Russ Logan:

OK folks here's the ground rules:

1. Civil discourse.

2. No flame wars.

3. No partisan politics.

4. Stick to the topic.

Warning in advance: If it devolves into flames, ad hominems, insults, or other anti-debate silliness, the Head Gnome (that's Art) has permission to delete the thread w/out notice. Brad wants a civil forum and I agree, he asked that my "question" be used as a separate thread and I agreed.

BTW - 'twas Brad laid the "esteemed 'spanner" on me and not myself so no snide remarks, OK?

Russ,

If I can "dumb it down" a bit, I see the discussion (on the international/intergovernmental level) you mention to be a comparison/contrast of 1900's/2000's, i.e. NATO, SEASIAN (or whatever the Asian-Pacific group is correctly named), the U.N. perhaps? with the 1700's - 1950ish, WWI, WWII, Axis, Allies, and other smaller lesser known (to mortals like me! :-)

Help me out with some actual examples if the ones I picked are off-base or off-topic?

The question was formulated so as to encourage sub-threads/sub discussions betwwen interested parties comparing, as example, the formulation of the Grand Alliance vs The Triple Entente compared to the Axis and Allied Powers of the 20 th century, or one could go for a sub on economic alliances such as the Hanseatic League vs ASEAN, the compare/contrast possibilities are many. I have no idea if this holds any interest to our esteemed colleagues on the forum or not.

We'll see how it all plays out.

I'm certainly interested, very interested - as my interest in the evolving concept of the nation-state itself seems to be interconnected with this topic.

But I have to admit - though I consider myself fairly well-read -- I feel out of my depth at first glance.

Being rather Eurocentric I think a lot of us think in terms of the old European alliances, some that changed so fast that ships at sea were attacking allies for lack of fresh news. The alliance was used in a quick reacting market way to hold an equilibrium "price" on peace. Any major player got too big, some minor player might well flip to keep things close enough that the big player would think twice about trying to roll the whole continent.

Machiavelli had some interesting thoughts on the procedure, though he related to Italy and their little fiefdoms.

I believe he was in favor of taking sides, the first point I'll make, and a point I agree with and try to live by. One can be moderate and not neutral.

A second point and beyond I plan on making, but my computer meltdown has left me a day behind and I have some stuff to do. (first thing was get my power suppy in and next TV hooked up for 24 tonight)

Careful, Art - "personal" criticisms remember?

I know it's a hard posting practice to break or avoid. But let's all do try, OK?

If anything I'd like folks to bend-over backwards to be polite. Hope that's not too, too, stifling of debate.

Look forward to your continued point and maybe some more explication of your first in re Niccolo Machiavelli.

Post modified. The moderator may delete this one too, if he pleases.

Point 3 is going to get tricky. Point 4 more than can be hoped for.

Gee, you're bossy.

Oopsie, ad hominem.

As to the topic, growth industry til our deficit bleeds us dry.

The moderator can delete the offal.

Are you making an ad hominem about my offal?

Been saving this.

courtesy, davis san. :



Alliances:

Carnak: Do-whacka-do

Ed: Do-whacka-do

Carnack: What do you look for when you're hunting do-whackas?

Rev is an idealist, and born to serve. Bitter combo. G'bless him.

Now he's committed. Heh.

I would be pleased and amazed if all meet the obligation intended when posting here.

That said, I have been pleased and amazed several times in this life. Which I've always found sweet.

Wish for more times.

In which manner? and which alliance(s)?

Comment seems to unfocused to have any applicability to the topic question, or did I miss something?

Ok, time for a second point, which builds on the first.

Once you take a side, put up your best effort in it's defense, bearing in mind that your country has no permanent allies, only permanent interests. (to steal a phrase)

I keep seeing pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, but the reason that came about is we didn't fight for our Iranian ally, the Shah. It's easy to critique allies going back to right after the French fleet assured victory at Yorktown, but reality requires allies. (unless you're Switerland, who holds everyone's wallets while they fight)

I don't see "the alliance" ending any time soon, and I don't see them changing in any fundamental way. The same way I don't see the complaining about alliances changing either.

Our allies in Europe are all in the fight against terror with us but yet today they gave money to the Palestinians, the US and Israel cut off any funding because of Hamas. Are the Europeans to be considered aiding the enemy? We won't give money to Hamas because they won't recognize Israel's right to exist, but we give our ports over to the UAE and they won't recognize Israel's right to exist either. If we can't figure out who our allies are and who are enemies are, how do we know what alliances exist, or don't. It is a puzzlement.

Wow,
Thanks all for the contributions... including the ones encouraging us not to take ourselves too seriously as we attempt NOT to take one another apart!

Russ, I ask you be a gentle taskmaster and I hope we can learn from one another... especially you, this alliance topic was jumping into the deep end of the pool and I'm still on the edge with my inflatable life vest trying to gain courage to dive in!!!

Sherry

While I was thinking more along the lines of formalized alliances (here I'm thinking NATO, the aforementioned Triple Entente, or even OPEC) and not simply a "birds of a feather" approach, you bring up an interesting aspect - what of those nations, that one or another nation assumes by virtue of historical interest alignment are 'allies" absent any formalized agreement? Are they indeed part of an "alliance" in the classical sense, or is that only an invalid working hypothesis on the part of the nation making such assumption?

I think often such "alliance" is too often treated as a given, to the consternation of the nation positing such a given. Examples are fairly easy to find - France (De Gaulle's actions to exit NATO for one), Romania going it somewhat alone out of the Warsaw Pact under Ceausescu (may he rot in the deepest depths of hell! - personal bias, for personal reasons), why Norway and the UK aren't more supportive of OPEC (they are all oil producing nations, right?), and so forth.

Indeed, even the formulation of the European Union (as now formed and acting) can be seen as an unanticipated outgrowth, sometimes even adversarial to, NATO.

Thoughts?

??????

SherryB, et al,

There is logic to this.

QUOTE(SherryB @ Feb 28 2006, 12:10 AM) [snapback]188002[/snapback]

Are the Europeans to be considered aiding the enemy?

(COMMENT)

The Western European Nations recognize that the Palestinians are, to the extent dicted by the Road Map, following the "democratic course of action" as mandated. The only choice was to an elect an existing party, of which Hamas was one. Hamas is the duly elected defactor government by a recognized democratic process.

The Europeans recognize that if the new government is cut-off from the rest of the industrialized world, they have no real chance of evolving into a peaceful capitalist nation drive be monetary issue and not religous or sectarian issues. If the new government is not nurtured, it will degenerate into an outlaw state which is to no ones advantage.

The "Throw the Seeds of Democracy" theory is a very risky business and done blindly - with over optomistic hopes - does not always lead to the desired outcome. The US and Israel just got a taste of that.

QUOTE(SherryB @ Feb 28 2006, 12:10 AM) [snapback]188002[/snapback]

We won't give money to Hamas because they won't recognize Israel's right to exist, but we give our ports over to the UAE and they won't recognize Israel's right to exist either. If we can't figure out who our allies are and who are enemies are, how do we know what alliances exist, or don't. It is a puzzlement.

(COMMENT)

The dominant alliance in the Middle East is the League of Arab States (AKA: Arab League). In this regard, the Arab League supports UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It also advances the concepts behind the "Land for Peace" Principle. But the sting points concern the Palestinian people's right to determine thier own destiny WITHOUT foreign intervention and interferrence. They consider this essential in order to restore security and stability in the Middle East region. (Arabs have this thing about foreign occupation - just as we do.)

In terms of recognition of the right of Israel, UN Security Resolution 242 is generally interpreted by both the US and the Arab League as to call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel.

In terms of the UAE, and other Arab states, the wall is softening. Israel is gradually building a political relationship with states like the UAE; as well as: Qatar, Morocco, Bahrain, Tunisia and Oman. Of course, all of these countries see Israel as a Nuclear Power, which they are not, and see Israel as holding that power over their heads. In this respect, the Arab League does not make peace under the threat. The UAE supports the NNPT and is an advocate of clearing the region of all manner of WMD.

Most Respectfully,

Right now, the old allies and the new are being used by the US to further our new policy (?) of forcing democracy on the world. The allies who didn't agree with our new policy were thrown aside and accused of siding with the terrorists. I really don't know who we have as a staunch ally other than the UK, whose citizens are strongly opposed to Blair's joining with Bush. Since the administration came in with the attitude of discarding the treaties made by past administrations, we've left the rest of the world wondering where we're going and who is going with us. It seems they are all standing aside, letting us stew in our own juices. We wanted a war, we got a war and now we can fight the war, virtually alone.

With the New World Order, globalization, the old alliances will probably be obsolete. The trend for free trade will make China and India the new centers of power, economically and probably militarily. The die has been cast and I don't see anything that will change it. We're on the road to somewhere, I sure can't tell where.

The thing I'm waiting to see is the threat Iran has made concerning the Euro. The west is in for a major shock if the oil producing countries start using the Euro instead of the dollar to trade the oil in.

I've read that if they can't beat us militarily they will destroy us economically. I wonder what will happen then. My crystal ball is hazy today.

Um, Israel is not an official nuclear power.

I think there is something to age-old alliances and those relationships are often taken for granted. There is a European Union because it is in their mutual interests to unionize, but the "squabbling" that goes on does seem (to me at least) to correspond to age-old antagonisms. Will the English ever feel they are equals to the French and vice-versa? Will either ever really trust Germany?

America, as a relatively young Country doesn't have these issues. I think, too, that our alliances with the countries we saved in WWII is something we took for granted and probably shouldn't have.

It is true, that trade partners generally are strong allies, but we are no longer "partners," we are merely "consumers," and that will keep most of those that contribute to out voracious appetite for "stuff" on our side more strongly than any piece of paper.

That is the new reality. Trade alliances, not formal ones. Lord help us if we can't buy "stuff" anymore.

OK, the box score is....just kidding!

Thanks to all for the civil raising of points and discussion.

Hasn't exactly gone where I'd hoped (looked for more historical contrasts for my own edification, I admit it) but has been good so far. Some drifting towards partisanship but not overtly so - best that can be hoped for I guess (this is a "political" forum after all ).

Anyway thanks to all. Keep it up.

Russ,

I don't really think we can look to history with this administration. They are not interested in keeping allies, only using them. I think Sec. Powell tried to moderate within the group but when he left and Ms. Rice took over, we really don't have an effective State Dept. She is just using the hammer of military threat to try and force nations to do our bidding. Rather, Cheney's bidding. I think Bush is completely out to lunch on most issues, as has been very obvious the last few months. Without the old team in the White House, he appears naked and alone on stage.

We seem to be on the edge of the NWO with one foot still in the old and one foot into the new. We cobble together whatever we need for the task at hand. I see no policy or direction to this administration. If there is one, it isn't obvious to anyone outside the White House. Other than bringing people their freedom. Whatever that means.

Ah I see the cause of the confusion.

if you go back to the first post on the thread, that which opened the debate topic you find:

"In what ways (organization, scope, effectiveness, lasting impact, etc.) do the "alliances" of the 20th and 21st centuries, sometimes referred to as regional/international security organizations, differ from the classical multi-national alliances of the previous two centuries (the 18th and 19th). You may disregard the impact of technology growth, except as it may be essential to the newer alliance's innate structure. Focus on the ideas behind formation, the structures built to effectualize the alliance(s) chosen for discussion, and the legacy (s) any may or may not have left behind.

Corrollary question: What do you see as the future of an "alliance culture" and its impact on the institution of the nation-state? You need not limit discussion to simply inter-governmental actors."

Within that framework the initial intent was to explore the nature of the concept of alliance, not just the current specific one involved with the war in Iraq. And to maybe see where folks thought that concept may lead in future. Less of a topical discussion and more of a conceptual one. But as long as we don't devolve into the usual shouting match/flame fest, I guess any and all alliances, ours and others are fair game, given how broadly I formed the initial questons.

et al,

Why are "alliances" formed between nations and regions of nations?

While (I believe) there are a number of reasons why "alliances" are formed, I suppose I would lump them into three groups:

Alliances that are formed to secure the geographic integrity of a state or region of states.

Alliances formed to promote the expansion of commerce.

Alliances to further the subjugation under a Religous cause.

I think that one of the first great alliances started in the time of King Philip II of Macedonia (father of Alexander). If we were to look at "why" Macedonia originally set-out on its military venture, the first two reasons (supra) come into play. Macedonian commerce was being adversely impacted by surrounding Kingdoms from the Black Sea, down to the Aegean Sea, and around to the Ionan Sea. In order to relieve the economic pressure, Macedonia needed to secure the forces of Thrace, Illyria, Epirus and finally Greece. This would create a buffer zone all the way around Macedonia protected by the combined forces of these states. The technique was conquer and assimulate.

Similarly, Egypt and Mitanni formed an alliance, in the time of Thutmose III, to offset the economic strength of Hatti and Assyria. The health of the economy was the principle concern and (in this case) both dynastic marriages and military force came to bare.

It appears, in both cases, that the alliances ultimately dissolved with the most dominant partner assimulating the weaker after the economic threat was removed. This seems to playout over and over again through history, as ONE series of outcomes, whether is be the clans of Scotland in the time of Wallace 'v' Longshanks, or the Germanic Tribes of Europe. This is different from outcomes of Hegemonies, which tend to result in separations from the dominant parent (as in the colonial powers).

Most Respectfully,

I can only think that in a dark alley five Arabs with knives would gladly vote that one Israeli not be allowed a gun. Whether that is because they're against violence, or merely like the odds better with no guns involved is a question that can only be answered if the Israeli is willing to bet his life.

Nothing ever goes as hoped for. That's why it's only hope. And as to politics, EVERYTHING is political.

Now, on your point about historical contrasts. I see a lot of similarities, rather than contrasts, because alliances are human nature in a group setting. It's sort of like Maslowe. Alliances are first formed for survival, after that they may evolve for greater purpose. Would the first tribal alliance of hunter-gatherers really be that much different than NATO? Everyone ally against the bear for survival.

I don't know, Rocco. In the case of Philip of Macedonia, my readings indicate an ambitious and innovative man who saw opportunity to create a unified Macedonia and later Greece to eventually challenge the Achaemenid Empire. Thanks to the squabblings of the Greek city-states in the Third Sacred War and the distraction of Persia and Artaxerxes in the Social Wars (trying to conquer Egypt again) coupled with the decline of Athens, Thebes, and Sparta as military powers, his development of a standing professional army with an improved phalanx and his cavalry's "Flying Swan" techniques he easily conquered the others who were forced to rely on mercenaries (in short supply due to Persia's hiring in the Social Wars) and temporary ciitizen conscripts. Less alliance politics than single-minded conquest. An interesting figure in history.

Russ, et al,

Yes, we often read what they are famous for, and how they accomplished great feats. But we seldom haer about what the original momentum was. This is generally because that after military successes mount, new agenda's develop.

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 1 2006, 06:08 PM) [snapback]188331[/snapback]

I don't know, Rocco. In the case of Philip of Macedonia, my readings indicate an ambitious and innovative man who saw opportunity to create a unified Macedonia and later Greece to eventually challenge the Achaemenid Empire. Thanks to the squabblings of the Greek city-states in the Third Sacred War and the distraction of Persia and Artaxerxes in the Social Wars (trying to conquer Egypt again) coupled with the decline of Athens, Thebes, and Sparta as military powers, his development of a standing professional army with an improved phalanx and his cavalry's "Flying Swan" techniques he easily conquered the others who were forced to rely on mercenaries (in short supply due to Persia's hiring in the Social Wars) and temporary ciitizen conscripts. Less alliance politics than single-minded conquest. An interesting figure in history.

(OBSERVATION)

Some histories focus differently on various aspects.

QUOTE(" http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientM...pofMacedon.html " )

King Philip II ruled Macedonia from 359 to 336 BC. He was born in Pella, the capital of the ancient Macedonian kingdom, as the youngest son of king Amyntas III. After his fathers death, Macedonia slowly disintegrated as his elder brothers and future kings Alexander II and Perdiccas III, unsuccessfully fought against the continuous attacks of the neighboring Thracians, Illyrians, and Greeks. The Thracians were already in possession of eastern Macedonia, the strongest Greek military power of Thebes continuously intervened in the internal Macedonian politics, the Greeks colonies on the edge of Macedonia, particularly Olynthus, were obstacle to Macedonia's economy and presented a military danger, and the invasions of the Illyrians put north-western Macedonia under their occupation.

Most Respectfully,

I was refering to the coalition of the bribed that Bushie has bragged about in Iraq. Who are soon to be long gone.

So whats the deal? Does this topic have to do with the new right wing slogan that there are no permanent allies only permanent interests?

We didn't fight for the Shah because he was defaulting on the loans (very bad ones) made by David Rockefeller as an operating officer of the family bank (many tried to talk him out of running the Bank as he just isn't the sharpest tack in the in the box.)

The Shah was brought down (not just not supported) and the religious fanatic Ayatollah Khomeini's way smoothed from France to the government of Iran. This was accomplished through Rockefeller agents in establishment like Kissinger (he ran the Brothers Foundation for years and the summer brain washing seminars for the affluent children of the ruling classes in both South America and the Middle East, hosted by the Rockefeller family fief Harvard)

The idea of this deposal being that the new leader would pay the loans back. The establishment was just beginning to have some interesting political success domestically working with religious fanatics (I. e. Falwell, Robinson) about then. Ergo, one supposes they thought collaborating with a right wing loony in Iran would be possible. No such luck he would not play ball on the loans either after he came to power.

So after reading a CIA report (provided by Kissinger or some other family asset at Langly...we still had good ex SAVAK assets in Iran then) that stated if we gave refuge to the Shah (he was in a Mexico City clinic then) the fanatics were prepared to seize our embassy for hostages to trade for him. So Kissinger and David R moved heaven and earth to get the Shah in a NYC hospital on humanitarian grounds (remember they had undermined him) and when he came here the embassy In Iran was seized as per intelligence report supposition (even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut).

The very next day all Iranian assets in America were seized and David's bank put in charge of them. Rockefeller extracted what he was owed plus interest from those assets and in the end still kept about 500 million the Iranian government has been demanding the return of for years. And that ladies and germs is the very short version of the story of how the Shah whose father the CIA had set in place in Iran lost favor and his fiefdom and the fanatics took over Iran.

Thank you Grig for another lesson on the workings of the "unseen hand" that rules the planet. We mere mortals are just game pieces for the real rulers of the world. The bankers.

No.

See post #1.

Russ,

There are few here that have studied ancient history. Sad to say, some of us never even went to college. So the subject is foreign to us. In my case, after having raised a large family, I began to teach myself. Going back that far isn't an option. Too little time, too much to learn.

"...And that ladies and germs is the very short version of the story of how the Shah whose father the CIA had set in place in Iran lost favor and his fiefdom and the fanatics took over Iran...."

The last statement is not historically accurate.

Reza Khan (later Reza Shah Pahlavi) came to power in 1921 in a coup against the Qajar Dynasty proclaiming himself Shah of Persia. He was the father of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was placed on the throne in 1941 by the British who did not trust Iran's neutrality in WWII. The new Shah ruled in Iran until 1979 when both unrest and failing health force him into exile. Note the dates. The CIA was not in existence until 1949. What Grig is most likely referring to is Mohammad Reza Shah's return to full power deposing the Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953 after leaving Iran in 1951 having lost a constitutional battle with the PM. The CIA was involved in that one (1953) as well as the formulation and training of the Shah's secret police, SAVAK. For the full timeline on this see:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iran/history.html

Just keeping the record straight. As for the previous data in re Rockefellers, etc. No data. (and no research I admit).

OFF TOPIC: PLEASE SKIP

'SherryB',

Academic credentials are not, by themselves, any more than testimonials in achievement. Contrary to popular belief, they do not signify any particular genius or intellectual capacity. (I have several academic credentials and professional certifications, and I hold no special ground above you or any other member in the discussion group.)

(COMMENT)
College is an opportunity for exposure to the ideas of others. But the individual who attempts to acquire knowledge on their own, outside the conventional established lines, is another breed altogether. They are made of the same stuff as Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus, and even Hypatia of Alexandria (one of my personal favorites). You are in good company. None of them went to college either. Mental Imagery, reasoning ability, problem-solving ability, ability to perceive relationships between things, and ability to store and retrieve information, is not something you acquire in college. College merely gives you the opportunity to exercise these natural gifts. If you exercise it on your own, you are so much the better.

I know just enough to know I know so little.

Best Regards,

My Mother was self taught and has left me with an extensive library, the complete works of Will and Ariel Durant, books on history, philosophy, shelves full of biographies, but I keep buying books that interest me and never seem to get to the Durant books. Those were the ones she specifically wanted me to read. I must find time, maybe in the summer when the days are long and lazy.

File under humor:

There's the story of the young man who went off to college and, some months later, upon his return visit home he was utterly astonished at how much his parents had learned in so short a time.

No. I don't think so.

I think Machiavelli's sage advice is getting old. And creates a pattern of inconsistences.

Directionless foreign policy except for the partisan wind of the moment. Which will always bring sprayback.

Never too old to learn. I'm just getting to believe that.

Access is at your finger-tips.

That would be what Grig was referring to; and he was fully aware of the 1941 date and the history of the old Shah plus the events leading up to the 1953 CIA fostered deposal of the legal Prime Minister. The Iranians appeared, at the time, to have a sincere interest in a democratic government, but it was on not to the liking of Britain and the US. And the statement is as accurate as any you will likely read elsewhere. Plus, and just in case anyone has forgotten or never knew, the SAVAK was a really obscene bunch of bastards...

You know Russ I waved that flag and made terrible exceptions for it…till it bit me in the arse. Now I just care about what it was meant to represent.

…and you have no idea how little I care how anyone feels about the forgoing remark.





That's quite enough to make you wise...

Uh, Grig....

'Twas this part, "...the Shah whose father the CIA had set in place in Iran..." that was what I corrected as to historical accuracy. Reza Khan, the first Shah of the Pahlavi Dynasty, was Mohammad Reza's father. And he was not placed in power by the CIA, which would not exist for another 28 years. He led his own coup against the Qajars. Clear now?

It was Mohammed Reza himself who gained the throne of Iran in 1941(age 22) and was pushed aside by a popular movement and re-seated with CIA help in the early fifties. I do know when the CIA was organized...stop talking down to me Russ. I thought it was the revolution story you were quarreling with and yes I seem to remember the old Shaw was a Sargent with grand designs helped by the Brits. Strange how corporals and sergeants sometimes scale the latter of power...the Shah of Iran, Hitler, and the " Petit Caporal" Napoleon who went from ridding the caissons to the most powerful emperor in Europe and crowned himself so…

Hmmm...seems I am in the position of historical "backgrounder" of late...

"...Strange how corporals and sergeants sometimes scale the latter of power...the Shah of Iran, Hitler, and the " Petit Caporal" Napoleon who went from ridding the caissons to the most powerful emperor in Europe and crowned himself so…"

Reza Khan was an officer, not a sargeant, commanding the Persian Cossack Brigade at the time he led the coup against the Qajars. Depending upon which account you read - he started as either a private in the Cossack Brigade at the age of 15 in 1893-94 or started higher, his own father having been a Colonel (or Major, again accounts differ) in the army, and rose to either Colonel or Brigadier General by 1918 and still at that rank at the time of the 1921 coup. In any event, the first documented historical reference to him in the Cossack Brigade is as a First Lieutenant after the Battle of Dolweh (1911), a promotion record. So there is some wiggle room here.

Napoleon earned the nickname "Le Petit Caporal" from his army at the Battle of Lodi (1796) in the Italian Campaign against the Austrians because, while a general, he personally took charge of the artillery - his specialty as a lieutenant - which was a corporal's usual responsibility. It was a slang term of endearment in the grand armee and not an indication of his army rank - he was never an enlisted man but started his military career as a lieutenant having attended three military schools, thanks to patronage and being the son of a minor Corsican noble (very minor, at least in terms of what nobility usually bought and brought in the French society of that day).

Love history (and histories).

Reaility requires some inconsistencies, especially at the tactical level. The typical liberal talking point is always to find some point in the past where something bad happened, and blame it on the US.(of one of our allies) Any possibility there is no sprayback from isolationism and a refusal to "play the game" regarding international relations?

I would argue that some of the worlds worst problems came about from avoiding confrontation in the short term and trying to be consistently "peaceful".

Well, my reading and your posts converged. Amazing. I've been reading about the Rothschilds, triggered by the interest in the Federal Reserve System.

They multiplied their profits and power many times over by making loans to entire nations rather than mere individuals.

For example, when Napoleon refused to take loans from the Rothschilds, creating his own Bank of France instead, he made vengeful enemies. After his return from exile in 1815, Napoleon was forced by circumstances to borrow heavily to defend France from the British Duke of Wellington and his cobbled together European army. London's Nathan Rothschild accommodated Napoleon with a loan of five million pounds. At the same time, Nathan, with the aid of other Rothschild family members, smuggled a vast amount of god through France to equip Wellington. Again, the Rothschilds played both ends against the middle.

When Wellington's revitalized army defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in June 1815, news of the victory was rushed to England by Rothschild couriers, bearing their well-known and untouchable red pouches. The Rothschild messenger arrived a full day ahead of Wellington's own courier. Knowing of his capacity for early intelligence, all eyes on the London Stock Exchange were turned to Nathan Rothschild, who appearing despondent, ordered the sale of all his stocks. Certain that Wellington had been defeated, a selling frenzy began, with the end result that Nathan Rothschild's agents were able to buy up a hefty majority of Britain's debts for only a small portion of their true value.

Much later, Nathan Rothschild commented on his act by saying, "It was the best business I have ever done."

I find it fascinating to read how much control the bankers have, who the bankers are, how they fund wars for profit, just fascinating.

I think of how the consolidation of so many companies, by mergers, takeovers, etc. have left so much control in so few hands. All being financed by-the bankers. The war in Iraq is being paid for with borrowed money, borrowed from the bankers.

It sure makes you think.

SherryB,

Recommended research reading

-John Astor (N.A. fur trapper)
-gardens and statuary at Hever castle outside London (one of Henry VIII's getaways) also
(seen in film "The Shining" as hedge maze)
I'm told (by a propietor) that the guy made a killing buying roman art from French nobility (penny on the dollar) during great purges of French Revolution. Cash for kid's college funds kinda thing.
Fascinating connect the very small dots game.