|
Subj: About "a genuine threat of war?" May, 2000
Date: 4/19/2004
From: CM
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
Hello -- I've been reading various back issues of WorldnetDaily articles by
you, and I have to say, you are extremely convincing in your convictions about
an on-coming crisis and a perceived threat from Russia and China. Very
convincing and very well worded. I do not want to insult you with assumptions
that I know what I'm talking about, nor do I wish to be rude to call you a
conspiracy theorist, or the like -- from looking at other back issues and
opinion sections of your site, you get plenty of that.
My question with this particular article is that it goes to outline that Russia
is basically returning to its old government outline when Stalin was in power.
You have assorted sources from the Associated Press, but give no credible
sources about such things unless I am missing something, which is quite
possible. What I mean is that its all perspective Media sources. I suppose I
want cold hard evidence from credible institutions, but I know that is perhaps
not so realistic. It seems to be largely an opinion of a possible scenario that
may or may not occur based on a perceived threat from. Russia. I'm not going to
contest that, because, based on what I do know, it is quite possible.
http://www.jrnyquist.com/war_preps.htm
-- you also cite no sources from your observations of the compiling of 'facts'
you have obtained. This is not so much as a criticism, but curiosity. Where do
you get this information? A validated source does wonders to create belief.
Thanks -
CM
Subj: Re: About "a genuine threat of war?" May, 2000
Date: 4/19/2004
From: J.R. Nyquist
To: CM
I mention sources throughout my writings. Here are a few you might look into for
a better idea of the facts:. Bill Lee was a CIA and DIA analyst who wrote a book titled
The ABM Treaty Charade.
Another source worth consulting is Peter Pry. He was from the CIA's Office of Soviet Analysis. I've quoted his books
frequently, I know him personally. I'm not making up my information. It's
real.
The work of Anatoliy Golitsyn has been out there for many years. I quote from him, and find his book invaluable. His 94 percent accuracy rating in predicting the collapse
of the Soviet Union was discussed in Mark Riebling's book Wedge.
Russia's giant underground nuclear-proof city in the Urals has been covered by most of the major papers in this country and in the UK. It's not some right wing fantasy. It's real. Clinton's defense secretary even lodged a protest about it, about the fact we weren't allowed to send inspectors down there to see if the Russians were complying with arms control agreements (as our satellites cannot see into deep places like Yamantau Mountain). Russia's violation of most of its arms control treaties has been covered by the
Baltimore Sun's Will Englund in recent years. Then there's the work of Bill Gertz over at
The Washington Times. His articles are basic, solid stuff. He put out a number of books pointing to Russia and China's war preparations and hostility.
Perspective media? Try Pravda. Try Antiwar.com.
You ought to read Viktor Suvorov's book Spetsnaz. There are fascinating details about grey terror, pink terror and red terror. This is the track we are now on.
I just posted the analysis (on my Web site) of the communist directed 1989 revolution in Czechoslovakia. Yes, that's right. The 1989 revolution that overthrew communism was organized and led by communists. It is the first time this analysis from the East has been translated into English. It is the work of a former Czechoslovak political prisoner who had access to Interior Ministry documents (some of which I have copies of). He explains how dissident and
émigré groups were infiltrated years ahead of time in anticipation of the 1989-1990 changes. (The controlled democracy switch in the East Bloc was predicted by KGB defector Anatolity Golitsyn in 1984. According to Golitsyn, a controlled collapse of communism was part of the Kremlin's long range deception strategy. I have many Czech and Polish sources who have confirmed this, and I've published some of their material on my site).
GRU defector Stanislav Lunev agrees with me, by the way, that the collapse of communism occurred as part of a strategic plan. GRU defector Viktor Suvorov also thinks so, as he explained to Christoper Story three years ago.
Sources? Credibility? How many defectors do I have to find who will say this? Each of these has an I.Q. far higher than mine. They are Cold War professionals who know how the game is played.
I interviewed Hugo Chavez's pilot and chief of air staff, Major
Diaz. Did you read that interview? It's listed on the front of my site. Chavez is a communist. He is working with China and Cuba, and he visited Moscow and wanted the Russians to build arms factories on Venezuelan soil. He went to Beijing and declared that he was a Maoist. This was all reported
in the news.
You know, of course, that Russia is helping to build Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Do I have to quote a source? It has been reported everywhere by everyone who
reports on such things.
"Perspective" media sources?
Facts are facts. I'm merely telling you what they NECESSARILY indicate, because certain things don't happen without rhyme or reason. Military buildups, the extension of the range of fighter-bombers, huge nuclear-proof cities, a massive Russian ABM system, a rising anti-Americanism in Europe and Latin America, Chinese penetration of Canada (see the
Sidewinder Report, a joint RCMP-CSIS study).
Also look at Russia's ties to al Qaeda. Yes, that's right. Look at the Wall Street Journal piece on Ayman al Zawahiri I refer to in my article on that subject. And the Chechen provocation with its KGB agents and GRU agents leading the charge against Moscow.
Then read the file of Victor Bout,
a Russian supplier of arms to al Qaeda.
Did you know the Prime Minister of Hungary was forced to admit that he was a communist secret agent? Former President Walesa of Poland, the great Solidarity leader, is no longer in politics
partly because he was accused of being a secret police spy. Vaclav Havel's police files remain secreted away somewhere. The other East European leaders are similarly compromised.
Everyone knows Putin was a spy.
Did you ever read Andrei Codrescu's book, The Hole in the
Flag? It's about the overthrow of Ceausescu in Romania. The punch line is that communism wasn't overthrown by the Romanian people, but by Moscow's agents.
Codrescu isn't some kook. He is a leading Romanian-American writer, poet and literary critic.
You might also check out Andrei Navrozov's The Coming Order, or his Gingerbread
Race. His essays in Chronicles magazine are also of interest.
All this information you can check out yourself. The war prep information came from a stack of newspaper
clippings I collected in 1998 and 1999. I don't know where the clippings are now. Lost in the paper mayhem. You can go back and read my columns and find many of these particular items and the exact date and paper I got them from.
JRN
Subj: America's Evil War
Date: 4/23/2004
From: DG
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
You write: "If America suffers a financial dislocation, if Bush loses the November election, the war in Iraq will have been for nothing. In that event, America’s enemies will be strengthened. America’s friends will be fewer and oil might not be traded in dollars, but in euros."
For spreading depleted uranium to Iraqi children to breath for generations, for giving
Saddam chemical weapons, for Bush's lies, for Haliburton's profits, for the continuance of the Great Game, for neocon big brother government, for the rigged system and no real alternative
to douche bag Kerry, for our greedy consumption and for passing the bill on to our grandchildren
-- I pray these actions are NOT rewarded and that we DO LOSE.
Vote Ron Paul for president. Or even Nader. At least they are against this murder we are committing.
DG
Subj: America's Evil War
Date: 4/23/2004
From: JRNyquist@aol.com
To: DG
You do not even know enough to be ashamed of yourself. You pray for the defeat of your own country. Defeat for America, in this instance, means victory for tyrants like Saddam and terrorists and thugs who will control the Iraqi
oil. Without realizing it, you are also cheering on the socialists who agree with your anti-war position and hope to pave their way to power upon it. The Libertarians do not have a chance against the socialists. One must choose sides with an eye to the real alternatives. This is regrettable, but that's the way it is.
Ron Paul will never be president.
JRN
Subj: America's Evil War
Date: 4/23/2004
From: Steve
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
I keep trying. I almost was ready to stand up and exclaim to the room that
Nyquist had an article worth reading all the way through. Ah, but alas, up comes
the support of George and one more time to sink back deep into the quagmire. For
instance, "if Bush loses the November election, the war in Iraq will have
been for nothing."
This is truly one of the most -- I can't even find the proper adjective here
-- simply stupid things I've seen anyone write even in defense of our resident
idiot. Gees, Jeffrey. You mean all that death and destruction and spent money (we
did not even have) will have been in vain only if George loses in November? Wow.
Truly wow. You talk about our country in trouble -- after looking at your own
defensive viewpoint of George, you might understand a little better what the
rest of the world with any common sense is agonizing about. I'm not saying
anyone else is any better.
Steve
Subj: America's Evil War
Date: 4/23/2004
From: JRNyquist@aol.com
To: Steve
I was not defending George W. Bush. I was stating the obvious. If the
president loses in November his project to build democracy in Iraq will be over.
That being said, I am indifferent to Bush's project since the United States is
threatened by a more dangerous combination of enemies than is dreamt of by you,
Steve.
As to my political position, it is simple: I am against the denigration of my
country's president and my country's military. The United States must be
defended and we need to cool the crazed anti-American rhetoric. We need to stand
together, united against our enemies.
JRN
Subj: Combinations and Complications
Date: 4/28/2004
From: Fred
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
Mr. Nyquist,
As an American living in Europe I was quite taken aback by your recent comments
in the article C&C forwarded to me by a friend for comment. You state your
opinion that "Anti-Americanism is a growing phenomenon throughout
Europe." You obviously have not spent much time here nor do you truly know
any Europeans. My friends come from all parts of Europe. I can tell you that
Europeans do not hate America. They love America. They worship America. They
want to be America. But they also remember the death and destruction of war.
America has taken it upon itself to attack anyone without provocation. Anyone
who believes the government's story about 9/11 needs his head examined. Many
Europeans do not believe it. Europeans understand dictatorship. They understand
war. These are things that Americans cannot understand.
Europeans want to see Bush lose in November. He is dangerous. He and his
handlers are raising the level
of violence by continuing to spread the U.S. military empire. Thus the rest of
the world is responding to this threat. If the U.S. truly wanted peace she would
lower the level of violence. Iraq will be the U.S.'s Waterloo and it will not be
because of Europe. It will be because no country has been able to hang onto to
an empire. Never.
If the U.S. wants to win the hearts and minds of the world there are better ways
than waging global war. The U.S. is fighting a world war and this is putting the
world in a very dangerous position. The barbarians are inside the gates. They
are in Washington D.C. America put Saddam in power. This goes against all the
lessons of history and everything our Founding Fathers warned us about. The
world is revolting against The Empire. This should not be a surprise.
Over one million Iraqis died because of the U.S.-led 12 year embargo. This is
genocide and you wonder why they "believe in cruelty and
violence"?
Your call for "a little more cruelty would have been kinder to the Iraqi
people and easier on the U.S. federal budget" shows the working of a
dangerous mind. Kill them all and let God sort it out?
Seek serious help,
Fred
Subj: Combinations and Complications
Date: 4/28/2004
From: JRNyquist@aol.com
To: Fred
You would have me accept the premise that hating the U.S. government and
hating the "U.S. military empire" is not the same as hating the
American people. You write: "Anyone who believes the government's story
about 9/11 needs his head examined. Many Europeans do not believe it. They
understand dictatorship. They understand war."
You here suggest there is something wrong with the thinking of most
Americans, since most of us over here believe the government's version of
9/11. Your entire note is filled with anti-American statements. The United States is a
republic, not a dictatorship. Its government is representative and the decision
for war was ratified by the U.S. Congress, with a majority of both houses voting
in favor of military action. A majority supported the president's policy at the
outset, and a majority support it today. If that support collapses it will be
due to the efforts of the anti-American camp.
If Europeans think we are stupid for supporting our president, the insult is
only obvious. This is not a likely way to "love America."
JRN
Subj: Combinations and Complications
Date: 4/28/2004
From: Les Lewis
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
The war in Iraq is useless.
Ten years from now Americans will be vacationing in Iraq.
And Iraq will still not be democratic.
The troops who have died -- have died for nothing.
Subj: Combinations and Complications
Date: 4/28/2004
From: JRNyquist@aol.com
To: Les Lewis
The war in Iraq is over.
Ten years from now most people will be dead because of a world war.
American democracy will not exist much longer.
Your life will depend on the success of your nation's soldiers.
JRN
Subj: Complications and Combinations
Date: 4/26/2004
From: James F.
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
I read your articles on Financial Sense with regularity. In your recent
article you stated that Iraqis do not believe in goodness and they do not
believe in freedom. I am very curious as to how you could make such a broad
generalization. I don't know if you have spent much time in Arab countries,
speak Arabic or have visited in the homes of Arab people. I have spent
considerable time in Arab countries and I do not understand the basis for your
statement. Arabs, in general, are a very generous people and I believe based on
my personal experience that they are generally a very "good" people.
It is especially helpful to speak Arabic when visiting their homes. Although,
unlike Western culture Arabs have a revenge culture.
The war in Iraq does present issues to be addressed, but the issue is not that
they are not "good" or that they do not like "freedom." I do
not think there is much doubt that Iraqis would like to live in a free country
with fair elections. The facts on the ground, I believe, demonstrate that
desire. However, the Iraqis are not stupid. Since the occupation began the first
local elections that were scheduled were cancelled, and not rescheduled, because
all the candidates that would have likely won were opposed to the US occupation.
Elections that have been promised are continuously pushed back for the same
reason. Just as the hand-over to an Iraqi government in June [has] been treated
with trepidation. The Iraqis see right through the deception that elections can
not be scheduled quickly. The likely scenario is any election will bring to
power people opposed to the U.S. Any leader that supports the U.S. will likely
meet the same resistance. This is not because they are not good or that they do
not like freedom. They don't like us there. The broad-based uprising against U.S.
forces has solidified this fact. The notion that is presented that most Iraqis
support our presence is a cruel hoax being played on the American public. If
this were true, the facts on the ground would reflect it.
Every foreign occupier of every Arab country has been met with resistance. Just
ask the French or the British or the Ottomans or anyone else. U.S. forces are
not seen as any different. Especially when our troops kill thousands of
civilians and destroy their homes, businesses and mosques.
The Iraqi governing council has been made up of people like Chalabi who do not
have credibility and are widely seen as profiteers. Recent reports have stated
at least 20 percent of reconstruction funds are lost to fraud. Not surprisingly,
some of the people implicated are on the governing council. A focus on this
issue has not been presented to the U.S. public and you could do us a great
service by looking into some of these issues. These issues are not lost on the
Iraqi mind. Especially the U.S. focus on Iraqi oil.
The heavy handed US military actions have only enraged Iraqi resistance. Cycles
of violence can last for generations in Arab society. Just ask the Israelis. A
cycle of violence in Israel started over 50 years ago and is still going strong.
The Israelis have not been able to subdue their smaller, poorly armed Arab
population nor facilitate leaders who are at all helpful to ending the violence.
Iraqis are certainly much better-armed than the Palestinians.
We will not bring goodness and freedom to people who see the fraud, corruption,
and death brought to them at the hands of U.S. occupiers. Iraqis certainly want
freedom and we need to get out of their way. I will continue to read your
writings but I would hope you might revisit your rationales for some of your
statements. The world we live in is not black and white and opinions held by
many people in the West as to how Iraqis should behave or what their desires
are, are often not substantiated by the facts on the ground. Facts will always
trump opinions. I would hope you will take some time to look more closely at
some of the facts that are shaping Iraqi opinions.
Sincerely,
James F.
Subj: Complications and Combinations
Date: 4/26/2004
From: JRNyquist@aol.com .
To: James F.
I did not say that the Iraqis were NOT good people. I said that the Iraqis, like all those who have lived under totalitarian government, no longer believe in
the political efficacy of goodness. The main political lesson one learns under a totalitarian regime is
that violence wins, that goodness cannot triumph. Therefore, the Iraqi people do not understand what the U.S. government is trying to do.
We are spending billions to rebuild their country. All they have to do is live their lives and build their businesses, save their money, and participate in the new democracy where they have the freedom to speak (but not to incite violence).
The misunderstanding about America's motives does not come about because the Iraqi people are bad. It comes about because the Iraqi people imagine that America's troops have merely replaced Saddam's secret police.
The American troops are seen as less efficient, they are foreign, and they are thought to be robbers. In fact we are not robbing them. We are giving them billions in infrastructure development.
If Iraqi society understood this, things would be taking a very different path in that country. But people who have been conditioned by the likes of Saddam Hussein imagine that all the forces of our time are moral approximations of Hussein.
You yourself seem to imagine the billions spent by America in Iraq involve some kind of oppression or thievery. This self-hating, knee-jerk anti-Americanism is even more irrational coming from you. An Arab under Saddam only knows oppression and so he regards freedom with cynicism, he regards his liberator as a fraud. You have no such excuse.
JRN
|
May
2004