Most of the time, this is the reason the US backs corrupt repressive regimes that follow orders. This document is from the State Department and Council on Foriegn Relations' War and Peace Studies Group. Just another example of their hatred of democracy in their "third world domains." And US puppet regimes enforce those restrictions on sovereignty.
No, I simply reject 90% of your posts, like the original one you posted. You do not come up with unbiased sources. You do not even look at what happened with an unbiased eye. I could take a report of a soccer match and twist it like you and your "sources", and make it look like a deathmatch. Your posts more or less fall under the area of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with.." Not a single one of your posts ever comes anywhere close to reality. They are all seriously flawed. And what you talk about that was done in the past by another nation altogether has absolutely nothing to do with the manual that is being discussed. Hey, at one time the general principle was to take anybody captured in a combat zone that was fighting or operating in civilian attire and shoot them as spies. We did it, the UK did it, everybody did it. So should it be brought up now? No, not at all. That is like your bringing up 30 year old junk and trying to make claims in regards to a 15 yyear old military manual. Different country, different situation, totally different in so many ways I can't even count them all. How about this. I dig up a manual for the proper repair and maintenance of a 5 ton truck, and let you explain to us all that it talks about the use of the truck in running over children?
Right above your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing post is a document written by the Council on Foriegn Relations and the US State Department. I responded many times to your garbage with articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press but you apparently reject that too. You were wrong and I proved you wrong. Your statements are false.
Im gonna ask you again, like I asked RoccoR. How do you defend this part of the manual? Please show everyone your democratic credentials.
And as Rocco said, that is typical during any time of martial law. And it clearly says "restriction of activity", not "hunting down and executing". Things like state emergencies are fully covered Constitutionally under Martial Law. And that is what is being talked about after all, a nation that is under strife. You bring up El Salvador over and over. But you seem to think it was a nation that was under peace, and these things just popped up from nowhere. It was undergoing a civil war, where the enemy did all of those things itself.
Oh Im not finished. Some more "biased sources" for ya Mushroom. Take it apart, piece by piece. Make a jerk out of me. The Agenda of the Doves
"Restriction of activity" is a pretty broad suggestion. And why single out labor unions and political groups? Why is "censorship" and "press control" necessary? Nah, there's no pattern here at all. And I can move on to other countries if you like. I just use the example of El Salvador cause more people know about it. And Rocco didnt answer my question regarding this part of the manual for some reason.
Hey Horhey, That sounds very familiar and similar to the FMs used for the Contras and Muhjahadin in the 1980s. If people only knew exactly what the federal government of the US of AIPAC has committed all around the planet, their tunes would change. Here is a link: http://webspace.webring.com/people/hj/jacksonday/manuals.htm
Let's look at the Middle East. The reference to using Israel as a counterweight to "radical Arab nationalism" and to "hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary," is in a declassified policy paper prepared by the National Security Council Planning Board commenting on the Memorandum. See "Issues Arising Out of the Situation in the Near East," July 29, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII ("Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 114-124 at p. 119 (the exact words are: The Memorandum identifying "Arab nationalism" as "inimical to Western interests" is N.S.C. [National Security Council Memorandum] 5801/1, "Statement By The National Security Council Of Long-Range U.S. Policy Toward The Near East," January 24, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII ("Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 17-32. An excerpt (pp. 18, 20-22, 31): There is also, "Petroleum Policy of the United States," Memorandum of U.S. Department of State, April 11, 1944, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1944, Vol. V ("The Near East, South Asia, Africa, The Far East"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, pp. 27-33. An excerpt (p. 30):
The "enemy" was the majority of the population which was supporting FMLN. The Oxford Companion to American Military History explains that: In December 1980, New York Times journalist Raymond Bonner asked Jose Napoleon Duarte, who had just become president of the US-backed ruling junta, "why the guerrillas were in the hills". Duarte, responded with an answer that surprised Bonner: The response suprised Bonner who did not expect Duarte to offer any justification for the revolution. What suprised Bonner even more was "what he had not said":
Because during times of civil unrest, Labor Unions and Political Groups are among the largest agitators. Doubt me? Look back at the National Socialist Party and Solidarity. Remember, among many things the idea is to put an end to civil unrest. And if it means limiting theactivities of groups, that is what is needed to restore order and stability. You are from the US. And I guess you really do not have any idea how lucky you are. About the only time you have Martial Law here is after a disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. But we have had civil disorder here also, like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. To the point where martial law was proclaimed in order to restore order. And during Martial Law, what you see as "Civil Rights" go right out the window. Because of paramount importance is restoring order, and protecting the general public. To you, "Labor Unions" are peacefull cuddly things. That is not always the case in other countries. The same with political parties. Here in the US, about the most dangerous things they exchange is words (and the occasional walking stick). But in other countries, assassinations, attacks, and mass protests with rocks and molotove cocktails is much more common (just look at Greece to see that). Now put yourself into a situation like that, where a group is causing destruction, and tell me you would not want to see whatever is needed done to put an end to the violence. You really are innocent when it comes to what things are like in other countries. You think "Labor Union", and think the AFL-CIO. You do not see the many outbreaks of violence even in the US started by unions (Keweenaw comes to mind there). You simply refuse to see reality no matter what. You sit in your little isolated bubble, and think that your "civil rights" are the most important thing in the world. But you fail to see that you live in one of the few countries that is even possible at all.
Silly, you are reading wikileaks commentary as if it was part of the text. Its not. Lets read what the report actually says about death squads, instead of what Wikileaks wants you to think it says.
You've bypassed everything else Ive shown. But all that is contridicted by other parts of the manual.
We have pointed out that very passage to him several times before. It is pointless, because Horhey only sees what he wants to see, and not reality.
Ok, so you refuse to address what Ive been showing you. Why? Now who's seeing what they want to see? Nevermind. Im gonna go play Skyrim.
Mr. Horhey, I recall the book "War Is a Racket" by one Major General Smedley Darlington Butler. In this little book, he exposes the actual motivation behind US of AIPAC ( then US) foreign policies and military interventions. See, these motives are nothing new to US of AIPAC policies and foreign "diplomacy"; it is all about the control of resources to benefit US companies, which are now multi-national comglomerates. Another excellent book to read is "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham.These books opened my eyes even further than they were in the knowledge of US foreign diplomacy, foreign policies and military actions.
Obviously you wouldnt know becase you had never even seen the document until I provided it to you a moment ago. The manual contradicts wikileaks commentary on the manual.
Just go back and review what Ive already been showing. That's why I dont post here much anymore. You can make a case and nobody sees it so I might as well be sitting here jerkin my dick.
Reaganite scholar and Carnegie Endowment's Vice President for Studies, Thomas Carothers wrote the standard scholarly work on U.S. democracy promotion in Latin America in the 1980's. He writes in part, from an insider's perspective, having served in Reagan's State Department during the 'democracy enhancement' programmes in Central America. He regards these programs as having been a systematic failure: The proudest achievement was El Salvador. Here, the Reagan administration sought two goals:
I did. I even quoted what you showed. and like I said I can see you still havent grasped the fact that what you showed was commentary by wikileaks, that you interpret as coming from the manual.
Because what you post over and over and over again has nothing to do with the topic that you yourself originally posted. That is why I ignore it. If you want to talk about a military manual and what it means, we can talk about that. If you want to drag in decades old affairs of a totally different country, then I consider that off topic and ignore it. If you want to talk about El Salvador, then make a thread about it and talk to your heart's content. If you want to talk about a military manual, then let's talk about it. And as usual, the reams of data and facts you spew out have not a single thing to do with the topic at hand. And as long as you continue to spew them out, I will continue to ignore them.
The reason you rarely post is that 90% of the time, we simply ignore your posts. This one I thought I would respond to because instead of your usual soapbox posturing and simply quoting verbatim what other people say, you actually posted claiming something that was so badly out of context (and was easily proven if you simply RTFM), that I thought I would put in a few words. And as usual, you ignore what is said, ignore to even read the manual, and go so badly off track that it reminds me once again why myself and almost everybody else ignores your posts.
Oh come on. You know that you only go silent about what I post when you cant think of a way to challenge it. Ive been amazed at how ridiculous some of your counter arguments have been but even you have your limits. You'll say anything as long as you believe some dumb ass out there will buy it.
Again. I cannot objectively think of any justification for these measures in any country: Hey but Im open minded. If you can come up with a credible justification for this I will concede my argument. We were invaded by the British and Washington did not suspend the constitution.
Revealing how you avoid the only statements I did comment upon, to focus upon the statements to which I made no comment.