Thursday, September 3, 2015

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations..."

The entire comment from General David Shoup is as follows:
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own—and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
1966 Speech delivered by Shoup to community college students at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, California, for their World Affairs Day.

Shoup was no 'shrinking violet' when it came to combat, especially during WWII on the Japanese held island of Tarawa, where he was awarded to Medal of Honor.

But he knew stupidity and wastefulness when he saw it and wasn't afraid to speak out against military madness and adventurism.

This bit of sanity from the Military-Industrial Complex came from David Monroe Shoup (30 December 1904 – 13 January 1983) a decorated general of the United States Marine Corps who was awarded the Medal of Honor in World War II, became the 22nd Commandant of the Marine Corps, and, after retiring, became one of the most prominent critics of the Vietnam War.
Shoup opposed the military escalation in response to events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion, but his strongest opposition was to U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. His opposition grew in strength after he retired from the military in 1963; he was hostile to both the strategy of the conflict and the excessive influence of corporations and military officials upon foreign policy. His high-profile criticism later spread to include the military industrial complex and what he saw as a pervasive militarism in American culture. Historians consider Shoup's statements opposing the war to be among the most pointed and high-profile leveled by a veteran against the Vietnam War.
Where's the honest generals in today's hyper-active US military? Too busy sucking up to Israel and Fortune 500 defense corporations to secure that job after retirement and to get a chest full of shiny medals to make up for that ridiculously short penis.
In 1968, in testimony before Congress, Shoup made many of the same points as he had in his 1966 speech, saying he felt opposition to the war had likely increased since then. In April 1969, along with retired Colonel James Donovan, he broadened his criticism to national security policy. In an article published in Atlantic Monthly, he accused America of becoming militaristic and aggressive, and was a country ready to "execute military contingency plans and to seek military solutions to problems of political disorder and potential Communist threats in areas of our interest." He said that anticommunism had given way to a new, aggressive defense establishment in the United States.

In a book titled Militarism U.S.A. (1970), Shoup and Donovan elaborated their criticisms. Shoup said the country was seeking military solutions to issues that could be resolved politically. He accused military leaders of propagating the war for their own career advancement, and accused the veterans group Veterans of Foreign Wars of propagandizing for the armed forces establishment. Shoup blamed the American education system for what he saw as discouraging independent thought and stressing obedience.
This kind of killing has ancient roots. All of these never-ending 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' are a type of blood sacrifice to Israel. It's the Jew ritual murder ceremony practiced on a continent-wide scale.


Compare the principled Shoup to the lackeys' and Israeli ass-kissers that make up today's flag officers. When an American, whether he/she be an officer or not, supports a foreign leader's policies over the president, there's one word for that, TREASON.
Earlier this month, dozens of top ranking former military officials—generals and admirals—voiced their support for a deal. In a letter, the officers called the deal “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” Now, we have its counterpart, which hit the presses yesterday. “The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” says the new letter, organized as an explicit response, according to the Washington Post, by Retired Adm. Leon “Bud” Edney.

The anti-deal military letter, however, has something the pro-deal military letter didn’t: the list of nearly 200 signatories includes more than a few unsavory characters. In addition to including two former military officials involved in the Iran-Contra affair—Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord—several signatures came from former military officials aligned with or associated with hardline neoconservative Washington groups. Perhaps most strikingly, several of the signatories associated themselves with—or, in one case, are themselves from among—America’s leading Islamophobes. As Matt Duss tweeted, opponents of a deal seem “unable to assemble groups of ex-military critics that don’t include anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists.”

Letter organizer Bud Edney, for one, sits on JINSA’s board of advisors—one of eight of the letter’s signatories who sits on that board, in addition to two former JINSA advisory board members that signed. In all, 34 of those former military officers who signed the anti-deal letter have been associated with JINSA—either serving on its board, signing one of its letters or, as was most commonly the case, traveling to Israel on the group’s dime to “meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership.’
These trips constitute one of JINSA’s major activities. The group claims to have taken nearly 400 former senior military officers on the junket over the years. Of the letter’s signatories, 31 traveled to Israel with the organization.

Traitors Among Us

If you don't know what 'JINSA' (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) is, it's time to find out and taking a look at the list of Americans who put Israel's wants first instead of looking out for America brings to mind one word; TREASON.

JINSA also brainwashes American law enforcement officials, sending them on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel where they learn how to threaten, intimidate, terrorize, torture and murder American citizens.

JINSA claims to have 'trained' over 9,500 American cops since 2004.

Israel-trained police “occupy” Missouri after killing of black youth

YOUR CHIEF ENEMY IS ISRAEL

6 comments:

  1. Great work comrade, keep it up. Wish you were mainstream, just the facts Mamm!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Sketchy 1, all one can do is try.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not wild about the link (VT)...but hey, it fits here.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/38783-israel-killing-machine2.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  4. "to get a chest full of shiny medals to make up for that ridiculously short penis."
    hahaha! That's a good one...that's how I think of Jews. I sure wouldn't know but they are definitely over-compensating for something!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alexander Hamilton had several Jewish connections: His mother’s husband, Johann Michael Lavien — when Hamilton himself wrote the name, he spelled it the more traditional “Levine” — was likely Jewish.

    She left him in St. Croix, met James Hamilton in St. Kitts, and the two moved to Nevis, where Alexander was born out of wedlock.

    As a result, he could not be educated in church schools.

    “Largely self-taught, he had little formal schooling but received individual tutoring” at a school run by a Jewish headmistress, Chernow said. At one point he could recite the Ten Commandments in Hebrew.

    “Perhaps because of this exposure,” Chernow suggests, Hamilton had a particular “reverence for Jews,” he said, speaking from his home office in Brooklyn, a copy of his biography at hand. He leafs through his book to find several examples, including one from a trial, where Hamilton said, “Why distrust the evidence of the Jews? Discredit them and you destroy the Christian religion.”

    Read more: http://forward.com/the-assimilator/320470/the-jewish-historian-who-made-sure-hamilton-is-right-for-broadway/#ixzz3kpAkWYUM

    there is a sizable revisionist movement when it comes to the Founding Fathers. Hamilton, who was an abolitionist, is on the rise, while Jefferson is on the decline, in part because he was an unrepentant slave owner.


    “I started the book in 1998. I felt Hamilton was largely overlooked and, among the Founding Fathers, the one most demonized,” Chernow said. “Jefferson was considered the pure and virtuous tribune of the common people and Hamilton was the stooge of the plutocrats.

    Read more: http://forward.com/the-assimilator/320470/the-jewish-historian-who-made-sure-hamilton-is-right-for-broadway/#ixzz3kpBHIA00


    So now Hamilton, er.. Levine, is going to be lionized as an abolitionist (even though his family in the Carribean were probable beneficiaries of the slave trade), and Jefferson is demonized.

    That Hamilton was into abolition is a total fiction http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-15/hamilton-and-slavery/

    ReplyDelete
  6. On the Sept 2015 engineered crisis

    https://youtu.be/rkELgi6EkNo

    ReplyDelete

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive