is doing. Washington is so concerned about civilian casualties, befriending the "Afganistani's and "training them" to take care of themselves... blah blah blah, that it's gumming up the whole operation.



I think that is wasted effort, and pulls resources away from killing jihadi's, wich is the orginal mission to begin with. We got overly sidetracked with things that ultimately won't help anybody, in some vain atempt to make us look like the good guy.

Honestly, we aren't there to be the good guy, we are there to be the strong guy that kills jihadi's, so they cease to exist as a viable threat.This isn't a love fest, it's a war, and war's are ugly.

again sorta not
 

congratulations! Both Afghanistan, Iraq conflicts to date have cost more than all of what the United States spent to win WW2 ( USD adjusted for todays inflation rate).
The arguement for the 'politicians interfering' with the conduct of these wars is just plain untrue. No bill put forward by the 2 Bush administrations to pay for these wars since 2001' through todays administration of Obama have ever been denied. period.
Money talks and BS' walks.

If 9/11 hadn't happened and the war on terrorism begun-- would america or Britain have joined in.

We should not have gone in except for the pack of lies we had to swallow.

ALso david Kelly's supposed suicide?

I still don't know why we are in Afghanistan.

governments are happy to send troops in to these places-- great loss of life both sides-- WHy are we there?

In world war 2, dureing the break out of Normandy we took 90,000 casualties in 2 months. Casualties in Afganistan are no where near what they were then.

Hell, dureing the Civil war we lost 2,000 men a day for weeks dureing the wilderness campaign. So lets be real about "casualties". They aren't that bad.

I understand that loved ones are dieing here, they need to be honored and their family cared for with the highest reguard, but they volunteered for this, they knew what they were getting into, same as I did when I served.

Spending bills have nothing to do with operational procedure, Washington sets the rules of engagement and that is what is screwing things up now. Most of the cost over runs are becuse of the lame atempt at "nation building" wich is irrelavent. 90% of Afgans were ignorant uneducated mountain folk when we got there and 85% of them will be that way when we leave, it's a complete waste of time to try to "democratize" them. We never should have gotten involved in nation building, we should just be destroying Taliban and Jihadi's.

Iraq, that was kinda a lame thing too. I actually agree it was probably a wasted move tactically speaking. I mean, if it was for oil, how come we didn't get any?. Kinda dumb there.

Unless there's a larger "grand statagy" involved in all of this and Jihadi's, Taliban , Iraq are all just the excuse. I personally suspect we are trying to establish bases in that region of the world for future reference when the oil shortages hit and China and Russia become restless.

If you think about it, the countries we are in are between those countries and the oil fields in Saudia Arabia. We also surround Iran, so we have a sort of "containment" action going on there as well. War's aren't fought willy nilly, they have goals involved. Sometimes long term agenda's...you just have to look for them.

Still, what's with the nation building aspect if we are trying to build a defensive grid for future operations? There's alot more in play here than any of us really know.

again sorta not
 

There is no interference or planning going on in Washington about how the rules of engagement are executed on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Where you invented this is anybodys guess?

You give no sources or evidence that would support your claim? The CIC in Afghanistan on the ground or the CIC - The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) General David Petraeus has never complained of interference and was CIC since 2008' until stepping down to replace General Stanley McChrystal, as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (which is made up of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan).

USCENTCOM sends it's plans back to Washington for approval because thats how a chain of command in United States Armed forces work. Gen. Petraeus reports to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) who advise the civilian government of the United States.

All rules of engagement are done by civilians in Washington, it's how it is, always has been. That's kinda why the president is "commander in chief," he set's combat operation policy. The Bomb's that were droped on Japan were droped By Truman's order, not some generals. It's the same thing here, the president tell's the army how he wants the war carried out and they try to find a way to achieve that.

General Petraeus has allready re organized the combat operations and use of force to a dagree, within the limited parameter's as set by the current administration, wich severally limit's what can and can't be done. It's why McCrystal complained and ended up getting fired. Wether Patreaus can win this with one hand tied behind his back, blindfolded and hopping on one foot, because that's how the civilian in charge want's him to do it, remains to be seen.

You fight battles to win, sometimes you have to get dirty to do that. If you don't allow the troops to get dirty, they won't win. I understand the knight in shineing armor comeing in to save the day, but knights who actually fight, won't have shiny armor.

sorta wrong again
 

wrong again dude? The president does not formulate operations or construct any 'rules of engagement' in Afghanistan or anyplace except your fantasy.

The Rules of Engagement are always set by the field commander, not the politicians. In Vietnam it was Westmoreland, and not Presidents Johnson or Nixon thousands of miles away giving commands.

President Bush turned the operation in Afghanistan over to the UN and NATO Dec 2001.The United States in Afghanistan is part of this UN mission.l

The United States is bound by "rules of war" as set down by the Hague and Geneva Convention which clearly rule out your fantasy of ' kill them all and let god sort them out."

As the US Military must obey the four Legal Authorities over the US Military:

a) UN Conventional Rules of Warfare (1907 Hague Convention (fighting like WWI) and 1949 Geneva Convention (fighting like WWII with frontal assaults and uniforms).

b) Local Laws (Koran (Quran), Hadith, Fiqh, Sharia, and Afghan Tribal Laws).

c) US Civil Laws

d) UCMJ

UCMJ is for military personal, reguaring military discipline amoung the ranks. Military rules of engagment for combat operations however, are designated by the commander in chief or congress. Generals recieve thier orders and carry them out as best they can. Our military is controled by civilians, that's one of the biggest things that sets us apart from most other nations.

I know several Vietnam vets, they were severely limited in half the engagements because of stupid rules, one of them personally lost 7 men because the enemy retreated into a monestary and he couldn't get artillery support because it was "against the rules". Lucky for him a barrage from the Iron Horse brigade's 8 inch guns cleared out the viet cong and saved his unit...because the South Korean's didn't have the same "rules of engagement" that we did.

That's the one draw back of our system, civilians many times, specially ones with limited or no military experiance themselves, try legislateing combat rules they think are "morally justified" for the war. I can understand thier truely trying to be the good guy in these, but more often than not they just create a mass of red tape that gets troops needlessly dead. That's where we have the problems, trying to obey shira law and following local law is due to civilian orders, and it's getting our troops killed.

Us civil law doesn't apply to the battlefield, enemy troops don't get miranda rights or constitutional rights. It's the UCMJ that's applied in those situations, it why troops accused of murder and the like are tried by military tribunal, not a civilian court. In fact, according to Geneva rules non uniformed combatants can be shot in the field as spies and sabatours. Jihadi's don't have national uniforms nor claim any national lag . So legally we don't have to take prisoners at all.

sorta not again
 

wrong again dude.
Rules of engagement always originate from the commander in the field.

The president or the congress does not issue orders or rules of engagement to the field commander on how he conducts combat operations?

And again - President Bush turned the US operation in Afghanistan over to the UN and NATO way back in Dec 2001.

Do you have sources?

Please provide any source from Gen. Petraeus complaining about the source or any rules of engagement?
He was in charge of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) from September 16, 2008, to June 30, 2010,


below is an example of two (2) sources.

(RTTNews) 8/4/2010 11:15 AM ET
Gen. Petraeus Calls For Extreme Caution To Minimize Afghan Civilian Casualties
The top U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan has issued new guidelines to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) emphasizing priority to minimize civilian casualties in its mission to wipe out Taliban insurgents.
Gen. David Petraeus issued a strict order on Wednesday in line with a change in tactics introduced by his predecessor Gen. Stanley McChrystall last year, as civilian deaths during ISAF operations targeting militants created "more enemies" than friends.

Oregon Live
Published: Friday, May 14, 2010
David Sirota writes for Creators Syndicate

Though we don't like to call it mass murder, the U.S. government's undeclared drone war in Pakistan is devolving into just that. As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.

"Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders," David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. "But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed."
Former Gen. Stanley McChrystal has, indeed, told journalists that in Afghanistan, U.S. troops have "shot an amazing number of people" and "none has proven to have been a real threat.

I'm not wrong, general Patreaus or any other general establishes rules of engagment from orders he recives from the civilian commander in chief. I'm ex military, it was drilled into us from the start who was really in controle of all combat procedures we were to adhear to via chain of command and the command chain stops at the president of the US..a civilian. Anything rules wise is done after the commander in chief has given the go ahead for those specific rules.

Techically, US troops are never suppose to fall under UN command/Nato command/ or any other foreign command, the only reason they are is because the president okayed it. ( wich constitutionally, he is not supposed to do) has something to do with not haveing to serve under another King, goes back to the revolution.



.

again sorta not
 

wrong again dude?
your sources?

The US military in Afghanistan does not wait for orders issued from the White House thousands of miles away on how to carry out it's combat operations on the ground. Gen. Petraeus has never complained about the rules of engagement or his predessor Gen. Stanley McCrystal.

You have no sources except your reminders of your military experience? Are you comparing your experience to Gen.Petraeus or Gen. McCrystal ?

How would the President or Congress construct or issue a order to Gen. Petraeus in Afghanistan about combat operations without looking like complete idiots?

Please enlighten us on how the President or Congress would micro manage a counter insurgency on the other side of the planet?

What type of military background does the President have? Congress?
As commander and chief of the armed forces would 'nt it make more sense to delegate command to those commanders who serve in the armed forces and trust in their training and military experience to make decisions since they are actually in Afghanistan?
Or co*kblock and handcuff the field commander in Afghanistan with your silly fantasy
about commanding troops in the field in combat from thousands of miles away?

Counterinsurgency
FM 3-24 (2006)
a U.S. Army and U.S. Marines Manual by Lt. General David Petraeus and Lt. General James F Amos

This is the new U.S. military counterinsurgency (COIN) manual on how to combat organized movements that seek to overthrow governments through subversion and armed conflict. Coauthored by Army General David Petraeus and Marine Corps General James Amos.

The source is the US CONSTITUTION. Every aspect of the chain of command and rules of engagement that Petreaus or anyone else uses to operate in the field, had to be run by president Obama FIRST. If he didn't sign off on the way the rules were written, they would have to redo them.

Obama himself said he was going sit down and discuss stratagy concerning how the war in Afganistan was going to be carried out Under his Command, right when he took office. What do you think that was? He basically told them what he wanted done, the results he expected and how he exspected them to be carried out. The generals then presented him the operational procedures they would utilize to carry out his orders.

I understand the field manual for counter insurgency, as long as it adhears to the policy set forth by Obama it's fine, anything within it that runs counter to that policy has to be rewritten or taken out. Believe me, much that was in the rules of engagment when Bush was president has had to be changed since Obama took office cause he views things differently than Bush did.

We aren't fighting the war now the same way we were just 3 years ago. New president, new policy.

sorta really wrong
 

wrong again dude.

sources?

The US Consitution has nothing to do with a military chain of command or a counter insurgency.
The President does not have any military experience or the Congress. What type of assessment or order would they make with or without a consitution under your silly fantasy?

Dude you have no sources and the only source besides your 'vast military experience' - you throw out the US Consitution in a lame attempt to explain your silly fantasy of how to co*kblock and handcuff the commander in the field thousands of miles away ?

New President same old policy dude- the only thing new is the level of 'epic fail'.
below is an example of a sources.

Originally Published: 8/10/2010
Morton Kondracke: Obama's Afghanistan policy following Bush's Iraq policy
President Barack Obama is an unremitting critic of President George W. Bush, but in Afghanistan, Obama has begun walking in Bush's shoes.

Strategy in Afghanistan is unraveling
Albert R. Hunt, Bloomberg News
August 10, 2010

Washington — When Gordon Goldstein sees Afghanistan as “déjá vu,” a mission that’s “unraveling,” it isn’t the ramblings of another armchair critic.
Goldstein argues it’s clear the counterinsurgency and population-protection policy, as set out in General Stanley McChrystal’s manifesto last summer, is failing.


Counter Punch
More of the Same, Packaged as Change
Barack Obama and Afghanistan
By MARC HEROLD August 6, 2008

And how will this victory over radical Islam be accomplished? Obama’s recipe for success involves:

Sending 2-3 combat brigades (each of 3-5,000 troops) to Afghanistan;
Pressure NATO allies to follow suit;
More use of drones, aircraft, etc. ;
Training Afghan “security” forces;
Supporting an Afghan judiciary;
Proposing an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year with safeguards to see no corruption and resources flowing to areas other than Kabul;
Invest in alternative livelihoods to poppies;
Pressure Pakistan to carry the fight into its tribal areas and reward it for so doing with military and non-military aid;
Should Pakistan fail to act in the tribal areas, the United States under Obama would act unilaterally;

New? Change? President George W. Bush and candidate McCain have long signed on to exactly these policies. Certainly both would also see Afghanistan primarily through the lens of “making America safer.” George Bush Sr. did just that during 1988-1990 when America was presumed safer once the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Then, he cut and ran.


Dutch 1st NATO Member to Quit Afghanistan
By AP / ROBERT H. REID Sunday, Aug. 01, 2010

(KABUL, Afghanistan) — The Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, drawing the curtain on a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home and even brought down a Dutch government.


Try again.

Your not understanding what I'm saying. While you are correct in reguards to leeway ground commanders have in battlefield operations. The playing field is set by the president's policy. Yes, they are mostly following Bush's, but there have been changes. The president establishes the playing field's bounderies. The military establishes the rules of engagement with in that playing field. The president is commander in chief that the military has to obey, experianced or not.

Over all policy is set by the civilians. Iraq became a nightmare after 2003 because the civilian Bremmer, ordered the Iraqi army disbanded, the military had to carry out it's orders. Thus years of constant struggle ensued from the 2million now unemployed, armed, ex soldiers.

Afganistan is becomeing a qwagmire because we are not approaching it correctly. It's not Iraq and never will be, a working government is a pipe dream in this area. Too many tribes with too many differences historically. So policy is what is the problem, and that can only be changed by the civilians in Washington. The military does not have the authority to alter current state department policy. They may change statagies in reguards to how to implament policy but that's it.

sorta wrong again
 

wrong again dude.

The policy in Afghanistan has not changed. Obama is a new face on a old policy.

Counter Punch
More of the Same, Packaged as Change
Barack Obama and Afghanistan
By MARC HEROLD August 6, 2008

New? Change? President George W. Bush and candidate McCain have long signed on to exactly these policies. Certainly both would also see Afghanistan primarily through the lens of “making America safer.” George Bush Sr. did just that during 1988-1990 when America was presumed safer once the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Then, he cut and ran.

January 28, 2010
The Latest March of Folly
Obama Put Politics First on Afghanistan
By RAY McGOVERN

Nothing highlights President Obama’s abject surrender to Gen. David Petraeus on the “way forward” in Afghanistan than two cables U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent to Washington on Nov. 6 and 9, 2009, the texts of which were released Tuesday by the New York Times.

Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired Army Lt. General who served three years in Afghanistan over the course of two separate tours of duty, was responsible during 2002-2003 for rebuilding Afghan security forces. He then served 18 months (2005-2007) as commander of all U.S. forces stationed in Afghanistan.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.


The last time the United States Congress ( civilians ) actually declared a war was in WW2 -Dec 7, 1941'. Since then the national security state has become permanently ascendant. The United States has engaged in numerous wars and interventions , unilaterally without any consideration or a hic up over Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, which - vests in the Congress the 'exclusive power to declare war'.


- source for Obama policy in Afghanistan?
- source for foriegn policy different from that of a 'national security state' ?