Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: In fact the impression I got was that the war was more a failed exercise in trying to reduce the world's population dramatically. And there is a section on how they got people in the US to buy bonds to finance the war but no answer as to who made all the money off the weapons sales. That should be part of the story too. Then it would be a very different documentary with a whole different purpose and approach. But any thinking person watching the documentary will begin to ponder how the madmen came to power. They didn't just do it by themselves. If you made a documentary that covered every single aspect of World War II, it would run every week for at least a year. Some folks here ought to be asking how MMY became so big too. LOL!! You got a conspiracy theory for that as well? Then we have the Mother of All Conspiracy Theories that 19 Arabs armed with boxcutters started WWIII. That one is a doozy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 14 hour Ken Burn's documentary on World War II debuted this week on PBS. Since 14 hours is quite a bit to invest I have been archiving it to watch when I have time. I just completed episode one and was struck with something that isn't really covered: World War II was about going after three tyrants: Hitler, Mussolini and General Tojo who were out to establish empires. What's left out: how did they get there in the first place? They didn't get their on their own. Who backed them? Who were the industrialists and bankers who backed them and why? The answer so far wasn't in the first episode so it will be interesting to see if it is at all in the remaining ones. Unlikely, since exploring the history and geopolitics of the war was never the focus of this documentary. Rather, in the words of Ken Burns and Lynn Novick: We chose to explore the impact of the war on the lives of people living in four American towns -- Mobile, Alabama; Sacramento, California; Waterbury, Connecticut; and Luverne, Minnesota. Our film is...an attempt to describe, through... eyewitness testimony, what the war was actually like for those who served on the front lines, in the places where the killing and the dying took place, and equally what it was like for their loved ones back homeWe have tried to illuminate the intimate, human dimensions of a global catastrophe that took the lives of between 50 and 60 million peopleto see the universal in the particular, to understand how the whole country got caught up in the war; how...people were permanently transformed; how those who remained at home worked and worried and grieved in the face of the struggle; and in the end, how innocent young men who had been turned into professional killers eventually learned to live in a world without war. http://www.pbs.org/thewar/about_letter_from_producers.htm In fact the impression I got was that the war was more a failed exercise in trying to reduce the world's population dramatically. And there is a section on how they got people in the US to buy bonds to finance the war but no answer as to who made all the money off the weapons sales. That should be part of the story too. Then it would be a very different documentary with a whole different purpose and approach. And isn't it interesting at a time when there is much saber rattling over Iran such a documentary should come out? No. They started working on it six years ago.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact the impression I got was that the war was more a failed exercise in trying to reduce the world's population dramatically. And there is a section on how they got people in the US to buy bonds to finance the war but no answer as to who made all the money off the weapons sales. That should be part of the story too. Then it would be a very different documentary with a whole different purpose and approach. But any thinking person watching the documentary will begin to ponder how the madmen came to power. They didn't just do it by themselves. Some folks here ought to be asking how MMY became so big too. And isn't it interesting at a time when there is much saber rattling over Iran such a documentary should come out? No. They started working on it six years ago. Yes but that was back in the Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and other WWII stuff came out. What I am saying is that having it on now sort of may glorify the idea of war to people but not if people watch it since there is a lot of things (as Burn's mentioned last night on Bill Maher's show) that people were reluctant to talk about until now. Maher and Burns talked about sacrifice last night and how we've not sacrificed anything for Iraq. Well first off ask the families who've lost loved ones during the Iraqi conquest about that. Secondly my reply is we shouldn't be making any sacrifice as there shouldn't be any war to sacrifice for. That's just the scheme of the crooks in the White House and of course their backers. They're the ones who should be sacrificed. Also we must keep in mind as was pointed out in episode two of the series that coming out of a depression WWII was like a big WPA project and many jobs opened up for the unemployed. And also it will be interesting to see if they also mention how unemployment went on the rise again after the war when those jobs went away.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: In fact the impression I got was that the war was more a failed exercise in trying to reduce the world's population dramatically. And there is a section on how they got people in the US to buy bonds to finance the war but no answer as to who made all the money off the weapons sales. That should be part of the story too. Then it would be a very different documentary with a whole different purpose and approach. But any thinking person watching the documentary will begin to ponder how the madmen came to power. They didn't just do it by themselves. If you made a documentary that covered every single aspect of World War II, it would run every week for at least a year. Some folks here ought to be asking how MMY became so big too. LOL!! You got a conspiracy theory for that as well?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
Bhairitu, I agree. IMO, there is a cabal of backroom evil rich manipulators running things, and it makes perfect sense that the follow the money concept is never supported in most documentary endeavors -- too risky to the film-maker to snoop around in Big Finance's underwear drawer, and way hard to get the legal access to do so. But, evil dictators, well, documentary makers CAN get the data on them. There was a reason for Deep Throat to keep his identity hidden, cuz he was telling Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money, and if the money folks found out, POOF! goes Deepy. As long as the masses are having their attentions misdirected towards focal-points of evil -- Hitler the person for instance -- then the money is not followed, and instead the group consciousness is put upon the failings of one person -- NOT HIS SUPPORTERS, CREATORS, BACKERS, BOSSES, whatever. The people who backed Hitler are still in business today -- sultan rich and Satan evil. Saddam was said to be the problem, ya see?, not the USA's obscene oil habit which caused the powers that be to think that they needed to control (own) Iraq's oil (the whole region actually) and so, suddenly, Saddam became the evil dictator that had to be stomped even though he was PUT INTO POWER BY THE USA. His country is invaded, 500 thousand INNOCENT civilians get killed, and Saddam's the blame -- when largely speaking, we supported and allowed his crimes that we armed him for and encouraged him to do. Poison gas sold to him by the USA killed the Kurds. And it was that very poison gas we called a weapon of mass destruction and used as a reason for the invasion. And, get this, Saddam would still be in power right now if he hadn't started messing around the value of the dollar by selling his oil and taking euros for it -- pushing the world closer to a petro-euro instead of a petro-dollar. That was Saddam's real, actual and ONLY mistake in the eyes of the lords of power. We prop up dictators all the time to deflect the world's attention to one person, one race, one ethnicity, like that. You don't have to look far for these evil types -- they're everywhere. The bankers arranged for a PRIVATE COMPANY to have ALL OF AMERICA'S seigniorage. The gold standard was tossed. Income tax for the non-rich. BigMedia's being in bed with BigMoney assures we'll always have a bad guy trotted out to piss off the masses enough to get another war going. We won't bomb Iran until after we make sure that the masses are certain that our soldiers have been bombed by Iran. We won't see headlines about all the ways we can employ to piss off Iran enough for them to bomb back at us. We won't be told -- simple as that. Pre-Pearl Harbor, we cut off Japan's oil supplies; do you think that pissed them off? 19 terrorists may have been all it took to make 911 happen, but what did it takes to get them pissed off enough to give up their lives to fight back? How about hundreds of millions of people being brutalized daily in a thousand ways? Abu Ghraib prison -- only the small fry got indicted, but generals on down knew about it. Kerry lost the election -- who is following the money that Supreme Court Justices get? Pelosi won't try to impeach Bush -- why? Cuz it will hurt her cash flow somehow -- follow the money and see what big companies are fluffing up her accounts. 20,000,000 Mexicans came across the border and no one noticed -- except BigMoney which needed temporary slaves. Okay, I'm going to stop here. Outta control again. Can't put my attention on these things without risking ruining my day. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 14 hour Ken Burn's documentary on World War II debuted this week on PBS. Since 14 hours is quite a bit to invest I have been archiving it to watch when I have time. I just completed episode one and was struck with something that isn't really covered: World War II was about going after three tyrants: Hitler, Mussolini and General Tojo who were out to establish empires. What's left out: how did they get there in the first place? They didn't get their on their own. Who backed them? Who were the industrialists and bankers who backed them and why? The answer so far wasn't in the first episode so it will be interesting to see if it is at all in the remaining ones. In fact the impression I got was that the war was more a failed exercise in trying to reduce the world's population dramatically. And there is a section on how they got people in the US to buy bonds to finance the war but no answer as to who made all the money off the weapons sales. That should be part of the story too. And isn't it interesting at a time when there is much saber rattling over Iran such a documentary should come out?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
Duveyoung wrote: Bhairitu, I agree. IMO, there is a cabal of backroom evil rich manipulators running things, and it makes perfect sense that the follow the money concept is never supported in most documentary endeavors -- too risky to the film-maker to snoop around in Big Finance's underwear drawer, and way hard to get the legal access to do so. But, evil dictators, well, documentary makers CAN get the data on them. There was a reason for Deep Throat to keep his identity hidden, cuz he was telling Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money, and if the money folks found out, POOF! goes Deepy. As long as the masses are having their attentions misdirected towards focal-points of evil -- Hitler the person for instance -- then the money is not followed, and instead the group consciousness is put upon the failings of one person -- NOT HIS SUPPORTERS, CREATORS, BACKERS, BOSSES, whatever. The people who backed Hitler are still in business today -- sultan rich and Satan evil. Saddam was said to be the problem, ya see?, not the USA's obscene oil habit which caused the powers that be to think that they needed to control (own) Iraq's oil (the whole region actually) and so, suddenly, Saddam became the evil dictator that had to be stomped even though he was PUT INTO POWER BY THE USA. His country is invaded, 500 thousand INNOCENT civilians get killed, and Saddam's the blame -- when largely speaking, we supported and allowed his crimes that we armed him for and encouraged him to do. Poison gas sold to him by the USA killed the Kurds. And it was that very poison gas we called a weapon of mass destruction and used as a reason for the invasion. And, get this, Saddam would still be in power right now if he hadn't started messing around the value of the dollar by selling his oil and taking euros for it -- pushing the world closer to a petro-euro instead of a petro-dollar. That was Saddam's real, actual and ONLY mistake in the eyes of the lords of power. We prop up dictators all the time to deflect the world's attention to one person, one race, one ethnicity, like that. You don't have to look far for these evil types -- they're everywhere. The bankers arranged for a PRIVATE COMPANY to have ALL OF AMERICA'S seigniorage. The gold standard was tossed. Income tax for the non-rich. BigMedia's being in bed with BigMoney assures we'll always have a bad guy trotted out to piss off the masses enough to get another war going. We won't bomb Iran until after we make sure that the masses are certain that our soldiers have been bombed by Iran. We won't see headlines about all the ways we can employ to piss off Iran enough for them to bomb back at us. We won't be told -- simple as that. Pre-Pearl Harbor, we cut off Japan's oil supplies; do you think that pissed them off? 19 terrorists may have been all it took to make 911 happen, but what did it takes to get them pissed off enough to give up their lives to fight back? How about hundreds of millions of people being brutalized daily in a thousand ways? Abu Ghraib prison -- only the small fry got indicted, but generals on down knew about it. Kerry lost the election -- who is following the money that Supreme Court Justices get? Pelosi won't try to impeach Bush -- why? Cuz it will hurt her cash flow somehow -- follow the money and see what big companies are fluffing up her accounts. 20,000,000 Mexicans came across the border and no one noticed -- except BigMoney which needed temporary slaves. Okay, I'm going to stop here. Outta control again. Can't put my attention on these things without risking ruining my day. Edg Ah, but you see that IS the reality and anything else just the illusion. Perhaps more people need their days ruined so things will change. The money people are like slight-of-hand magicians. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thoughts on Ken's Burns The War
On Sep 28, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Bhairitu, I agree. IMO, there is a cabal of backroom evil rich manipulators running things, and it makes perfect sense that the follow the money concept is never supported in most documentary endeavors -- too risky to the film-maker to snoop around in Big Finance's underwear drawer, and way hard to get the legal access to do so. But, evil dictators, well, documentary makers CAN get the data on them. There was a reason for Deep Throat to keep his identity hidden, cuz he was telling Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money, and if the money folks found out, POOF! goes Deepy. It's unrealistic to expect a Ken Burn's genre documentary to cover such intrigue and conspiracy theory material. You'll have to wait instead for Oliver Stone's version The War That Greed Built, co- written with Alex Jones.
