About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Truman's Bluff

 

All right class! Sit up...pay attention; we're about to pose a thought-provoking historical question:

 

What if President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived 6 more months? Would he have dropped the BOMB? And would we have witnessed the end of World War 2 by August, 1945? 

 

And could the war have evolved into a worse conflagration? Raise your hand if you know.

 

After Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta in early 1945 to Josef Stalin, the Red Army had a "green light opportunity." With eastern Europe in hand, Stalin directed them to head south, and by August 1945 the Red Army was massing on the border of Iran.

 

So what would Roosevelt have done? In all probability-- nothing.

 

Stalin would have then proceeded straight to Tehran, and installed a new Tudeh (Communist) regime in no time.

 

But most fortunately, it was Harry Truman at the helm, who would literally terrify Stalin out of Iran-- purely on a bluff. 

 

Truman-- immediately upon being sworn-in-- recognized Stalin's true intention: Communist expansion, not only into eastern Europe, but also into the oil-rich Mideast.

 

But Stalin believed that America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, calculating that Truman would not at all want to risk extending the war onto a new front (Mideast). Stalin would be proven wrong-- very wrong!

 

Truman immediately had made up his mind; he would send Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith to personally meet with Stalin in the Kremlin, to deliver the most "strongly worded" message in presidential history.

 

But for the sake of historical context, a little backround on the country formerly known as "Persia." 

 

In 1908, British colonials discovered oil in Persia, and formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company-- later evolving into British Petroleum.

 

After World War IPersia's ruler, Ahmad Shah, proved to be grossly incompetent, and in 1921, the pro- British "Reza Khan Merpanji" (1877-1944) was put on the throne, who then changed his name to "Pahlavi" (in deference to an ancient Persian language translation).

 

But the "Reza Khan move" eventually backfired on the British.

 

Ol' Reezy turned out to be a political weathervane, and in betrayal, he decided to entreat Adolf Hitler in Germany, even going so far as to decree that Persia would henceforth be known as "Iran," meaning..."Land of Aryans".

Hitler felt genuinely complimented that the country had re-named itself as home of the "Master Race", and recognizing Iran's strategic importance, a German-Persian alliance was formed in 1939 after the start of the war.

 

The Allies, greatly alarmed, invaded Tehran in August 1941 and deposed the pro-Nazi Reza Khan, installing his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1917-1980) as the next leader.

 

The Russians stayed in Iran until Autumn, l942 when they were forced to withdraw and reinforce their army against Hitler's invasion into Stalingrad

 

To this day, historians question Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his huge Stalingrad force to surrender. But if one examines the world map in mid-1942, it reveals expansionist Nazi armies; one moving east toward the Suez under Rommel, and a huge, 600,000 man force moving south on Stalingrad under von Paulus.

 

If Hitler had struck at Stalingrad only 3 months earlier, he would have taken the city, moved south to hook up with the Iranians, and could have met Rommel closing in from the west--possibly winning the war as early as mid 1943.

 

Stalin (like Hitler) understood Iran's strategic importance, so upon meeting with FDR and Churchill at the Tehran Conference at the end of 1943, Stalin conned the trusting Roosevelt, and agreed..."In exchange for continued U.S. aid, I will make no post-war move on Iran." 

 

This was one of many of Stalin's big lies, which set the stage for Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta.

Four months after Roosevelt's death, Stalin dispatched a Red Army column to march from Soviet Azerbaijan across the border to Iran, with orders to seize the capital, Tehran. 

 

Now enter the firebrand, no-nonsense persona of Harry Truman, who--via his ambassador-- then delivered his fateful "ultimatum" to Stalin, which in so many words had said:

 

"Dear Mr. Stalin; we think you're just a bit out of bounds, and have violated your agreement at Tehran. Thus, if you recall the 2 big bombs we recently dropped on Japan, if your army doesn't withdraw from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch ANOTHER atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped Soviet heads!" 

 

Stalin complied--and rather quickly.

 

But liberal, revisionist historians have downplayed Truman; so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. actually had no THIRD atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all Communist, and to this very day, the Russians might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

 

Indeed, history has completely ignored Truman's sheer cunning;

 

The U.S. was at least 6 months away from assembling a third atomic bomb. But the media despised the blunt-talking, monotone-voiced Missourian, being the reason why it took so long for Truman to take his rightful place in history as perhaps the boldest and most intuitive president of the 20th century.

 

And on the flip side of fate, what if FDR dies a month EARLIER, say around March 12, 1945?

 

It's not the least bit of a stretch that a highly-aggressive George Patton would have told a newly sworn-in Harry Truman..."Mr. President, l can chase these Russkies all the way back to the Ukraine-- just gimme the green light!"

 

By March '45, given the arrival of the newly-upgraded, General Pershing tanks, replete with a high-velocity 90 mm. main gun, and the legions of B-24 & B-17 bombers-- plus heavily-armed P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt fighters (6 or 8 .50-caliber Browning machine guns)-- the United States was indeed the most powerful war machine the world had ever seen.

 

And despite the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies on the ground, the Americans could have thrown 10 times as much steel as the backwardly-armed Russians (particularly the Red Air Force), and General Patton, and 8th Air Force General Curtiss LeMay, could have blasted the Soviets all the way back to the Ural Mountains-- and beyond.

 

And  the Cold War? it would have been nothing but a figment in Winston Churchill's imagination.

 

But what would FDR have done if he had lived 6 more months? Let's pontificate:

 

In his trusting liberal heart, FDR may have told his generals..."Oh, let Mr. Stalin go; he can have Iran, it's only fair; the Russians did most of the anti-Nazi fighting; they're our allies; no sense in arguing; bring our boys home; we have no interest in those deserts; we've got plenty of oil back here at home"... etc.

 

And in a perverse way of reasoning, if not for Roosevelt's April,1945 cerebro-vascular accident (stroke), what then? In retrospect, it may have been one of the most fortunate "accidents" in modern world history.

 

Beginning with FDR (and his Yalta fiasco) liberal presidents have always trusted our enemies, and have had a compulsion to be "fair" to them. But  fortunately (for America) a conservative president came along every time to sweep up the mess.

 

In the post-war era, it was the liberal Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), who decided to escalate a regional overseas conflict into a full blown war (Vietnam), for reasons that are only known to him.

 

But Johnson not only blundered America into an unnecessary conflict, the LBJ presidency was also germane in debasing our currency.

 

In the late 60's, Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. The Pentagon's war budget was exploding; inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking.

 

So Mr. Johnson 'cleverly' decided to set a economic precedent that has flourished to this very day-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses.

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had enacted either tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But LBJ had the fed crank out approximately 80 billion in unbacked paper currency, to keep his Great Society ship of state afloat.

 

So by March of 1971, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door, and with inflation spiraling out of control, Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard, and the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done-- never again would it be pegged to the price of gold-- it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

 

Then in 1977, liberal democrat Jimmy Carter (Mr. Human Rights), immediately began his naive destruction of our foreign intelligence agencies, approving the firing of 400 of our best CIA agents(many of them in the Mideast)-- an ongoing disaster that has affected America calamitously to the present day.

 

Carter intuitively MISUNDERSTOOD the depths of hatred that the radical Islamist movement would have toward America.

 

Once the surprise revelation became known that the Shah of Iran was in trouble, Carter actually sided WITH Ayatollah Khomeini, because he, like himself, was a "religious man", and would "never violate the human rights of the Iranian people" as the Shah had done with his secret police force (SAVAK).

 

Carter foolishly failed to realize that Khomeini could actually be more "unfair" than the Shah; and would employ Iran's oil revenues AGAINST the United States.

 

Carter let the Shah fall in ignominy. And just as history blames Roosevelt for the Cold War, Carter could be considered the defacto founder of radical Islam.

 

And what about the liberal Bill Clinton, and his baseless trusting of our "ally," the Chinese?

 

In February of 1996, President Clinton authorized the export of critical booster-rocket and satellite technology to China, undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would greatly harm U.S. national security.

 

A New York Times reporter uncovered the actual plot:

 

In an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, it was revealed a quid-pro-quo had occurred-- Clinton had received nearly $100,000 in Chinese "contributions" for his re-election campaign of 1996.

 

Currently, China is practicing how to shoot down orbiting satellites; and to our peril, the media has deliberately ignored Clinton's responsibility, having saved China approximately 15-20 years of difficult research-- all for campaign contributions. 

 

And now that the Chinese are flush with cash (most of it ours) they are going all-out to develop a threat the U.S. hasn't witnessed since Stalin acquired our hydrogen bomb secrets in 1949: the DF- 21 missile, a  'kill weapon' to target & destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

 

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at Mach-10, then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance capability to strike a large moving target at sea-- thereby rendering the U.S. naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

Imagine all American carriers-- going the way of the World War II battleships-- becoming obsolete almost overnight; all through the courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton's reckless actions with China may now have now greased the skids for a possible future war, but you'll never hear about it in the pro-liberal media, who-- ever since the days of FDR-- have covered up the sinful mistakes of democrats, and the reason why the U.S. military is as necessary now as it was in 1941, or at any other time in America's storied history.

 

But despite all the negative slant of the media, the United States has been an honorable country, and has never kept territory, or plundered any land we've conquered.

 

It's all part of our "good karma" as a truly blessed nation. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the American Left uphold the Law of Civilization and Decay?


It was cast as an unprecedented new compromise-- the heralded revival of California's offshore mega-barrel Tranquillion oil field-- a plan that would have been the state's first approval to drill for oil in its waters since 1969.

But as fast as the proposal came to be, it disappeared within a tidal wave of leftist, environmental rejections.

California's State Lands Commission, headed by the radical environmentalist, John Garamendi,  killed the deal, citing that, "Approval would have been a message heard very, very clearly around the world by those who call for "drill, baby, drill."

So score another big one for the left; and another brick in the wall toward cutting off America’s vital domestic flow of crude oil.

It was a deal that would have allowed a Houston based Texas oil company, Plains Exploration and Production, to sink new wells off the Santa Barbara coast in return for an agreement to shut down all four of its existing offshore platforms within 13 years.

Santa Barbara County approved the plan without controversy last summer. But with horizontal "slant-drilling" technology, Plains Exploration had an ingenious plan-- sink wells deep into the sea floor, and then burrow sideways from under the federally regulated waters, to where Tranquillion sits underneath the ocean floor under state waters.

Thus it would have eliminated all environmental concerns of a possible ocean spill, like the disastrous 1969 well-head blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara

But the uncompromising California State Lands Commission wasn’t swayed: by a controversial 2-1 vote, they upheld the contentions of Santa Barbara's most vociferous anti-oil groups, who said, "allowing any new drilling in state waters would suggest the state welcomes offshore drilling, and send a "come-hither" message to other oil companies".

So just what are these idiopathic environmentalists talking about? A "come hither" message to the oil companies? Were they implying some kind of sexual innuendo; or are we talking about energy policy? But whenever it comes to U.S. energy policy, the leftists have never made sense

Of course, this was we'd expect.  It’s always been the left's anti patriotic duty--blocking what’s vital for America's economy, and disregarding the country’s most critical need--domestic energy.

it was your usual "just show ‘em whose boss thing"... exercising one's authority for the sake of power; the control factor (i.e. the abuse of political power); the lust of all leftists.

Never mind that California is bazillions in debt; never mind that the hundreds of millions of barrels of Tranquillion's oil would relieve our  domestic energy shortage. And never mind the 40 billion we continue to send OPEC every month- a crippling, unsustainable drain on our capital.

None of it matters except for California's leftist, mindless insistence of keeping control-- controlling the inevitable slide downward of our country into third world status-- and upholding the law of civilization and decay.

Can this law be repealed? Not if our leftist new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has his way.

Predictably, Mr. Salazar's first major decision — to cancel oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of public land in Utah — could not have sent a clearer signal that his department is under new management; a rather haughty introduction indeed.

Salazar's appointment as Interior Secretary was a strong indication that the Obama administration intends to take a "more measured approach" to energy exploration on the public lands, and that, "drill-now, drill-anywhere" policies are "a thing of the past".

Mama-Mia! Drilling is to be a thing of the PAST?

What could be more counterproductive to America's economic survival than stating that domestic drilling is passe? OPEC is celebrating as we speak! Fully 95% of America's transportation needs are met by the refined products of petroleum--something that the off shores of the U.S. holds in abundance

So what is America’s future transportation system supposed to run on? Renewables? Wind and solar power?

Sure! Just picture the all new, all electric, 40-ton semi tractor-trailers on the roads; and the heralded hydrogen- powered freight trains; and the wind powered F-22 stealth fighter planes; and don’t forget the massive torque output of the new solar-powered line of Caterpillar bulldozers. Is the Obama administration ready to  deliver these vehicles to replace our conventional powered machines? Not yet?

Yet they contend drilling for oil is a thing of the past. And will these disastrous, economic absurdities of the left ever cease? But haven't these treasonous liberals already damaged America enough? Look at the calamitous wealth destruction they have wrought upon our country:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has blocked all previous Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. lt's liquid gold--4 TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted.

And for what? The environment.? For the insistence on developing renewable resources? This is wealth that could go for investment. It's the money a deficit-plagued America needs at a most critical time.

We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles; new money for corporate expansion; building high-speed rail corridors; or for R&D toward high tech medical and pharmaceutical advancements; or for developing new inventions and hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas.

The list is endless.

But without capital, nothing can move forward. And the leftists have chosen to stifle all this, and have declared our own domestic energy resources to be illegal--putting us on the slippery slope downhill toward the fulfillment of the prophecy of the "law of civilization and decay."

So what exactly is this law of civilization and decay?

This is a hypothesis- first proposed by the famous historian Brooks Adams in1894; a law that was the reason for the decline and fall of the Roman and Spanish empires. It held that the seat of world power, throughout history, has consistently followed a westward movement from the ancient crossroads in the East

To illustrate, let’s expound upon this hypothesis: The tendency of history is that power is not static, and the foibles of human nature are the reasons for the inevitable fulfillment of the law.

From ancient Persia; to Alexander the Great in Macedonia; to Athens in ancient Greece; to Rome; to Constantinople, to Spain, then France, and to London; and finally, to America; in accord with a law relating to the density of populations, and the development of new and centralizing techniques of trade and industry, the "law" commands that the seat of power eventually, and invariably, transforms from one country to another in an inevitable westward direction.

In summary, the law upholds that throughout the constant progression of history, the status of each dominant country always declines, and that…"All civilizations fall because of the actions of certain people who made these civilizations vanish."

And this law portends huge trouble for the U.S. And could it be that the radical left is the straw that breaks our nation's back, and moves the seat of power westward? Could our downfall be imperceptibly underway, and migrating westward across the Pacific as we speak?

Right now, China is taking advantage of the worldwide economic downturn to go on a major shopping spree, investing in energy and other natural resources that could give it an economic advantage over the United States that it has never had before.

This should set off alarm bells; but so far it's slipped entirely below our radar. China’s newest investments position the country as a threat to becoming the world's new dominate nation-- a new seat of power-- eclipsing our United States.

And the main reason is painfully obvious: we remain energy static-- while the Chinese proceed ahead at a voracious pace. Unlike the American left, the Chinese are not fools; they see that oil has been (and will continue to be in the foreseeable future) vital to projecting economic power, and key to dominating the world’s economic landscape.
 
Chinese money continues to talk around the globe--so are you listening Nancy Pelosi?

In a recent move, the China Development Bank will lend the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras $10 billion in exchange for a long-term commitment to send oil to China. And with their recent deals they've signed with Russia and Venezuela, this brings Beijing’s total oil investments to $41 billion.

The result? This will prepare China to expand even more rapidly during the next boom when supplies of commodities (like oil ) are likely to tighten again as global growth picks up. And China will have a foothold it lacked during the recent previous  boom, when it grew phenomenally, even with its limited access to domestic resources.

China is flush with cash, thanks to trillions of dollars from decades of selling goods to the West; and they are using it to proceed in the exact opposite direction of the U.S.  The Chinese continue to accumulate huge petroleum energy deposits-- possibly eclipsing America as world's dominant economic power as soon as 2030 

China is a capital rich nation; the U.S. is a capital starved, beggar nation-- woefully lacking in cash-- thanks to the treasonous energy policy of the left, which results in the exportation of our capital to OPEC at a perilous pace of 700 billion a year.

And recently, Venezuela borrowed $6 billion from China and agreed to increase their oil exports to China, bringing China’s total investment in the country to $12 billion. In Brazil, China signed a $10 billion “loan-for-oil” deal that guarantees the country up to 160,000 barrels a day at market prices.

This is sounding more ominous by the minute! But is the Obama administration even paying attention?

In total, China has built up nearly $2 TRILLION in foreign currency reserves, giving the country access to capital for dealing with cashed-starved nations around the world, such as America – the world’s number one debtor nation. And analysts are projecting grave worries about what lengths China will go to compete with the United States (and India), for oil and other natural resources.

The Chinese now could, by virtue of their cash rich position, easily outspend the U.S. for critical oil reserves, and lock out America from being able to compete for limited supplies of the world's strategic military minerals, such as lithium, titanium, nickel, and chromium.

China has struck deals in countries that have access to large supplies of oil and other mineral resources-- right smack where American and European countries are not well positioned-- in Africa and the Middle East.

First, the Chinese took over our manufacturing capacity; and now, we are being outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and outspent for the world's oil and mineral resources. And the Chinese continue to lend us the money we must send to OPEC every month.

So the handwriting is on the wall; and the leftists continue to be the authors. We are losing the race to the Chinese-- and to our great peril-- we are fulfilling the law of civilization and decay.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »