Bob: Were Boys Forced to Attend Schoo...
MaltaMon

North Wales, PA

#1341 Feb 1, 2013
So, yes, it is easy, in the context of the Cold War, which by 1950 had become manifestly serious--and with domestic "red scares" dominating politics at home (enter Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon)-- why the president engaged the Soviet-supplied, Chinese-backed Communist forces in Korea. But to appropriate the UN --"that world assembly of sovereign states... Our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace"--damaged its credibility and diminished its influence
MaltaMon

North Wales, PA

#1342 Feb 1, 2013
that should read, "80th Congress"
MaltaMon

Woodstown, NJ

#1343 Feb 1, 2013
coyote wrote:
KM: MM's post re Reagan, Bush Sr. etc and the breach of policy with arms sale to Iraq then money funnel to Nicaragua... key players in the field op. Oliver North ( smart but ruthless US Intelligence guy), Terry Waite (from Anglican Bishop,s - I do not know the proper positions) recruited to help negotiate the hostage release--not a GOOD story !!
Oliver North was,a cog--not an important figure, albeit one whose choirboy patriotism appealed to conservatives and others inclined to forgive Reagan for anything. The secret arms sale was to Iran, not Iraq. The latter was our coddled, heavily financed and armed client and our proxy in our effort to clobber the Ayatollah's forces, thereby putting a stake through the heart of Iran's fundamentalist revolution. Reagan's arms-for-hostages trade with the enemy undermined the Iraqi effort--we were essentally arming BOTH our ally and our enemy--and the eight-year Iran-Iraq war ended in stalemate. A complete waste. Meanwhile, the profits of those illegal sale of state-of-the-art American weaponry to the Ayatollah were funnelled, also ilkegally, to the anti-government Nicaraguan "contras".who were dedicated to ousting that nation's democratically elected president, Daniel Ortega (ironically again Nicaragua's president today after many years out of office). It failed and, indeed, was exposed. Ollie North was the first official convicted--of perjury during his televised testimony before the joint House-Senate comittee investigating the so-called Iran-Contra Affair, but his conviction was overturned on a technicality. The responsible officials, including Weiberger, and McFarlane, were indicted in Federal District Court, then swiftly pardoned by Bush Sr. Reagan escaped indictment and thus the need for a subsequent pardon by his successor , his popularity intact.("My Fellow Americans, Several months ago I told you that I did not trade arms for hostages, and my heart and my best intentions still tell me I was right. But the facts and the evidence tell me I was not")
MaltaMon

Woodstown, NJ

#1344 Feb 1, 2013
This thing erases words on me. I had written, "Reagan's Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger, his National Security Advisor Bud McFarlane and McFarlane's successor, Adm John Poindexter," (were indicted)
MaltaMon

Woodstown, NJ

#1345 Feb 1, 2013
"These Bob Threads".... Lol... Damn, that's wonderful. Thanks, Katie. I just love it.. Hey, Bob, you've made it: You're in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
Katie Mellish

UK

#1346 Feb 1, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
A number of inaccuracies here.
1. The North Korean invasion drove South Korean and UN troops all the way down to Pusan at the southern tip of the Korean peninsula where they were able to establish a perimeter. MacArthur then planned and executed a surprise attack from the sea at Inchon, using US naval power. He moved quickly from Inchon towards Seoul, cutting the North's lines of communication, which caused the almost immediate collapse of the North Korean forces besieging Pusan.
2. MacArthur then pursued the fleeing NK army and approached the Chinese border, which caused the intervention of the
Red Chinese Army. The overwhelming consensus of military historians is that this was a monumental error on his part, particularly as he had advised Truman that the Chinese would not intervene.
3. The nascent State of Israel did not get any significant weaponry from the US in 1948; most of the weaponry they utilized came from what was then Czechoslovakia, together with some captured British arms.
Interesting to say the least.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#1347 Feb 1, 2013
yks SLC: they got the money to buy the weapons from USA .....
SLC

Arlington, VA

#1348 Feb 2, 2013
coyote wrote:
yks SLC: they got the money to buy the weapons from USA .....
Probably true but it was private money from private contributors. None of it came from the US Government. As a matter of fact, everybody in the government except presidential adviser Clark Clifford was against even recognizing the nascent Government of Israel.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#1349 Feb 2, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably true but it was private money from private contributors. None of it came from the US Government. As a matter of fact, everybody in the government except presidential adviser Clark Clifford was against even recognizing the nascent Government of Israel.
There is , more than infrequently, a significant difference between official US policies and the policoes that are actually carried out. Since the end of World War II, the United States has had thousands of secret treaties and agreements with other nations. Many are implemented by the National Security Agency, the CIA and other intelligence agencies-- the budgets of which are all classified-- and the military. Very often, they involve provisions for the sale of weaponry and of guarantees of Defense in case of attack. there often creative ways to follow the money to its recipient
. For example, Marshall Plan money made its way to a lot of hot spots throughout the the Middle East and Far East but funneling it through its European recipients. That includes Israel, mostly through the United Kingdom, and via OSS & then the new CIA. And 80 percent of the French war effort in Indochina was paid from 1948-1954 was paid for by the United States
via Marshall Plan disbursements to France and clandestine funds appropriated by Congress to the CIA and the NSA.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#1350 Feb 2, 2013
(apologies for the sloppiness of that post... It was done by voice while driving) By "clandestine " funds I mean "discretionary" funds appropriates by Congress without their advance knowledge of how they would be used. The CIA and the NSC took an ever-increasing role in foreign policy from Truman through Nixon. Indeed, by the Nixon Administration, the Secretary of State, the senior officer of the president's cabinet, had become little more than a bureaucratic administrator and secondary advisor. William P. Rogers, who held that post from Jan 1969 until Sept 1973, had almost nothing to do with any significant foreign policy. During the Ford Administration, Congress turned the executive agencies inside out--a reaction to its Watergate abuses--and made it illegal for the President to order the assassination of any foreign leader (as had been undertaken on occasion via CIA Black Ops, notably Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother in '63, Trujillo in '65, and Allende in '73, and the attempts on Castro and, earlier, on Nasser) or to stage bloodless coups (the overthrow of Iran's elected government restoration of the Peacock Throne to power in '53)Prior to 1983, the sort of transactions of the Iran-Contra Affair had been legal. None of these were "official" policy.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#1351 Feb 2, 2013
So if the history books single Clark Clifford out as the only member of the Truman Administration to support recognition of Israel, it is misleading as hell. The British departure from its perch as a colonial power in the Middle East was never going to occur within the burgeoning heat of the Cold War without very active US collaboration. Too much was at risk: the spread of Soviet influence and its targeted largesse to the region, and, of course, control of the oil fields. Why do you think that Israel has, since May 1948, been regarded throughout the region as, for all intents and purposes, the 49th, then the 51st state? Our political and economic interests in the region,particularly during the Cold War years, have always been dependant upon the survival of Israel. To believe that the US had nothing to do with Israel's defense from the day of its founding is to overlook the reality of the historical context in which it was founded. And it would have been reckless, again in that context, for Truman to follow a policy of "hands off" when Israel was attacked immediately upon its independence.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#1352 Feb 2, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
So if the history books single Clark Clifford out as the only member of the Truman Administration to support recognition of Israel, it is misleading as hell. The British departure from its perch as a colonial power in the Middle East was never going to occur within the burgeoning heat of the Cold War without very active US collaboration. Too much was at risk: the spread of Soviet influence and its targeted largesse to the region, and, of course, control of the oil fields. Why do you think that Israel has, since May 1948, been regarded throughout the region as, for all intents and purposes, the 49th, then the 51st state? Our political and economic interests in the region,particularly during the Cold War years, have always been dependant upon the survival of Israel. To believe that the US had nothing to do with Israel's defense from the day of its founding is to overlook the reality of the historical context in which it was founded. And it would have been reckless, again in that context, for Truman to follow a policy of "hands off" when Israel was attacked immediately upon its independence.
The fact is that the Arabists in the State Department, led by Harold Saunders, vehemently opposed the recognition of Israel by the US. In fact, the then Secretary of State, George Marshall, told President Truman that if he recognized Israel and then had to intervene in the expected war, he, Marshall, would not support Truman's reelection bid. Fortunately, Marshall greatly underestimated that military capability of the nascent state and greatly overestimated the military prowess of the Arab states, so military intervention was unnecessary.

As a matter of fact, military sales to Israel by the US didn't begin in earnest until after the 1967 War. In the three wars fought between 1948 and 1968, Israel relied on Czech weaponry and then British and French weaponry.

Also,the high command at the CIA were not known for their affection for Israel. The main Israel supporter there was the Chief of Counter Intelligence, James Jesus Angleton.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#1353 Feb 2, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that the Arabists in the State Department, led by Harold Saunders, vehemently opposed the recognition of Israel by the US. In fact, the then Secretary of State, George Marshall, told President Truman that if he recognized Israel and then had to intervene in the expected war, he, Marshall, would not support Truman's reelection bid. Fortunately, Marshall greatly underestimated that military capability of the nascent state and greatly overestimated the military prowess of the Arab states, so military intervention was unnecessary.
As a matter of fact, military sales to Israel by the US didn't begin in earnest until after the 1967 War. In the three wars fought between 1948 and 1968, Israel relied on Czech weaponry and then British and French weaponry.
Also,the high command at the CIA were not known for their affection for Israel. The main Israel supporter there was the Chief of Counter Intelligence, James Jesus Angleton.
Is that a fact? You know the history that is wriften in books, perhaps, as I do. I also know, because I had to in dealing on the ground in Israel and elsrwhere in that part of the world, as well as with Europe, Africa and the USSR, just how the US has maintained its influence and protected its interests. I couldn't rely on text books. None of us could... Although, admittedly, those higher up--the political appointees and military advisers--didn't always pay sufficient attention to history, neither that which was available to the public nor that which was classified. If you believe that I am wrong about US involvement in Israel, that's okay. Just consider, however, the context of the Cold War, then on the rise with the USSR working on its own nuclear weapons, our commitment to meet any military challenge at the time with maximum force, the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence to the region, a.d our need for unintrrrupted access to oil in the region. Then consider whst you have just said, and you'll see that it makes no sense. Or perhaps it will to you. There are those wbo believe that Kennedy wasn't relieved when Khrushchev ordered construction of the Berlin Wall. That because official policy was to have it removed, it wouldn't have made sense to denounce it while he,and his successors did nothing to take it out. Fact is, the Wall prevented war over Berlin. And why did we not try to remove Castro after the Missile Crisis despite official policy to restore "democracy" to Cuba? Because JFK "promised" Khrushchev, even years after both were gone? No. Castro has been an effective foil a justification for greater "security" . Where did Britain get its state-of-the-art weaponry in the immediate lost-war years? Who subsidized it? Who profited? And Truman and his successors stood by while Israel purchased weapons from WHO? The Czechs? With the USSR providing that nation's security and with NATO's membership stretching all the eay to Turkey?,Think again, my friend. HSY and his successors might never have contained the Soviets so successfully had the US demonstrated that measure of reluctance to defend Israel, and Israel mivht not have survived, especially after Suez in Oct 56..
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#1354 Feb 2, 2013
**immediate post-war years... Lots of typos. Should perhaps rely on the oral transcription, lol. Don't know which is less reliable. Anyway, the above missive should be moderately understandable, even to those who disagree with what it says.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#1355 Feb 2, 2013
" HSY" should read "HST" (Truman)
SLC

Arlington, VA

#1356 Feb 2, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Is that a fact? You know the history that is wriften in books, perhaps, as I do. I also know, because I had to in dealing on the ground in Israel and elsrwhere in that part of the world, as well as with Europe, Africa and the USSR, just how the US has maintained its influence and protected its interests. I couldn't rely on text books. None of us could... Although, admittedly, those higher up--the political appointees and military advisers--didn't always pay sufficient attention to history, neither that which was available to the public nor that which was classified. If you believe that I am wrong about US involvement in Israel, that's okay. Just consider, however, the context of the Cold War, then on the rise with the USSR working on its own nuclear weapons, our commitment to meet any military challenge at the time with maximum force, the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence to the region, a.d our need for unintrrrupted access to oil in the region. Then consider whst you have just said, and you'll see that it makes no sense. Or perhaps it will to you. There are those wbo believe that Kennedy wasn't relieved when Khrushchev ordered construction of the Berlin Wall. That because official policy was to have it removed, it wouldn't have made sense to denounce it while he,and his successors did nothing to take it out. Fact is, the Wall prevented war over Berlin. And why did we not try to remove Castro after the Missile Crisis despite official policy to restore "democracy" to Cuba? Because JFK "promised" Khrushchev, even years after both were gone? No. Castro has been an effective foil a justification for greater "security" . Where did Britain get its state-of-the-art weaponry in the immediate lost-war years? Who subsidized it? Who profited? And Truman and his successors stood by while Israel purchased weapons from WHO? The Czechs? With the USSR providing that nation's security and with NATO's membership stretching all the eay to Turkey?,Think again, my friend. HSY and his successors might never have contained the Soviets so successfully had the US demonstrated that measure of reluctance to defend Israel, and Israel mivht not have survived, especially after Suez in Oct 56..
Let's be clear about one thing. Stalin authorized the sales of Czech weaponry to Israel in 1948 because he was interested in removing British influence from the Middle East, not because of any fondness for Israel or Jews. In fact, Stalin's antisemitism was second only to Frankenberger's (remember the doctor's plot; fortunately for Khrushchev and co., Stalin died before the purge that Stalin planned got underway).

After the British were ousted from Palestine, Stalin and his successors had no further need for Israel, which consequently developed a de facto alliance with France which became its primary weapon supplier until 1967. The Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona was built and financed by France and is the source of Israel's nuclear capability, which may amount to as many as 5 or 6 hundred devices, depending on who you listen to (the DIA estimates 80, former Dimona technician Mordechai Vanunu estimates 200, Rev. John Steinbach estimates 5 to 6 hundred).

Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#1357 Feb 2, 2013
coyote wrote:
I do not know ,Phil, but after all the unproductive , uncivil etc. exchanges I (?-some others) participated in it is likely most do not give a rat's ass anymore as to the MM- PBob thing- esp. MM and Bob. Sure most abhor the criminal act reported here but any concern via questions is a waste...(my thots_... it is clear to me Bob is not involved in any such thing and whatever the reason he is/was accused escapes me. 4 sure there is always a first time for everything and shudder to think of what may lie ahead in that regard.
"Whatever the reason he is/was accused escapes me..."
Coyote, MM has had it in for me ever since I outed him on this forum as a moron. He created this "you raped my son" nonsense in an attempt to insult/humiliate me, but has not succeeded. At some point you have to put your money where your mouth is, and he never does. I'm still here, still visiting my favourite haunts on St Denis, while he blathers away about "the local and federal" and "I am tracking you", and how I will be arrested "any day now", etc etc etc.
Yet one year later, here I am, still a free man, still a free-thinking (and free-drinking) man, with nary the local nor the federal in sight.
I too, shudder to think what may lie ahead... more threats, and more posturing, and more bluster from MM??
I think I'll have another drink.
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#1358 Feb 2, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
And Bob, if I'm a prima donna, have you considered the possibility that you are merely obnoxious? But not just mildly obnoxious, or occasionally obnoxious, but very obnoxious--always obnoxious. You fancy yourself as some sort of scholarly gentleman, but you are neither. If you were, you wouldn't be so fascinated with what I do. If you were, you wouldn't frequent these nude-boy threads with no other purpose. If you were, you'd leave when asked to. Now, before you respond (and I really hope you don't keep responding.. It's such a drag; you're what my father used to call "a crashing bore" and "a milquetoast")please note that I have not once claimed to be a gentleman. If I truly were, I wouldn't be chasing pedophiles on here either or otherwise insulting people who insult me. Just go. Please, Phil. You're a pain in the ass.
"And Bob, if I'm a prima donna..."
Uh, MaltaMoron, the previous post you are referring to was written by Phil, not myself. He called you a prima donna.
But at the end of your post, you say "Please, Phil." You obviously don't even pay attention to whom you are responding.
But morons never do.
Hahahahaha!
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#1359 Feb 2, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> OMG.. lol.. Sorry, but there is one last thing: That was NOT intended for Bob. Sorry, Bob. This was directed to Phil. A Freudian slip, perhaps. Cheers.
A "Freudian slip"? More like a MORONIC slip!
Hahahahaha!
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#1360 Feb 2, 2013
Katie Mellish wrote:
<quoted text>To Coyote hello i must be a bit togue in cheek here but i must say that these Bob threads have proved popular have'nt they-Hay Coyote don't go having a Fruedian slip now because i have mention tongue in cheek-Katie Mellish xxxxxx.
I must say that I am impressed that a thread that begins with my name continues to be #1 on the forum, with 1284 and counting comments.(!)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Phil sexually molests boys after inciting them ... 1 hr MichaelN 6
Sir Arthur, Where Art Thou? (Mar '12) 1 hr MichaelN 121
MaltaMon a Big Fat Zero (Aug '13) 1 hr MichaelN 41
MaltaMon Outed! (Jul '12) 1 hr MichaelN 296
Punishment Hat Is Legal 1 hr Rush 10
Do you think I deserved a paddling I got in sch... (Dec '15) 1 hr Rush 43
News Is Homework Helpful or Harmful? (Sep '08) 1 hr Rush 375
More from around the web