http://www.channel5belize.com/archive_detail_story.php?story_id=18224

"the B.D.F. is running a Jungle Warfare course for members of the U.S. marines and so they will come to Belize go into the jungle and we will train them because they have lost that capability in their forces. They use to have a base in Panama which closed down a couple years ago, so they are keen to develop jungle fighting skills again and so the B.D.F. will be helping them in that process.”

Who are we invading next that we need jungle training? Isn't Iran desert/mountains? North Korea - what's their terrain? Venezuela? Will it never end???

It's the same thing they've been doing for years. They do a joint exercise with the Brits, I think. Have seen the brass in Belize City staying at the Radisson around the same time every year.

Warming up for Nicaragua II and Venezuela I, I hope! ;-)

Perhaps Cuba? Didn't the US loose their last jungle "conflict"? Creole - Haad eayas pickney go da shop two time; English - Hard ears pickney go to the shop two times. Translation - stubborn folks waste time and resources.


Too bad most of the resources come back in body bags.

Coming from a military family with significant ties to top brass, I can tell you the military generally wants to be ready for any type of conflict any where and where there's an opportunity to train, you don't pass it up. It's crazy to tie training activity to any nefarious purpose in itself.

Training minimizes the need for body bags.

Borat had the best idea - INVADE CANADA! They'll never see it coming. Having the object of suprize is the greatest of military tactics.

good idea SIN. I always thought that Guantanamo bay was too nice for enemy combatants -- we should store them up on Baffin island somewhere.

I think it's kinda' cute that the BDF are training US Marines (he he he). You would have thought the "Gurkahs" of the Royal Drangoon would have filled the bill, the best jungle warriors in the World.

I think we should respond by offering the BDF some desert training. Or winter ops. Hey SIN, you a veteran? Of anything?

No, I wasn't much good at fixin' up sick animals.

Seriously, my grandfather who served in WWI, my Grandmother who was in the USO, my uncles who served in WWII and Korea and my Dad who was in SE Asia for that mess, advised me not to join. They witnessed a more violent place leaving this world than when the entered it and figured they didn't see much sense in me becoming cannon fodder for some political issue.

So I guess that's a "no" to your question. But I was in some gang fights up in Cayo as a youth and still have the bullet holes in me to prove it.

The BDF doesn't really need outside training. It's a "defense force" and not really into cleansing the World of evil. We have the anglo-american world power for that and bless em' for it.

SIN

I realize the last sentence was probably tongue in cheek for you, but perhaps someday you may think differently. Part of me hopes so, and part of me hopes not. The fact that Belize (pretty much sedate, non-aggressive)needs a defense force might indicate there are some neighbors who may not be so inclined. So, did those gang fights make things better? It would be nice if the world did not need any armies, but being prepared for just about anything is preferable to obliteration. Just my opinion.

Agreed. Cain killed Able and they were from perfect parents! War and violence will always be here, but blind obedience and nationalism created Nazi Germany. I would be the first to pick up a rifle and head to Cayo if Guatemala invaded! I would greatly oppose the invasion of any country though, for political reasons in the region.

BDF provides much needed local support in times of natural disaster.
After Hurricane Mitch sent devastating waves onto Ambergris Caye, the BDF was the first on the scene, set up communications, and patrolled 24 hours a day, arresting looters and assisting people in distress.
Good Guys and Gals!

Political reasons can be just about anything you want them to be. Perhaps the US should pull everyone back to the states and have them take care of the invaders we seem to be having problems with. Whoops, political football. It all depends on whose political ox is being gored at the time. Ours, theirs, yours, anyones. If Guat invaded, wouldn't it be for political reasons of their own? They might think you are really really evil. Human nature is our enemy, and it will not be overcome anytime soon. Your implication that anyone who is not in agreement with you is a blindly obedient nationalist is pure rubbish.

P.S. Cain was a liberal, he was just taking what was rightfully his.

You'll have to explain this to me like I'm a six year old. Did I make such a statement, or sorry, implication? about anyone being rubbish (is that like a radish?) I would not subject myself (note, me, not anyone) to a situation where I must follow death orders, where as a thinking adult, I may disagree with the motive behind such. That's just me.

It wouldn't be such a bad idea to defend your own nation's border before trying to rebuild others. But that's no fun and there's much less money in it.

SIN

The U.S. needs to protect its own border -- period. It is one of the few constitutionally allowed actions the military can take and yet seems far down the list of priorities.

Debate gets muddy awfully quickly when you start talking about war overseas. There needs to be a clear and compelling national interest for us to be doing anything anywhere else.

I am an advocate for a strong military with lost of kicka*s toys and plenty of funding to support them. This is NOT synonymous with using those toys everywhere in the world for sh*ts and giggles.

Unless our next generation of automobiles are powered by sh*ts and giggles!

The implication was that anyone who puts anything other than their own ideals and self interest at the forefront is automatically a blindly obedient nationalist (and the cause of strife in the world). I am sure you know what rubbish is. There are people who would put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens, even those who don't believe in the same ideals. Some people are thankful to those who put other things in front of self, some people think they are idiots.

Guess that makes me an idiot. Semper Fi.

Perhaps the way you digested the statement. I totally agree with you about people putting their life on the line. I'm sure the suicide bombers feel the same way, they really put it on the line. Extremists and patriot is in the eye of the beholder

When people review the facts and find the truth about a situation, from all angles, (WMDs for example) and do not follow blindly because they want to be good citizens and follow their "leader" into war, then we have made a step forward as cohabitants of this Earth. We all live here, I think.

Thank God we live in the information age and the younger generation is more open to finding things out for themselves and questioning authority. This is being a responsible World citizen, not one that readily bombs or attacks whomever doesn't share their standards and lifestyle, from either side.

The United States is probably the one nation that has given the most to protecting and helping others. The World thanks you. So, why mess it up now?

Extreme views from any side isn't too smart. Saying all war is bad is about the same as saying all war is good.

SIN

Is that the blunt talking in "moderation" or SIN? Very unbecoming. (-;

It is really too bad that the "other side" so often blindly follows self appointed "leaders" for causes that may be anything but just.

Just from my point of view. Saddam had WMD's. Documented, as he had used them against Iran and even his own people. He managed the inspection program in a furtive way to further the indication he had something hidden. Intelligence from many different countries were convinced he had them. Post war intelligence indicated even "he" thought they were to be implemented in the upcoming battle at the time. The fact that they were not found does not automatically indicate he did not have them. We haven't found Jimmy Hoffa or Osama yet, but there is no question they exist somewhere, in some form.

I agree Bobber and the UN sucks at doing anything other than issuing ultimatums it has no plans to back-up.

However, there was no imminent threat to the U.S. and as abhorrent as it may sound, we had no right to unilaterally decide it was our job to enforce UN resolutions.

It set a very dangerous precedent that we could see China and others reference in the future as justification to invade their neighbors. It severely weakens our moral high ground on the issue.

On the flip side (as I wrote on my site) it had the intended effect of showing that the U.S. isn't afraid of casualties and that we are still a world power ready to defend ourselves. I hope this intended effect is realized and worth the price -- 'cause it's a big one!

The U.S. Military has manned & maintained a "Jungle Camp" in S.W. Toledo for many years.

The ONLY country ever to use WMDs on civilians is the United States of America, twice. You reap what you sow, a universal truth. The precedent was set. If it worked for the US, perhaps it will work again.

Bobber, they stopped looking for Osama fyi.

I guess Iraq is in a better state of affairs now. Well done!

Hey, Darfur & Somalia really need saving. What's going on, where are the cavalry!? China is pissing on their people too, let's go and free them to! I forgot about Sri Lanka and East Timor. Myanmar isn't in the best of shape either. Let freedom ring throughout the World for we have the biggest bombs.

I used to hate this neighbor we had, always getting into our business and telling us how to take care of our problems and raise our kids. Sometimes they got really pushy, calling the authorities on us. I wished they just would have kept to themselves, managed their own issues, not molested children and had tried to keep their own kids out of rehab.

SIN

Not true. While it's clear I am against the war on Iraq your statement cannot stand. Where to begin the list of genocide governments have inflicted on their own people -- starting in Iraq.

WMDs, like the atomic bomb.

Not machetes and AK's.

chemical, biological -- the killing tool used is academic. Ask the relatives of the dead if they give a rat's a*s which weapon was used to murder their family

Oh, yeah,
SIN. Thanks for reminding me. Those guys from East Timor have a history of threatening to blow us up.

WMDs can also be bio or chemical, didn't you know that? The nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deemed necessary at the time and in the context of that war. I have been to both places, the shrines and the museums. I have spoken with people who were there on the ground. In retrosepect, condemnation is easy. I tire of you for the day, go and have a sunny Friday, and don't be so fast to shuffle things to fit with your own perspective.

So a 9mm is a WMD too? and an atomic bomb is not? The US has both. Only the US has the right to bear arms?

I always have great days here. Flashbacks of long days in Cayo, swimming in rivers, no nightmares of burning civilians "friendly" to combatants.

Enjoy your meds.

SIN

Necessary to who? I thought they all ready gave up.

Not even after the first bomb. But that's just what our history books say and we all know how they lie. There was no WWII, holocaust, or captured British troops in Iran. OK gotta go get my view from the view. Rosie for President.

......or Japanese detention camps.

SIN, I spent a few years in Japan, and this was my interest at the time. The Japanese military was defeated for the most part, but the citizens were preparing for an invasion (apparently, their blind allegiance to the emperor had something to do with it). They had stockpiled munitions, caves dug all over the islands to prepare for the civilian citizenry to resist the invasion of the homeland. Picture little old grandmothers with pitchforks, and most willing to sacrifice themselves. The estimate bandied about in the history books was that it would cost about 100,000 American lives to take the islands. Civilian casualties probably in the millions. It was decided to "convince" the emperor to surrender. And the cities hit were valid military targets.

Oh my, what if it were a runoff between Rosie and Hillary? Can you pick C) none of the above?

hey sin, from somone you sold a week to last week........ and he is in Iraq working so we could afford to come down here.......(remember us?)

I can assure you guys, they know their jungle training very well. They also do snow training as well as the desert training.

We didn't ASK to be the world's police, (the military) but everyone sure is happy to have their hands out wanting 'aid' and 'money' and 'food' from the US, and ask for our help doing things...
And when we do go and help, then we get all the nasties.......

Personally i wouldn't care if we closed all the borders and QUIT giving ANY aid etc. to the other countries for about 2 years... then we would see what happens....

Of course as soon as we turn tail and pull out of Iraq Civil war is going to start and then they will be in the US..... my husband has already had this statement made to him by a top Iraqi on his base.........

SIN sells weeks? OH MY GOD. Is he one of THOSE?

....or Native American "reservations". Good thing they don't have WMDs. No matter how many good things you do to cover up evil, that little white part of chicken shit, is still shit.

"No nation has the right to dictate their version of governance on another" Assad Shoman (Belize Ambassador to the UN) speach to the General Assembly of the UN

It is interesting that, for instance in this context, the primary instigators of WWII have been forgiven all past sins and transgressions, however the US is still the butt of past hostility. Very interesting indeed.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/05/un_torture_repo.html

UN torture report confirms US transgressions

What Really Caused World War 2?
The True Cause of the Second World War

The date of September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, is remembered as the date the war started. But little is remembered about the date Russia also moved into Poland, on September 16,1939. The nation of Poland was now divided between these two war-time allies.

It is interesting to notice what the responses of the major allied nations were to these two dates. When Germany entered the western portion of Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany. But when Russia moved into eastern Poland, there was no war declaration by either nation.

The Soviets caused one of the tragic events of history after they occupied their portion of Poland. They captured approximately 10,000 Polish officers and brutally murdered them, most of them meeting their death in Katyn Forest near the Russian town of Smolensk. The traditional story about their deaths was that the officers had been killed by the German army, but now the evidence is clear that the Russians committed this crime. The other victims were taken aboard a barge which was towed out to sea and then sunk.

Even with all of these efforts of the American businessman to construct the German war machine with the full knowledge and approval of President Roosevelt, he kept repeating that the nation would continue its "neutral" position: it would remain out of the war. On September 1, 1939, when the war started, he was asked by a reporter whether America would stay out of the war and Roosevelt replied: "... I believe we can, and every effort will be made by the Administration to do so."

Roosevelt responded by appointing George Marshall, a CFR member, as Chief of Staff of the Army over General Douglas MacArthur, not a member of the CFR, and other senior officers.

Others did not believe Roosevelt's claim that America would remain neutral. On September 12, 1939, Hans Thomson, the German charge d'affaires in Washington, cabled the German government: "... if defeat should threaten the Allies (Great Britain and France), Roosevelt is determined to go to war against Germany, even in the face of the resistance of his own country."

But Germany's war efforts were still dependent on oil resources, and it came from a variety of sources, some external to the German border. Before Rumania was invaded by the Germans, it was selling oil to Germany. Life magazine of February 19, 1940, has a picture of Rumanian oil being loaded into oil tank cars. The picture has a caption under it which reads, in part: "Oil for Germany moves in these tank cars of American Essolube and British Shell out of Creditui Minier yards near Ploesti (Rumania.) Notice that cars are marked for German-American Oil Co. and German Railways, consigned to Hamburg and Wuppertal in Germany. They were sent from Germany to speed up Rumanian oil shipments." This picture was taken after Germany had invaded Austria and Poland, yet American and British oil companies are transporting oil for the German government, (the tank cars in the picture are dearly marked "Essolube," and "Shell").

And other sources supplied oil as well. When the German air force ran short of fuel, this was generously supplied from the great refinery belonging to the Standard Oil Company situated on the island of Aruba via Spanish tankers. This occurred during the war itself, yet these tankers were not sunk by American submarines.

Even with the purchases of oil from non-German sources, the major supplier of oil was still the cartel. The I.G. Farben-Standard Oil cooperation for production of synthetic oil from coal gave the I.G. Farben cartel a monopoly of German gasoline production during World War II. Just under one half of German high octane gasoline in 1945 was produced directly by I.G. Farben, and most of the balance by its affiliated companies.

But as the war in Europe continued, America's leaders were attempting to get America involved, even though the American people didn't want to become part of it Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected. Others knew better. One, for instance, was General Hugh Johnson, who said: "I know of no well informed Washington observer who isn't convinced that, if Mr. Roosevelt is elected (in 1940), he will drag us into war at the first opportunity, and that, if none presents itself, he will make one."

Roosevelt had two opportunities to involve America in World War II: Japan was at war with China, and Germany was at war with Great Britain, France and other countries. Both war zones presented plenty of opportunities to involve the American government in the war, and Roosevelt was quick to seize upon the opportunities presented.

His first opportunity came from the war in the Pacific. It was in August, 1940, that the United States broke the Japanese "purple" war-time code. This gave the American government the ability to read and understand all of their recoverable war-time messages. Machines were manufactured to de-code Japan's messages, and they were sent all over the world, but none was sent to Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt's public efforts to involve America, while ostensibly remaining neutral, started in August, 1940, when the National Guard was voted into Federal service for one year. This was followed in September by the Selective Service Act, also for one year's duration.

But the key to America's early involvement occurred on September 28, 1940, when Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite Treaty. This treaty required that any of the three nations had to respond by declaring war should any one of the other three be attacked by any of the Allied nations. This meant that should Japan attack the United States, and the United States responded by declaring war against Japan, it would automatically be at war with the other two nations, Germany and Italy.

Roosevelt now knew that war with Japan meant war with Germany. His problem was solved.

He had made secret commitments to Winston Churchill and the English government to become involved in the war against Germany and he knew that the only way he could fulfill his secret commitments to Churchill to get us into the war, without openly dishonoring his pledges to the American people to keep us out, was by provoking Germany or Japan to attack.

Roosevelt moved towards the Pacific theater first, knowing that, if he could provoke Japan to attack America first, America would automatically be at war with Germany as well. He also knew that, should Germany attack America, Japan would have to declare war on America. So Roosevelt attempted to get either nation to attack the United States first. Japan was to get the first opportunity.

In October, 1940, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox sent for Admiral J.O. Richardson, Commander-in-Chief of the American fleet in the Pacific. Knox advised him that the President wanted him to establish a patrol of the Pacific—a wall of American naval vessels stretched across the western Pacific in such a way as to make it impossible for Japan to reach any of her sources of supply; a blockade of Japan to prevent by force her use of any part of the Pacific Ocean. Richardson protested vigorously. He said that would be an act of war, and besides, we would lose our navy. Of course Roosevelt had to abandon it.

This scene in history poses two rather interesting questions:

1.

Why did Roosevelt, the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces, including the Navy, not directly order Admiral Richardson to do as he wished? Why did he choose to use his Secretary of the Navy to almost politely ask him to create the naval patrol?

Is it possible that Roosevelt did not choose to use his supreme power because he knew that this was indeed an act of war and that he did not want to be identified as the originator of the plan. If Richardson had agreed to Knox's proposal, and Japan had attacked an American naval vessel, Roosevelt could have directly blamed the admiral for allowing the vessel to get into the position of being fired upon by the Japanese Navy in the first place.

Roosevelt wanted a scapegoat and Richardson refused.


2.

Why did Roosevelt not replace the admiral with someone who would do exactly as he wished?

It is possible that Roosevelt realized that Richardson now knew about the plan, and since he did not approve, he would be in a position to clearly identify Roosevelt as the source of the idea should the second admiral agree to it.

Roosevelt did not want to jeopardize his carefully constructed image as a "dove" in the question of whether or not America should become involved in the war.

It is important to remember that, in November, 1940, just after this incident, candidate Roosevelt told the American people: "I say to you fathers and mothers, and I will say it again and again and again, your boys will not be sent into foreign wars."

Richardson later appraised his situation at Pearl Harbor and felt that his position was extremely precarious. He visited Roosevelt twice during 1940 to recommend that the fleet be withdrawn to the west coast of America, because:

1.

His ships were inadequately manned for war;
2.

The Hawaiian area was too exposed for Fleet training; and
3.

The Fleet defenses against both air and submarine attacks were far below the required standards of strength.

That meant that the American government had done nothing to shore up the defenses of Pearl Harbor against an offshore attack since the naval manuevers of 1932 discovered just how vulnerable the island was.

Richardson's reluctance to provide Roosevelt's incident for the United States to enter the war, and his concern about the status of the Fleet, led to his being unexpectedly relieved of the Fleet command in January, 1941.

The American Ambassador to Tokyo, Joseph C. Grew, was one of the first to officially discover that Pearl Harbor was the intended target of the Japanese attack, as he corresponded with President Roosevelt's State Department on January 27, 1941: "The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor...."

In March 1941, President Roosevelt was still hoping for an incident involving the United States and Germany, according to Harold Ickes, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior. He reported: "At dinner on March 24, he [Roosevelt] remarked that 'things are coming to a head; Germany will be making a blunder soon.' There could be no doubt of the President's scarcely concealed desire that there might be an incident which would justify our declaring a state of war against Germany...."

Roosevelt and Churchill had conspired together to incite an incident to allow America's entry into the war. According to Churchill:

The President had said that he would wage war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces.

The United States Navy was taking over the convoy route to Iceland.

The President's orders to these escorts were to attack any U-boat which showed itself, even if it were two or three hundred miles away from the convoy....

Everything was to be done to force "an incident".

Hitler would be faced with the dilemma of either attacking the convoys and dashing with the United States Navy or holding off, thus "giving us victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. It might suit us in six or eight weeks to provoke Hider by taunting him with this difficult choice."

But Hider was attempting to avoid a confrontation with the United States. He had told his naval commanders at the end of July [1941] to avoid incidents with the United States while the Eastern campaign [the war against Russia] was still in progress .... A month later these orders were still in force.

Churchill even wrote to Roosevelt after the German ship the Bismarck sank the British ship the Hood, recommending in April, 1941: "... that an American warship should find the Prinz Eugen (the escort to the Bismarck) then draw her fire, 'thus providing the incident for which the United States would be so thankful,' i.e., bring her into the war."

Hitler was not as wise in other matters. He attacked his "ally" Russia on June 22, 1941, even though Germany and Russia had signed a treaty not to declare war on each other.

With this action, the pressure to get the United States involved in the war really accelerated. Roosevelt, on June 24, 1941, told the American people: "Of course we are going to give all the aid that we possibly can to Russia."

And an American program of Lend-Lease began, supplying Russia enormous quantities of war materials, all on credit.

So with Hitler pre-occupied with the war against Russia and refusing to involve himself with the Americans on the open sea, Roosevelt had to turn his attentions back to Japan for the incident he needed.

The next step was to assist other countries, the English and the Dutch, to embargo oil shipments to Japan in an attempt to force them into an incident that would enable the United States to enter the war.

Japan, as a relatively small island, and with no oil industry to speak of, had to look elsewhere for its oil, and this was the reason for the proposed embargo. It was thought that this action would provoke Japan into an incident. Ex-President Herbert Hoover also saw the manipulations leading to war and he warned the United States in August, 1941: "The American people should insistently demand that Congress put a stop to step-by-step projection of the United States into undeclared war... ."

But the Congress wasn't listening.

It is also interesting that (according to some reports)Iran does not have to treat its British "guests" according to Geneva conventions, as they are not at war nor are they prisoners in the legal sense. I also see torture defined as things like waterboarding, or putting women's underwear over their heads. Have they no shame or moral compass?
It is easy to believe everything you read, if you choose your sources and have a healthy bias. Oh, and have a nice weekend. Remember, beheading is not torture, mental anguish is.

What country was fundamental in Pol Pot's rise to power and the Cambodian self-genocide? We sponsored three families in the early eighties. Look into "Land of the Red Prince" by Sien Sam, 3rd in command of the Khmer Resistance, VC supported. It's ok to kill millions of innocents as long as you fight the communists, true?

Another interesting take on history. I notice you did not insert "Bush, Cheney, or Haliburton" into it anywhere.

If torture is wrong, set the example as the "best" nation on the planet. I'm sure CNN was fibbing about the prison thing over there. They were just playin' around with the poor detainees.

I guess Iran must have a pretty strong case to go up against the British. Like I'm sure the US or the UK NEVER carries out covert ops into foriegn nations, that would NEVER happen (or something they would never admit). Or maybe they have no brains at all and are picking a fight with the United Kingdom. Didn't think so.

Kinda like how the US kidnapps foreign nationals out of foreign countries to stand trial in the US, regularly. Make a rule, die by the rule. What's good for the Goose....

SIN

You do have a valid point there. Also, you have made it clear that you do have a bit of a bias.

Holy sh*t SIN! Nobody is saying the U.S. is perfect, but dear God -- why the crusade man?

If China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or half the E.U. were put under the same light you're shining, they would fall much harder than the U.S.

What's the agenda man -- I've got to know?!

Otter, he is doing it to try and get my goat. I irritate him. He doesn't know I don't even have a goat.

Not really, I just like to shine some light on the other side of the equation. Instead of all joining the lynch mob and just following the sheep, take a look at both sides and really looking into the issues. Like the Boreans of the Apostle Paul's day, research everything you are told.

The issues barely affect me here in Belize, directly. I just like to hear your viewpoints as heated as they may be for my own education and future arguments. If I agreed with you (even when I do), I woudn't have learned half of what you have taught me above.

Cool runnings,

SIN

I enjoy the debate SIN. Others may think we're crazy, but I learn from it all. Thanks.