mudcat.org: BS: Watching Bush's speech
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Watching Bush's speech

Little Hawk 15 Jan 07 - 02:48 AM
GUEST,Nobody 15 Jan 07 - 02:30 AM
Little Hawk 15 Jan 07 - 01:21 AM
Barry Finn 15 Jan 07 - 01:17 AM
Little Hawk 15 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM
Don Firth 15 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM
GUEST,Nobody 14 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM
GUEST 14 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM
Ron Davies 14 Jan 07 - 10:45 PM
Ebbie 14 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM
GUEST,Nobody 14 Jan 07 - 09:17 PM
Ron Davies 14 Jan 07 - 08:26 PM
Ron Davies 14 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM
Little Hawk 14 Jan 07 - 07:47 PM
Ron Davies 14 Jan 07 - 07:44 PM
Little Hawk 14 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,Nobody 14 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM
Paul from Hull 14 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM
Captain Ginger 14 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM
Paul from Hull 14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 14 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM
Little Hawk 14 Jan 07 - 01:16 AM
Ebbie 14 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM
Little Hawk 14 Jan 07 - 01:00 AM
Ebbie 14 Jan 07 - 12:26 AM
Don Firth 14 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 13 Jan 07 - 10:10 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM
GUEST,petr 13 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 13 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jan 07 - 01:14 PM
Paul from Hull 13 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 13 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jan 07 - 12:52 PM
JeremyC 13 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM
Ron Davies 13 Jan 07 - 08:47 AM
Teribus 13 Jan 07 - 04:30 AM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 13 Jan 07 - 01:02 AM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 13 Jan 07 - 12:23 AM
Ron Davies 13 Jan 07 - 12:16 AM
Ron Davies 13 Jan 07 - 12:09 AM
Little Hawk 12 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM
GUEST,REX-84 12 Jan 07 - 11:49 PM
GUEST,Uncle Sam 12 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM
Ron Davies 12 Jan 07 - 11:38 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM
Peace 12 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM
Peace 12 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 02:48 AM

Well, everyone was had, most particulary the millions of young Germans who marched for Hitler.

But you've hit on the key difference between FDR's actions and Bush's. The war with Germany was inevitable, and FDR knew it. And it was necessary, in a general sense, once it got going between the UK and Germany, to pursue that war to a conclusion, because Hitler's Germany was a very aggressive and ambitious nation...a real threat to its neighbours, in other words.

The present world conflict with Muslims was never necessary. They were not a real threat to the USA, but mostly a manufactured one. Al Queda is not a nation or the representative of a nation. It is not the armed forces of a nation. It is a clandestine organization. Clandestine organizations should be dealt with by international police investigations, not by lauching mechanized wars against whole nations! Al Queda has, in fact, merely been used as an excuse to assault whole nations that Mr Bush wanted to invade.

Therefore I submit that the situation is quite different, in that Roosevelt was reacting to a genuine threat (German expansionism), whereas the Bush administration made up imaginary threats that were not real...and is itself an expansionist power.

Roosevelt had a modern nation and its military forces to fight...three of them, in fact, with armed forces which were competitive with his own. Bush did not. He made up false threats.

Therefore, I find Roosevelt's actions just a bit more explainable and rational than Bush's, don't you? ;-)

I was not in WWII. My father was. He drove a tank, and he always said that the whole war experience was the stupidest, most wasteful thing he ever saw in his life...but he was quite motivated to defeat the Germans, nonetheless. He regarded them as a real threat, and they were...at that time. They certainly aren't now. It's America that is a real threat now. It's America that invades countries that are too small and poorly armed to fight back effectively.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Nobody
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 02:30 AM

Well if FDR was right to arrange the attack at Pearl Harbor (or at least sit passively by and do nothing), then Bush was right to arrange 9/11 (or at least sit passively by and do nothing). After all, the Nazis were a threat that had to be dealt with. And after all, the Moslems are a threat that need to be dealt with.

The Roosevelt cabal was responsible for Pearl Harbor. The Bush cabal was responsible for 9/11. American leaders murdering Americans in order to rally the country behind wars is not acceptable. 84% of Americans don't believe the official govt version of what happened on 9/11. The country didn't have access to the truth in 1941, but we do now. The U.S. govt did the 9/11 job.

And yet whiny old pantywaists dither and naysay. Nattering nabobs of negativism, as Spiro Agnew said. Someone points to clear historical connections between events, and you want to play the Jew card. Or the URL card. You don't want things to change. The greatest generation was bought off with faint praise. So pitiful. One of you old stains please tell me what the WW2 generation did that was great? They went off to fight yet another rich man's war and still, with today's internet, they can't string together a half dozen bits of information that show they were HAD. Fought a rich man's war, both sides backed by the same bankers, half the world given to the Ruskies afterwards so we could continue the conflict through another half century and a bunch more wars, and the fossils can't figger it out. Fed their kids to the machine in Viet Nam, their grandkids to the machine in Iraq, and they still think they're the greatest generation. Someone please explain why that is. I know 15 years olds who have figured this out, so why can't the old folks?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:21 AM

Heh! I bet it really ticks him off that he is obliged to explain things at all...

Takes all the fun out of being "Commander In Chief", after all. What's the use of being Commander in Chief when people want explanations for your every decision? Attila never had to put up with guff like that, and neither did Julius Caesar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:17 AM

Sorry that I'm drifting back on subject.

Bush was on "60 Minutes" eariler this evening trying to re-explain himself. He did such a poor job that I couldn't take more than a few minutes of his torture & begged to change the channel.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM

Well, Don, I don't know about George Marshall one way or the other, but I do know that FDR cut off Japanese access to oil and steel in 1940, because he knew that if he did they would be forced to respond by going to war. He wanted them to, because he needed a way to get the USA into the war so he could defeat Germany.

Do I judge FDR badly for so doing? Maybe...and maybe not. It's a mixed picture. I think he was quite realistic about the Nazis, and if that was the only way to get the isolationist USA in the mood for war...then perhaps that was the best thing to do.

In doing it one had necessarily to mislead and betray various of one's own people and put them in harm's way, but things like that happen all the time in politics and war. It goes with being a politician.

I don't think FDR was any worse than most. He was probably better than many. He was fortunate to be on the winning side, though, because winning generally absolves all blame when it comes to that sort of thing. Few questions are asked afterward when you win.

When you lose, you may end up being put on trial and hanged.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM

Yet another GUEST (or is it the same one) who doesn't know anything but how to cut-and-paste and to spew hatred for things and people he (or she) really doesn't know anything about. Cuts and pastes from the gamier websites.

This is not a matter of "killing the messenger." This is a matter of reading the message, judging it for what it is, and writing off the messenger as just another slime-ball.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Nobody
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM

FDR and George Marshall were responsible for Pearl Harbor. Why do you try to divert from the message to the messenger?   The Kimmel / Richardson information is at a hundred sites on the internet. Pick one that's more literate. Pick one that's less "bigoted" in your opinion. The facts of Pearl Harbor will still be the same. Maybe this is why George W. Bush was nearly able to get away with the sacrifice of thousands of Americans in Lebanon, because people like you want to quibble over internet links.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM

FDR and George Marshall were responsible for Pearl Harbor. Why do you try to divert from the message to the messenger?   The Kimmel / Richardson information is at a hundred sites on the internet. Pick one that's more literate. Pick one that's less "bigoted" in your opinion. The facts of Pearl Harbor will still be the same. Maybe this is why George W. Bush was nearly able to get away with the sacrifice of thousands of Americans in Lebanon, because people like you want to quibble over internet links.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:45 PM

Liberals, Socialists, Communists.....sinister spirit which now animates the White House? As if the "sinister spirit" has anything to do with liberals. This just shows the hopeless confusion in the mind of whoever put this stuff together.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM

Hey, Guest Nobody, I don't like the link you posted (It is not only bigoted but illiterate). Therefore I must ask if that is your only source for your assertions.

Among other lovely things it says, regarding FDR's supposed Jewish ancestry:

"From the viewpoint of eugenics, it explains his natural bent toward radicalism.

"It shows why he has given hundreds of so-called Liberals, Socialists and Communists powerful positions in the national government. It reveals the origin of the sinister spirit which today animates the White House. It proves unmistakably, that the Roosevelt Administration offers a biological, as well as a political problem."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Nobody
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:17 PM

(FDR implemented the McCollum Plan and then monitored Japanese transmissions. He knew well before the attack that Pearl Harbor was going to be hit):

...Admiral Husband E. Kimmel had replaced the fired Admiral Richardson. Again, he knew nothing specific about the coming attack, but to protect the fleet he sent his battleships out of Pearl with forty other vessels and aerial reconnaissance. Washington ordered those ships back to Pearl and told Kimmel to stop aerial reconnaissance. The ships wound up beside each other at anchor. The approaching Japanese broke radio silence 28 times. Both Army and Navy intelligence knew exactly where they were, but the White House instructed them not to tell Kimmel and General Walter Short. Foreign vessels were also receiving those Japanese signals, but our commanders were deliberately kept in the dark. Even the Oahu radar station was shut down, which blinded Pearl Harbor.

On December 6th, 1941, Roosevelt read a message from Tokyo to its Japanese embassy and said, "This means war." On his desk, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall had a telephone that was a direct line to Pearl. He could have picked it up and given General Short crucial hours of warning. Instead, he sent a commercial telegram. Needless to say, when somebody finally handed Short the telegram, the attack was already under way. "Dear General Short, You will be attacked." While Short was being bombed, Marshall was horseback riding that Sunday morning....

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/ROOSEV~1.htm

...Kimmel and Short were not even sent the Bomb Plot messages that were obtained between September 24th and December 7th, although they were sent in the J-l9 and PA-K2 codes which were less secret than Purple and could have been read at Pearl Harbor at any time by Commander (now Captain) Joseph J. Rochefort, Admiral Bloch's talented and experienced cryptanalyst and Communications Intelligence officer, if he had been assigned this duty. These Bomb Plot messages, as we have seen, pinpointed Pearl Harbor as the first target of any Japanese Surprise attack....

...If he could have received these J-19 and PA-K2 messages that carried the Bomb Plot material, decoded and translated them, and turned them over to Kimmel and Short, there can be no reasonable doubt that these commanders would have taken defensive actions long before November 25th that would have called a halt to Yamamoto's plan to send a task force to attack Pearl Harbor....

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/ph25_4.html

(FDR then left civilians behind in the Phillipines, to whip up war fever):

Hundreds of former US prisoners of war have begun a battle for compensation after uncovering documents that allegedly prove the wartime administration deliberately used them as a tool to whip up domestic support for war with Japan.

A former prisoner has uncovered papers in the US National Archive that she claims prove the government restricted the travel of 7,000 American citizens from the Philippines, while at the same time encouraging evacuation of Americans from other potential Japanese targets in China and south-east Asia.

A federal lawsuit filed yesterday in Washington, DC, alleges that the government at first wanted to keep Americans in the Philippines to discourage Japanese aggression, but later used them as a political tool.

A group of 500 former prisoners claim the plan was devised by the US wartime leader, Franklin D Roosevelt. with the approval of Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister, to cause outrage among American citizens unwilling to back a war on Japan.

Americans were denied passport and travel documents to let them flee. They were later captured by the Japanese and held in notorious camps under appalling conditions....

http://www.rense.com/general27/ph.htm

(George W. Bush tried FRD's Phillipine tactic in during the recent attack by Israel on Lebanon. A few thousand dead Americans, blame it on Hezbollah or al Qaida...that would be helpful to the "war effort," wouldn't it):

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - An eight-deck cruise liner carrying more than 1,000 Americans sailed out of Beirut's port Wednesday, the first mass U.S. evacuation from Lebanon since Israeli airstrikes started more than a week ago....

...Many of those aboard were relieved to depart, after complaints of slow action by the United States compared to European countries that sent cruise ships, ferries and warships over the past three days to move out thousands....

http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=6890

(Government-sponsored terrorism works. Don't fall for it)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 08:26 PM

(our cats--in case Jan sees this--she actually does a lot more cat care than I do--uh oh-sounds like THREAD CREEP)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM

It's like one of my cats--my cat has used up all his brain power in looking good.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:47 PM

Oh, God.... (laughing helplessly) Now, Ron, don't be cruel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:44 PM

Hey you guys, don't be hard on "Uncle Sam".   As a stalwart Bush supporter, he used up all his brain power typing "Ahmadinejad" correctly. You can't expect him to get Iran in the right hemisphere. It's not reasonable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM

Yes, that is essentially correct. Roosevelt initiated trade sanctions against Japan in 1941, cutting off their foreign sources of oil and steel, and they were forced to either unilaterally surrender without a fight, give up in China and elsewhere, go home, and become a 3rd rate power...or attack the USA and Great Britain and Holland (the overseas Dutch possessions, that is). Being of a samurai character (samurai do NOT surrender), they naturally did the inevitable and attacked the USA, Britain, and Dutch East Asia (where the oil was).

So Roosevelt engineered the "Day of Infamy" as surely as if he had delivered the orders himself. It makes his big display of outrage in Congress after the fact look pretty phony, in retrospect. What an act! I think, though, that he was very surprised just how effective the Japanese navy and air force turned out to be....so he may well have been very upset all right. He probably did not expect them to do nearly so much damage when they struck. Their quality level had been grossly underestimated by everyone in the US military except Claire Chennault, commander of the American Volunteer Group in China (the Flying Tigers). Chennault knew better. He had been fighting the Japanese air force already, and knew how good they were.

I'm telling you, Uncle Sam, the only reason you disagree with my viewpoint on the roles of the USA and its so-called "enemies" is that you are blissfully unaware that it is the USA that has caused the present conflicts by its own policies...and it is not the USA that is the victim. The small countries that you named are all its victims. The USA is now doing what Nazi Germany did in the 30's. It's doing what Japan did in East Asia in the 30's. It's doing what Rome did once to the people all around it. It's doing what conquering empires do...it's attacking smaller nations and devouring and enslaving them, by means of money, media, and firepower.

Your only error is that you can't see that you happen to be living in a great aggressor nation...not a nation that defends itself legitimately at all, but a nation that attacks others, drives them to absolute despair...at which point they fight back as best they possibly can.

You're in good company. Millions upon hundreds of millions of Germans, Japanese, Romans, Greeks, British, Persians, and citizens of other great imperial empires in the past have made the same simple mistake you are making...imagining that they were legitimately defending themselves, when in fact they were serving the greatest aggressor power of their time.

So I am not surprised that you don't get it. You're just like most other people. They always think it's "the other guy" who caused all the trouble.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Nobody
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM

Look up the "McCollum Plan" for an understanding of how FDR got the U.S. into WW2. Americans wouldn't support involvement in Europe, so the Japanese were forced to attack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM

*LOL*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM

Interesting geography there, Uncle Sam, claiming Ahmadinejad as a Latin American. Is this why the USA invaded the wrong country after 9/11?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

I'm curious, Uncle Sam, as to what you think would have caused there to be "almost nothing left of England? V-weapons?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM

In a deleted post I said that if America had not entered the War it would have continued much longer and more lives would have been lost.

In addition to that I would like to add that Germany still would have lost but there would be almost nothing left of England. It would have been a bitter bloddy fight to the end. America did add muscle and resources that I am sure Brits are grateful.

Again Pearl Harbor was the turning point for the US that shut up all the anti war whiners.

I suppose it will take another 9/11 to shut them up again.

As Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Ortega, Raoul Castro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are forming a coalition of Latin American countrys to screw the people of the US, While Al Qaeda trys to take control of Somalia, while the genocide of Christians by Muslims proceeds on Darfur, all the anti-war whiners can think about is getting out of Iraq and impeaching George Bush.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:16 AM

It's my opinion, by the way, that no one country acting alone could have defeated the Germans in a land war in western and central Europe after their lopsided victory in the Battle of France. The English certainly could not have done it alone. The USA could not have done it alone either...they needed the UK as a staging ground for fullscale invasion of Europe, and they needed the Russians to tie down 3/4 of the German army for them.

The Russians might have been able to defeat the Germans alone...in a very long war of attrition...but I doubt it. I think more likely that it would have ended in a stalemate or that the Germans would have won such a conflict.

And to look at it from the other angle...the Germans could not have defeated the USA or Great Britain either, simply because the Germans lacked a big enough navy to project their formidable army across either the English Channel or the Atlantic. They also lacked the kind of large strategic bomber aircraft needed to wage a really effective strategic bombing campaign that could cripple an opponent's industrial base.

The only people in WWII who had such aircraft in large numbers were the British and the Americans. Those aircraft were the B-17, the Lancaster, the Halifax, the Stirling, and the B-24.

Germany's He 111s, Ju 88s, and Dornier 17s were not 4 engine strategic bombers, they were 2 engine tactical bombers, and they were not up to the task of waging a strategic bombing campaign. The Russians, likewise, lacked such capability, having an almost entirely tactical airforce suited to close support on the battlefield.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM

OK, she harrumphed, simmering down.

"I think it's a fair bet that the USA media will temporarily manage to convince a large proportion of the American public that "Iran has to be stopped now and we have to do it". I have faith in the gullibility of the American voter." Little Hawk

God, I hope not. It is beyond amazing to me that I live amongst people who imo clearly see the perilous situation we've gotten ourselves into led by an idiot. In Alaska, I don't even know anyone who is even close to sanguine.

One part I see very clearly is that in the USA we have a lousy government. We need a mechanism for turning them out midstream. 'Loss of confidence' is an excellent, and telling, phrase.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:00 AM

Well, let me make it a bit clearer what I mean. ;-) I said they had saved themselves by September 1940, which they had. I did not say they had defeated Germany by September 1940, they had merely prevented Germany from defeating them. They did not have the power alone to defeat Germany nor did Germany have the means to defeat them, as had already been amply proven. An alliance of the UK, Russia and the USA was required to defeat Germany.

Uncle Sam's original statement which I took issue with was "But the US did save the UK from the Nazis even after they fucked us over."

Wrong. The USA very much helped the British and Russians defeat the Germans...which took a lot of time and blood, and the American effort was fully appreciated by the British and Russians...but the USA did not save the British, because the British had quite handily already saved themselves in 1940, and Hitler knew it. He was confounded by the Luftwaffe's failure to defeat the RAF in 1940 and he reacted by doing absolutely the worst thing possible....he turned East and attacked Russia! He then did a further idiotic thing by immediately declaring war on the USA right after Pearl Harbour happened. He did NOT have to do that, because the Japanese had certainly given him no help in fighting anyone up to that point.

I fear that Bush may make a somewhat (if only vaguely) comparable mistake to Hitler's attack on Russia by reacting to the insoluble mess he has created in Iraq by next attacking Iran. If so, he will find, like Hitler, that enlarging an insoluble problem is the worst move you can make.

If he does it, though, I think it's a fair bet that the USA media will temporarily manage to convince a large proportion of the American public that "Iran has to be stopped now and we have to do it". I have faith in the gullibility of the American voter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:26 AM

"The UK was quite capable of saving itself, actually, and already had done so by September 1940." Damn, Little Hawk. I wish we had just stayed home. We needed those boys for the Eastern theatre.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM

Revisionist history, Uncle Sam. FDR did not lie to the American people about the Lend-Lease program. I was a kid at the time, but old enough to know who was saying what, and we always listened to FDR's "Fireside Chats." I remember his talking quite a bit about the Lend-Lease program.

There's a lot of revisionist history about FDR, generally promulgated by columnist Westbrook Pegler, the Rush Limbaugh of his day, and still embraced by the far right.

Any attempt to compare Bush with someone like FDR is ludicrous. A bit like trying to compare a chihuahua to a lion.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 10:10 PM

So the UK brags about their empire. The US does not have an empire except in the minds of some no life whiners.

What was the Great Expulsion of 1755 all about?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

The sun never sets on the USA financial/military/media-controlled empire either. It's the same thing. You don't need official colonialism to have actual colonialism. Similarly, you don't need official slavery to have actual slavery. Both can be easily achieved unofficially if you have enough money to buy and control client governments in small countries, and enough firepower to smash them up when they don't do what you want them to.

So you see, when society modernized enough that official colonialism and official slavery became morally unacceptable to most people...well, then, new ways were quickly found to do it which were unofficial, but equally effective.

The new unofficial colonialism is accomplished the same way the old official colonialism was: by having enough money and firepower to exercise control over other people against their will.

Every major power practices colonialism, they just don't call it that anymore. The USA, being the biggest major power, practices it the most at present, and the British are right in there with them. The USA is really the new incarnation of the old British Empire. It is to the UK as Rome was to Greece. It's still an Anglo-dominated world out there. The last serious challenger against that Anglo domination was the Soviets, and they lost most of their empire when they started running out of money.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM

the one event that helped the Americans win the revolutionary war
was Benjamin Franklins eventual success in getting the French to send over an army.

regarding the Schwarzkopf quote - its hard to imagine the US losing the 91 gulf war given the firepower, number of troops and total superiority the US and the coalition had. (and yet...

Schwarzkopf claimed that when the Iraqis sat down to negotiate they
outsmarted the US by asking if they could fly helicopters.
(Schwarzkopf felt that since the roads were destroyed that it was ok,
when they then asked if they could fly ARMED helicopters - he decided thats ok too). (which they then used to brutally put down the rebellion
- that George Senior called for - with his comment that the Iraqi people should rise up and topple Saddam)..

one thing that (Damn they Outsmarted us!) Schwarzkopf failed to mention in his memoirs is that -and that is obvious to everyone- the US had complete military (land air) superiority , why should a bunch of Iraqi negotiators have any power at all?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM

Hummmm. What was all that rot about the sun never sets on the British Empire?

I don't recall a similar claim by the US.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:14 PM

What you say about FDR is mostly correct. He was dealing with an isolationist public and Congress. From a pragmatic point of view, he did the right thing.

Bush, however, has made great mistakes in my opinion, and I do not think his position in regards to his "enemies" around the world is in any way comparable to the situation FDR faced with regard to Nazi Germany and Japan.

Germany was a major power and a major threat to other nations, at one point (roughly '41-'42) was second to none in military capability, and was in a period of aggressive expansion onto other people's territory. That description is one that fits not America's ragtag Islamic enemies at this time in history...it fits America itself. Like a glove. America is the nation that attacks pre-emptively. America is the nation that invades. America is the nation that occupies foreign lands.

You guys are NOT the victim, you are the perpetrator. And the UK and Canada and Australia are complicit in assisting you in your aggression, as are a few other minor participants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM

*YAWN*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM

The point of mentioning Lend Lease was to illustrate that the American people were vehemently against entering the war or even supplying war materiel. The liberal Democrat, FDR, found a way around this with lend lease and even blatantly lying to the American public to give material assistance. Without that assistance the war would have lasted longer and more lives would have been lost. FDR did everything that Bush is accused of doing illegally and more.

It took Pearl Harbor to change popular opinion.

I think the topic here is Bush's speech and actions are all wrong. If you put it into context, perspective and pay attention to lessons learned from history, a different conclusion can be drawn. At the very least a wait and see attitude is called for.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:52 PM

It is quite refreshing to find myself and Teribus on the same side of an argument for a change! ;-)

Uncle Sam, I never said that the USA had not helped the UK during the war, did I? No, I didn't.

However, the USA did not save the UK, the UK saved themselves. Their winning of the Battle of Britain prevented the Germans from defeating England, and there was really no possibility of the Germans defeating England following that. That was in September 1940.

I know you've grown up on a diet of Hollywood movies where the USA always arrives like the cavalry with John Wayne at the head of the troops and wins everything for everyone, but it just ain't so in real life.

The entrance of the USA into WWII in December '41 was simply the driving of the final nails into the coffin of Germany's hopes for victory. The Germans had already gotten themselves by that time into a war they simply could not win...with Russia and the British empire. To add the USA to their troubles at that point was to make an already impossible situation a good deal worse, and all the wiser and more rational German commanders knew that. Ernst Udet, for example, was so depressed by the failure of the Battle of Britain, compounded by the insanity of then attacking Russia, that he committed suicide. (Udet was a tremendously courageous and capable man who had been a high-scoring ace for Germany in the First World War, and then had gone on to serve in the Luftwaffe High Command. When the Battle of Britain failed, Reichsmarshall Goering falsely shifted the blame to Ernst Udet...which was just Goering blaming other people for his own errors. Udet was very upset about it. Then when Hitler decided to attack Russia, Udet, like many other German officers, was simply appalled. He saw the handwriting on the wall...defeat and disaster. He had lost faith in the Nazi government at that point, and he figured all was lost, so he shot himself.)

If you could think in shades of gray, Uncle Sam, rather than insisting on total opposites of extreme white and black, you would see that I am not saying that the USA did not help the UK in WWII...I am simply saying this: They did not save them. The UK was quite capable of saving itself, actually, and already had done so by September 1940.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: JeremyC
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM

Well, it's no wonder the country is in the shitter when even a small internet community can't discuss Bush's speech without heading into a bunch of retarded, racist, off-topic bickering. Way to go, guys! USA NUMBAR OEN!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:47 AM

Teribus--

"I would draw your attention to"--the actual topic of this thread. You have yet to even start to make the case that Bush is Churchill, that this year is 1940, etc.

Also:

Saddam is:

1) a megalomaniac bent on world conquest--as you might want to argue Hitler was in 1940.

2) dead

Gee, I wonder which one of these is right.

And it certainly is revealing how many statesmen are coming around to what I've been saying for over a year--and you've been denying: probably the most important question in Iraq right now is: can the Iraqi Sunnis, derided by you as the equivalent of hardline Nazis in 1945, trust the Iraqi police? And its corollary--will Maliki actually purge the police of Shiite militias--instead of just talking about it?

Your attitude-that the Sunnis should just accept the new situation--has been wrong from the start--and is still wrong.

It's also interesting that somehow you've forgotten to answer my earlier question to you: how long would you accept the situation if your own police were targeting you for the crime of just being Catholic, Protestant, Irish, English, Welsh, Scots--without regard to what you had personally done? Which is precisely analogous to what you are saying the Sunnis should do--accept it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:30 AM

Just a couple of little notes to Guest Uncle Sam and to Guest 282AR.

Guest 282AR first:

"The British are the biggest cultural thieves in the world. The British Museum is teaming with artifacts stolen from other countries. The British looted the Imperial Palace in Forbidden City in Beijing (Peking). That swag is still on display at the museum. Why did they loot it? Because the Chinese dared to rebel against this monstrous nation forcing opium down their throats."

Called war reparations, was universally carried on by all victors in varying degrees throughout history. The time that it was demonstrably taken to excess was by the Allies at the end of the First World War, the burden of reparations that they placed on Germany meant that the Second World War was more or less inevitable. Standard practice of the day 282AR - nothing was stolen - take a bit of consolation in that those artifacts are safe and well cared for.

"Not far from this Chinese exhibit is the Greek one containing unique, ancient works from this once-great civilization. The Greek govt wants it back because they never gave to the British. They simply took it."

These are the Elgin Marbles you are referring to Guest 282AR. Once again you are wrong, the "Marbles" are the property of Lord Elgin (who counts Robert the Bruce amongst his ancestors), they are on permanent loan to the museum (IIRC). Lord Elgin actually has a signed receipt for them. He bought them from the Turkish Governor of Athens (Greece did not exist at the time). The reason Elgin bought the marble fresco sections was because at the time the Parthenon was being used as a powder magazine (it later blew up) and the marble frescos were being stripped off the building and burnt down to provide whitewash for buildings - he bought them to save them. So chances are that if they were not now residing in the museum, they wouldn't exist at all. Any of the above 282AR any official guide at the Acropolis in Athens will tell you. So nothing was "simply taken".

To Guest Uncle Sam:

I would draw your attention to a speech made by Churchill early summer in 1940 around the time of Dunkirk in which he said, " Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war". Not withstanding the enormous contribution made by both the United States of America and the USSR to the allied war effort - Hitler knew that he had failed to defeat Britain by the end of September 1940 which predates your lend-lease act by quite a number of months. As for the 50 old obsolete "four stack" destroyers - hate to point this out to you Uncle Sam but we paid for those and paid for those at the time they were handed over.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:02 AM

Encyclopædia Britannica tells the story of the Normandy Invasion:

On June 6, 1944, a date known ever since as D-Day, a mighty armada crossed a narrow strip of sea from England to Normandy, France, and cracked the Nazi grip on western Europe.

Omaha Beach
Second beach from the west among the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the U.S. 29th and 1st infantry divisions, many of whose soldiers were drowned during the approach from ships offshore or were killed by defending fire from German troops placed on heights surrounding the beach.

Utah Beach
The westernmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by elements of the U.S. 4th Infantry Division and was taken with relatively few casualties. In the predawn hours of D-Day, units of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions were airdropped inland from the landing beach. They suffered many casualties from drowning and enemy fire but succeeded in their aim of isolating the seaborne invasion force from defending Germans.

Sword Beach
Tthe easternmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the British 3rd Division, with French and British commandos attached. Shortly after midnight on D-Day morning, elements of the 6th Airborne Division, in a daring glider-borne assault, seized bridges inland from the beach and also silenced artillery pieces that threatened the seaborne landing forces.

Gold Beach
The centre beach of the five designated landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted and taken from defending German troops on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the British 50th Infantry Division.

Juno Beach
The second beach from the east among the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division, who took heavy casualties in the first wave but by the end of the day succeeded in wresting control of the area from defending German troops.

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.

Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:23 AM

So the Normandy invasion was unnecessary, unwanted by the Brits and it did not have any impact on the outcome of the war?

Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941.

Earlier, there was an entirely separate program in 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for base rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland.

Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved [due to the protests of anti-war wimps] and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping US forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:16 AM

Hey, Uncle Sham--with your great enthusiasm for war, you were going to tell us about your own personal military experience, with particular emphasis on your combat experience. Seems you must have forgotten to do that--so how about right now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:09 AM

Now the US again has stupidly naive leadership for an invasion. Why, it's just like old times. I'm getting so nostalgic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM

Great powers have no friends, "Uncle Sam". They have interests. When their interests coincide, they help each other.

I'll tell you what saved England from the Nazis: A hell of a good air defence system, some timely errors on the part of the German high command (who kept changing their objectives in the Battle of Britain), and the Russians!!!!!!!! The bulk of the German army perished on the steppes of Russia, and it was the Russian campaign which broke Germany's fighting strength in that war.

So going by your logic, we should like the Russians quite a bit better than we do you... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,REX-84
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:49 PM

Just taking the new name out for a test. Is that the criteria now, to post here? And does anyone know if this one is taken? There's probably a list of the member names somewhere, and this one could be on it. If someone could kindly let me know. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Uncle Sam
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM

None

But the US did save the UK from the Nazis even after they fucked us over.

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

[Chorus]

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM

Your point is a good one, Ron. ;-) Just keep in mind that I was retaliating against some ignorant twerp who suggested earlier that all Canadians are wimps, so I thought I'd meet him on his own level, as it were...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:38 PM

Hey LH--that's not fair--you get to pick which British engagements you were involved in? You get the glory of burning the White House but not the Battle of New Orleans? (I'll certainly give you all the US failed stupidly naive attempts to take Canada--evidently the Americans were convinced the French Canadians were itching to throw off the "British yoke"--not realizing that conservative French Canadians did not identify with France at that point--under Napoleon-- at all.) Among--many--other miscalculations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM

Dat's right. And de t'ing is, dem goddam Americans, by Gar, dey took more fish dan dey were allowed to by dat treaty in nineteen twenny-tree, dose bastard! Tabernac! We should 'ave burn down dat Washington place again, mes amis, dat's what I'm t'inking!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM

In fact, the Halibut Treaty of 1923 was the first international treaty that Canada negotiated and signed on its own behalf. It was with the USA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM

Yeah, 2 moose, 2 beaver, and a courier du bois named Jacques, by Gar! ;-)

We Canadians were the British back then, Don. We had not yet become separate in identity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

It only required five Canucks, Ron.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 25 January 8:42 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.