VIPS to Trump: Intel on Iran Could be CATASTROPHIC

Doenitz might have planned for that but the Anglo-German Naval Treaty didn’t allow it. Pull out of the treaty or violate it and the British know that a German submarine fleet only has one objective.

The u-boat fleet never “ruled” the Atlantic. They never even came remotely close to starving the British.

 

Most of us in the GOP feel that responsibility

So your hateful sneer towards me was not called for

Unfortunately burying your head in the sand combined with invectives will not make international threats go away

The best solution is for all the pacifists of the world to ostricize iran and north korea along with enablers like russia and china

Economic pressure applied over time can avoid war

But too many trump haters are unwilling to do that

 

You have serious shortcomings in your reading skills

The germans did npt have enough u boats to rule the atlanic in 1940 because they did not have the 300 subs needed

But probably woulve if they had waited a few more years

 

At least if you'd said 'nobody I can think of specifically' or 'I read it somewhere on the internet' it would have a ring of truth to it. Nothing I've ever seen you write screams 'most knowledgeable historians', but I could be wrong. 'Most knowledgeable historians' write stuff down, so a few in context quotes should be easy for you to come by. More recent works are preferable, taking into account new research.

BTW, with an extra 5 years the Red Army would have fully reorganised its armoured forces, armed them with T34s & better and probably had some practice grinding the Kwangtung Army to dust. Britain & France would have fully re-armed & modernised their forces too. Oh, and the Manhattan project would be much farther advanced, as would Allied jet fighter programs. So, no guarantee of those quick, relatively easy victories of 1939-41 and three very big opponents way, way better armed. Then there was the state of German finances. Five years without war means no opportunity to loot most of Western Europe to pay for the war.

Looking forward to those references from 'most knowledgeable historians'.

 

I don't recall making a "hateful sneer" toward you but if so, I apologize.

I do get angry at Americans who put Israeli interests over those of the US and it it is in America's best interests to have good relations with Iran.
Engendering anti Iranian sentiment in the US is & has been an obsession for America's infestation of war mongering & disloyal "Israel Firsters", Israeli lobbies & pro Israel MSM(1).

There is absolutely no reason for the US to have strained relations with Iran as Iranian President has repeatedly reached out to the US(2) only to have his overtures rejected because cowardly US politicians fear the wrath of influential, Right Wing Israeli lobbies.
Iran even offered to help with the catastrophic oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico(3) only to be rejected for the same reasons.

I was pleasantly surprised that Trump offered to meet with Rouhani however I am not optimistic given the degree of control that Netanyahu & his US agents have over Trump & America's AIPAC dominated policy makers(4)


(1) “U.S. media coverage reveals a pro-Israel bias”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/09/01/commentary/world-commentary/u-s-media-coverage-reveals-a-pro-israel-bias/#.WMLm5mafK_U

EXCERPT “Why does TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?” asked Chris McGreal of The Guardian on July 31, in his article on the “notoriously pro-Israel mainstream media in the U.S.”

In fact, three main dailies here from mid-July to mid-August easily gave the impression that U.S. President Barack Obama, not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was prosecuting a war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The U.S. State Department continues to list the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) as a terrorist organization.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal dispelled any doubt about which side it was on. On Aug. 2-3, its Review section gave a two-page spread — “In Defense of Zionism” — against an oversize photo of a flag-raising ceremony in Israel, in 1948.”CONTINUED



(2) "Iran's President Rouhani Won't Stop Reaching Out to the American People"
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ont-stop-reaching-out-american-people/310856/


(3) "Iran renews offer to help on US oil spill"

EXCERPT "The National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has renewed its offer to assist the US in reining in an ecologically disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mehran Alinejad, the head of special drilling operations at NIDC, pointed to the experience gained by Iranian experts in containing huge oil leaks during the eight-year Iraqi-imposed war in the 1980s, and said, "Iranian technical teams have had major achievements in oil well capping and the Gulf of Mexico oil rig is not a great feat in comparison."
"There is, at any rate, an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and its negative consequences will affect everyone. That is why if we receive a suitable response from relevant [American] officials we can examine the issue and contribute to its resolution," Alinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying." CONTINUED


(4) "How Netanyahu Pulls Trump’s Strings"
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/15/how-netanyahu-pulls-trumps-strings/

EXCERPTS "Since Sept. 18, when the two men met in New York around the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu has been pulling Trump’s strings on almost every foreign policy issue.

Trump further showed that he is following Netanyahu’s marching orders with the extremist speech about Iran on Friday, essentially repeating all the Israeli propaganda lines against Iran and burning whatever bridges remained toward a meaningful diplomatic approach.

Although dressing up his capitulation to Netanyahu in tough-guy phrasing, Trump is doing what most U.S. politicians do – they grovel before Bibi Netanyahu.

And, if you have any doubts about that reality, you can watch how often both Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet when Netanyahu addresses a joint session of Congress, an honor that he has received three times, tying him with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Those moments of American humiliation – as almost all 535 members of Congress act like puppets on invisible strings – represent the actual subservience of the U.S. government to a foreign power. And that power is not Russia."CONTINUED

 

Iran is not nazi germany. I dunno why some keep comparing the two. It just isn't an honest comparison. Of course if you want to invade and attack Iran, this will be pulled out to justify breaking international law again. But it fails if truth has any relevance.

Iran is not a threat to the US. If they ever actually become a threat, a genuine threat, then you treat them as a threat at that time.

 

Most historians do not ingage in What-ifs of that magnitude

All we can say for sure is what actually happened

And sometimes libs and conservatives dont even agree on that

If you think I’m wrong its n9 skin off my nose

 

Apparently you have a habgup over Israel that I dont have

Iran is a threat to everyone including Israel

 

The German would have never gotten the 300 subs needed because attempting to do so would have violated the Anglo-German Naval Treaty and brought war with Britain before they could.

And the very least, the British would have mass produced maritime patrol aircraft and subhunting ships.

 

Didnt the Bismarck violate the treaty?

Of course it did along with the german air force

 

My first loyalty is to the US & the best interests of Americans in and out of uniform. Those interests are not served by fighting wars for RIGHT WING Israeli Regional Hegemony.

I'm not anti Israel & have tried to make clear my opposition is toward Israel's RIGHT WING element whose treacherous, near omnipotent lobbies have cost America so much in blood & resources.

There are numerous brave & ethical peace seeking Israelis who have been undermined by the same AIPAC extracted American government unconditional support of ANY Right Wing Israeli war crime, act of aggression, ethnic cleansing & land theft.

That same unconditional support of Right Wing Israeli machinations is neither in America's best interests nor Israel's long term best interests.

The Hasbara mantra that Iran is "the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism" is simply more dishonest Zionist propaganda eagerly parroted by pro Israeli MSM & believed only by poorly informed, naive and/or gullible individuals.

The fact remains that Iran has attacked no one in 300 years just as the deliberate mistranslation about Iran wanting to "wipe Israel from the face of the earth" was proven to be another Zionist perpetrated lie(1) intended to demonize Iran for those dupable enough to believe it.

In spite of the US - UK deposition of Iran's democratically elected Mossedegh in the 1950s & US support of anti Iranian MEK terrorists, Iran poses absolutely no threat to the US or the nuclear armed Israelis. Iran is only guilty of supporting groups fighting the US & Israeli supported ISIS / Syrian rebels who worked to depose Assad.

The greatest regional danger today is another AIPAC / Right wing Israeli orchestrated "False Flag" incident involving the U.S.



(1) "Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’"
https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2...r-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=0

 

The Treaty of Versailles =/= the Anglo German Naval Treaty.

And no, the Bizmark did NOT violate it.

 

Of course it did

Just as the wxpansion of the german army and air forced was a violation

 

The 'magnitude' here is identical to the 'magnitude' of claiming Germany would have won a war that started 5 or 6 years later. In fact, the only way to make the speculation you claim 'most knowledgeable historians' have engaged in is to imagine a scenario much, much ,bigger than my little paragraph.

Come on, you can just admit that you made this all up.

My issue isn't just the making stuff up bit, it is that you are using a fantasy to justify an attitude to a current, real world situation. That is a dangerous path to walk down.

 

I dont think most historians have a firm position on how the war would have gone if it had been postponed 5 years

But those who do think about it know that time was on germanys side

But your CliffNotes may not have included speculation about that

 

Still waiting for some references. Names of historians. Quotes. Page numbers. Things like that. Should be easy enough. Otherwise it is just you making stuff up. BTW, what happened to 'most knowledgeable historians' supporting your claim? Do they no longer have an opinion? Are they no longer knowledgeable? Did they all change their minds in the past few days, or did you try to support your assertion with a complete fabrication?

My money is on complete fabrication.

Not familiar with CliffNotes? Are they something you used to get your degree in history? I don't recall using them when I was studying for my PhD in history. I also don't recall using them when gave lectures to history students. We used books, articles & primary sources. One of those things you get taught to do pretty much from the first class. Just curious, where did you get your history degree? Who were your lecturers? Did they tell you to use CliffNotes?

 

I am not going to engage in historical trench warfare with you over speculation and opinion

Hitler inquestionably started the war too sone and made too many mistakes after the war began

If you disagree that is your privilage

 

You got caught out making stuff up and every attempt to defend yourself has just dug the hole deeper. SO much easier just to admit you were BSing, but you've lied, gone back on the lie, changed your story, distracted, and then tried to act like I'm the ill informed one.

It is actually kinda funny. It is also informative about the way you form opinions.

 

All soldiers know the stakes even if they don't understand the mission, it's a fact we do live good lives in spite of your rants.

 

Prior to 9/11 Blair was talking about the need for the UK to enlist a different kind of soldier as the type of work they would most likely be doing would be peace keeping. That does not mean that the people who sign up as soldiers in Western countries do so because they are desperate to risk their lives and have a desire to kill. Generally most soldiers come from those from a lower economic background, unable to get good school qualifications trying to find some way out of a dark future they or frequently their parents see. After we invaded Iraq many were trying to leave. They said there parents had changed their minds about wanting them to be part of the military now they realised they could die....Now fighting for your own country is one thing....but for another country when this is not even out in the open is quite something else.

I understand US soldiers who fought in the ME wars are suffering a high level of PTSD and I think there has been a very high level of suicides as well. War is something which should never be engaged in unless there is no other possibility and it is needed for defence when all other options have been tried. Grau was talking about the affect on American's. You are talking about how it feels to Israelis.

 

This is not a game of Gotcha with me

You are free to disagree that hitler started the war too soon

But just because the thought never occured to you does not mean no one thought of it including historians

 

This isn't about 'gotcha', it is about someone making things up and refusing to admit error. That speaks to character & credibility. You have made a succession of claims about the opinions of historians, some contradictory, and none supported by a single source or a single fact. That is 100% about the credibility of what you post & your willingness to say anything to avoid admitting error.

Based on your posts I'm pretty sure I've written more credible history than you have read.

 

I didnt make anything up

Do you really think no one has considered the timing of the war as a factor in the outcome?

 

Of course Israelis live the "good life" cleverly enabled by extorting $ Trillions(1) from professionally deceived American taxpayers.
Former members of Israel's Occupation Enforcement Guard (aka "IDF") enjoy better benefits than the American G.I.s who guarantee their safety by ensuring Israel's Regional Hegemony (2)

I doubt that you know, fought beside & have spent as much time with American soldiers as I have.
While American G.I.s have knowingly & willingly been willing to sacrifice life & limb for their own country, none expected to make the ultimate sacrifice for ambitions of a grasping, parasitic & war mongering foreign regime(2)


(1) “The Real Cost of US Support for Israel: $3 Trillion”

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.palestine/2005-08/msg00005.html

EXCERPT “While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3

billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government,

this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of

dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the

surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S.

support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3

trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars. “CONTINUED


(2) “QUIETLY LOBBYING CONGRESS TO APPROVE THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ WAS ONE OF AIPAC’S SUCCESSES OVER THE PAST YEAR.”

AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr; N.Y. Sun, Jan. 2003

 

You write way too much BS on military actions and decision making for you to have been a soldier and I'm sure that if you ever met and spoke a GI he would probably strangle you rather than hug you, I never served with Americans but I know what is it like to a soldier and how important it is to protect your friends, I also know what it means, you only post **** about that.