| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD \h.c" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2004 01:01:08 AM |
| Object: |
If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
FDR:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy by
retooling America for war.
GWB:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy by
passing an amendment banning gay marriage.
FDR:
Policy: Allowed the generals to plan for D-Day, gave them as many men and
resources as they asked.
Result: The Invasion of Normandy was bloody, costly, but ultimately
successful.
GWB:
Policy: Goes on TV, says that the invasion of Europe can be done with a
few thousand troops. Fires Eisenhower for saying that an European invasion
requires at least 150,000 men and demotes Acheson to baby kissing duty for
saying that the war requires billions of doolars. Passes a tax cut.
Result: The invasion of Normandy was one of worst disasters in American
military history.
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry oportunity
becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
FDR:
Policy: Expended government to handle war efforts.
Result: Outresourced Germany through the war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges $5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at first
oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
FDR:
Policy: Did no mix politics with espionage.
Result: The Germans never figured out that we cracked Enigma.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More American
die as a result.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Result: Receives honorary Nazi death camp medal from Hitler.
CONCLUSION:
FDR: Known as one of the greatest presidents in the 20th century.
GWB: Impeached, tried and shot for sheer incompetence.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -831 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Colonel Polyps" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
09 Jun 2004 02:21:49 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:eP6dnZE9cuc4OlvdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
FDR:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy
by
retooling America for war.
GWB:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy
by
passing an amendment banning gay marriage.
FDR:
Policy: Allowed the generals to plan for D-Day, gave them as many
men and
resources as they asked.
Result: The Invasion of Normandy was bloody, costly, but ultimately
successful.
GWB:
Policy: Goes on TV, says that the invasion of Europe can be done
with a
few thousand troops. Fires Eisenhower for saying that an European
invasion
requires at least 150,000 men and demotes Acheson to baby kissing duty
for
saying that the war requires billions of doolars. Passes a tax cut.
Result: The invasion of Normandy was one of worst disasters in
American
military history.
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry
oportunity
becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
FDR:
Policy: Expended government to handle war efforts.
Result: Outresourced Germany through the war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges
$5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at
first
oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
FDR:
Policy: Did no mix politics with espionage.
Result: The Germans never figured out that we cracked Enigma.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so
he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More
American
die as a result.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up
their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Result: Receives honorary Nazi death camp medal from Hitler.
CONCLUSION:
FDR: Known as one of the greatest presidents in the 20th century.
GWB: Impeached, tried and shot for sheer incompetence.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -831 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and
mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
It has been fucked up for some time now. This is the residue.
I will never see justice.
Christian Media Police Reports: Yahoo 5 More Tax Sucking Maggots
Whacked.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/06/06/a1.guardsmen.0606.html
That's 5 less guns pointed at my head. I feel freer.
Death to the christian jew cop government.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
09 Jun 2004 09:32:47 AM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> said:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
.... Mercedes would be luxury cars here and taxis in Germany.
No ...wait ... they are!
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
12 Jun 2004 11:13:05 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message news:<eP6dnZE9cuc4OlvdRVn-sQ@comcast.com>...
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
Yeah. Where is Osama? Or the anthrax mailer?
Bush & Ashcroft are going after dirty pictures BIG TIME. Better hide
your Playboy collection, and anything showing nipples.
............
Austin, Texas 6/12/04 - The U.S. government will shut dozens of adult
video stores across Texas, including stores in Austin, Round Rock and
eastern Travis County, after a Texas adult video store mogul and his
son pleaded guilty in an Austin federal court Friday...
Although the case has been brewing for nearly a decade, the pleas were
made during a federal crackdown on obscenity led by Attorney General
John Ashcroft. Adult obscenity prosecutions, as opposed to child porn,
have risen in recent years after what some call lackadaisical
prosecution under the Clinton administration...
"This case was based on religion," the elder Coil said. "There are
people in our community who want to control what other people watch."
The government originally sought to seize 58 Coil-owned properties in
seven states, worth about $9.7 million. Plea negotiations reduced that
to just the 45 Texas properties on the list.
These include houses, offices, at least two dozen adult video stores
and vacant pieces of land. Prosecutors said the video stores, in
cities including San Antonio, College Station, El Paso and Houston,
could be closed within months...
The buildings and land will be sold, and the pornography in most of
them will be destroyed...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 12:56:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:13:05 -0500, MrPepper11 wrote
(in article <57cfd534.0406122013.64da68cc@posting.google.com>):
"Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:<eP6dnZE9cuc4OlvdRVn-sQ@comcast.com>...
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
Yeah. Where is Osama? Or the anthrax mailer?
Bush & Ashcroft are going after dirty pictures BIG TIME. Better hide
your Playboy collection, and anything showing nipples.
...........
Austin, Texas 6/12/04 - The U.S. government will shut dozens of adult
video stores across Texas, including stores in Austin, Round Rock and
eastern Travis County, after a Texas adult video store mogul and his
son pleaded guilty in an Austin federal court Friday...
Although the case has been brewing for nearly a decade, the pleas were
made during a federal crackdown on obscenity led by Attorney General
John Ashcroft. Adult obscenity prosecutions, as opposed to child porn,
have risen in recent years after what some call lackadaisical
prosecution under the Clinton administration...
So the complaint is that Clinton & Co were very strict about
closing down child pornography but were "lackadaisical" about the
adult porn that was forced on the hapless Texans?
My gawd, if Loser Ashcroft wants to bust someone for pornography
and obsenity, Donald H. Rumsfeld isn't that far from him.
++ Gray //
"This case was based on religion," the elder Coil said. "There are
people in our community who want to control what other people watch."
The government originally sought to seize 58 Coil-owned properties in
seven states, worth about $9.7 million. Plea negotiations reduced that
to just the 45 Texas properties on the list.
These include houses, offices, at least two dozen adult video stores
and vacant pieces of land. Prosecutors said the video stores, in
cities including San Antonio, College Station, El Paso and Houston,
could be closed within months...
The buildings and land will be sold, and the pornography in most of
them will be destroyed...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
11 Jun 2004 02:59:45 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S. Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
FDR:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy by
retooling America for war.
GWB:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy by
passing an amendment banning gay marriage.
Again, a poor analogy, since FDR also attempted used his war powers to
continue his New Deal revolution that had been stalled in Congress
prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
FDR:
Policy: Allowed the generals to plan for D-Day, gave them as many men and
resources as they asked.
Result: The Invasion of Normandy was bloody, costly, but ultimately
successful.
GWB:
Policy: Goes on TV, says that the invasion of Europe can be done with a
few thousand troops. Fires Eisenhower for saying that an European invasion
requires at least 150,000 men and demotes Acheson to baby kissing duty for
saying that the war requires billions of doolars. Passes a tax cut.
Result: The invasion of Normandy was one of worst disasters in American
military history.
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry oportunity
becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
Yang deliberatly evades the differences in the bahavior of America's
World War II allies from the way America's NATO allies behave today.
Then, America's allies were supportive; now, they're not.
FDR:
Policy: Expended government to handle war efforts.
Result: Outresourced Germany through the war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges $5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at first
oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, implying that Bush has not used
the most effective means available, while Yang's real grievanceis that
Bush has expended too much resources.
FDR:
Policy: Did no mix politics with espionage.
Actually, according to a recent History Channel documentary, FDR did,
with disasterous results.
Result: The Germans never figured out that we cracked Enigma.
Actually, it was the British who cracked Enigma, with the original
work being done by Pole.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Didn't happen.
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More American
die as a result.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, when his real grievance is that
Bush initiated the war at all.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Bush did not send any U.S. citizens to relocation camps. His attempt
at analogy fails.
Result: Receives honorary Nazi death camp medal from Hitler.
It's interesting that Yang invokes the name of Hitler while he joins
with today's self-described admirers of Hitler to oppose Bush's
policies.
CONCLUSION:
FDR: Known as one of the greatest presidents in the 20th century.
GWB: Impeached, tried and shot for sheer incompetence.
As he would be if he followed the sort of policies advocated by
today's liberals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 09:39:42 AM |
|
|
(Jim Austin) wrote in message news:<bc3dd28f.0406111159.1e61458a@posting.google.com>...
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S. Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afghanistan.
A better analogy would be
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Japan and Mexico after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
I, being a liberal, complain that Iraq had nothing to do with
9-11, and yet 9-11 was used as an excuse to attack Iraq,
even though the Shrub Jr. admitted that they had no evidence
linking Iraq to 9-11. I complain that Jr. killed ten thousand
innocent Iraqi's to get one man, Saddam Hussein. I complain
because the war in Iraqi will lower the standard of living
for what is left of the middle class, while the wealthy
benefit from the action, and while the enlisted men
pay for it with their lives.
I complain that while Jr. claims to be protecting freedom,
I must know think about appearances when I check out
a book at the library.
Jr. failed to protect us from 9-11, failed to
protect our freedoms, economy and our honor.
Impeach Jr. then we will call it even.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 10:06:17 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2004 07:39:42 -0700, (Lawrence
Seib) wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote in message news:<bc3dd28f.0406111159.1e61458a@posting.google.com>...
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S. Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afghanistan.
A better analogy would be
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Japan and Mexico after the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
More like declaring war on Ireland after IRA terrorists blew up a
shopping mall in Manchester, to go after the IRA.
Afghanistan was on the brink of returning Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia
until the Clinton cruise missile attacks. After which the Saudi
emissaries were expelled.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
11 Jun 2004 07:17:38 PM |
|
|
(Jim Austin) wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Correct. A more accurate analogy would be Bush declaring war on
Japan, fighting the war, taking Tokyo while allowing the Japanese to
retreat into Korea and THEN declaring war on Burma while the Japanese
continue a guerilla war.
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
Cite, please, that a liberal has claimed that Bush has been too tough
on terrorists?
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry oportunity
becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
Yang deliberatly evades the differences in the bahavior of America's
World War II allies from the way America's NATO allies behave today.
Then, America's allies were supportive; now, they're not.
Whose fault is that?
FDR:
Policy: Expended government to handle war efforts.
Result: Outresourced Germany through the war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges $5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at first
oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, implying that Bush has not used
the most effective means available, while Yang's real grievanceis that
Bush has expended too much resources.
It appears that Yang's grievance is that Bush has expended resources
on enriching his political allies.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Didn't happen.
Someone gave Chalabi classified information.
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More American
die as a result.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, when his real grievance is that
Bush initiated the war at all.
I'd rather take Yang's word as to what his grievance is, rather than
yours.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Bush did not send any U.S. citizens to relocation camps.
How would you know? The names and nationalities of detainees are
classified.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
12 Jun 2004 05:48:04 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote
A more accurate analogy would be Bush declaring
war on Japan, fighting the war, taking Tokyo while
allowing the Japanese to retreat into Korea and
THEN declaring war on Burma while the Japanese
continue a guerilla war.
Huh?
Only if Bush's dad armed & trained the Japanese first...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:17:26 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Correct. A more accurate analogy would be Bush declaring war on
Japan, fighting the war, taking Tokyo while allowing the Japanese to
retreat into Korea and THEN declaring war on Burma while the Japanese
continue a guerilla war.
No. Still a poor analogy. While Iraq wasn't directly involved in the
9/11 attack, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorist activities. They provided
funds, weapons, training bases for different terrorist organizations.
Burma is thus a poor analogy to Iraq.
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
Cite, please, that a liberal has claimed that Bush has been too tough
on terrorists?
Liberals who opposed Bush's attack on Afghanistan wanted the Al Qaeda
to be able to strike with impunity. Liberals who opposed Bush's attack
on Iraq did not want the U.S. to inconvenience terrorists operating
from inside Iraq.
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry
oportunity becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
Yang deliberatly evades the differences in the bahavior of America's
World War II allies from the way America's NATO allies behave today.
Then, America's allies were supportive; now, they're not.
Whose fault is that?
The allies. They should take some responsibility for their own
attitudes.
Actually, when one considers the specific allies in question, Germany
and France, one actually sees an improvement in their behavior. In
World War II, Germany was the enemy. Now they're allies. In World War
II, much of France was openly collaberating with the enemy. Now,
they're still doing it. Not much improvement there.
FDR:
Policy: Expended government to handle war efforts.
Result: Outresourced Germany through the war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges $5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at
first oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, implying that Bush has not used
the most effective means available, while Yang's real grievanceis that
Bush has expended too much resources.
It appears that Yang's grievance is that Bush has expended resources
on enriching his political allies.
If that's the case, he provides no support for it.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Didn't happen.
Someone gave Chalabi classified information.
For fun?
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More American
die as a result.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, when his real grievance is that
Bush initiated the war at all.
I'd rather take Yang's word as to what his grievance is, rather than
yours.
This would mean that LeChevalier agrees with the right wing thrust of
Yang's word. If Yang is correct, then the only way to get a consistent
anti-terrorist policy would be to replace Bush with someone
significantly to the right of him.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Bush did not send any U.S. citizens to relocation camps.
How would you know?
Lack of any indications thereof.
The names and nationalities of detainees are classified.
Or non-existant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 07:57:53 AM |
|
|
(Jim Austin) wrote:
No. Still a poor analogy. While Iraq wasn't directly involved in the
9/11 attack, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorist activities. They provided
funds, weapons, training bases for different terrorist organizations.
So was Libya, N Korea, Palestine, and innumerable other countries,
including of course the United States of America (which supported the
predecessor of al Qaeda)
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
Cite, please, that a liberal has claimed that Bush has been too tough
on terrorists?
Liberals who opposed Bush's attack on Afghanistan wanted the Al Qaeda
to be able to strike with impunity.
I haven't heard much discussion of people who opposed the attack on
Afghanistan. I'm sure there were some (there are people with all
manner of opinions), but I'm not sure that the correct word to
describe them is "liberal". The current discussion is referring to
Iraq.
Liberals who opposed Bush's attack
on Iraq did not want the U.S. to inconvenience terrorists operating
from inside Iraq.
That does not follow, especially since there is no particular evidence
that there were terrorists at that time operating from inside Iraq.
Or if it does, then one, has to replace Iraq by several other
countries that are equally liable. Indeed, if the ONLY consideration
is inconveniencing terrorists, then properly we should have pursued
the terrorists we WERE concerned with into Pakistan and "deposed"
those tribal leaders therein that harbor them.
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry
oportunity becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
Yang deliberatly evades the differences in the bahavior of America's
World War II allies from the way America's NATO allies behave today.
Then, America's allies were supportive; now, they're not.
Whose fault is that?
The allies.
That is the disagreement.
They should take some responsibility for their own attitudes.
I'm sure that they do.
Actually, when one considers the specific allies in question, Germany
and France, one actually sees an improvement in their behavior. In
World War II, Germany was the enemy. Now they're allies. In World War
II, much of France was openly collaberating with the enemy.
At that point, much of France was under the direct or indirect rule of
the enemy, and was not our ally. To them, France had already lost the
war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges $5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at
first oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, implying that Bush has not used
the most effective means available, while Yang's real grievanceis that
Bush has expended too much resources.
It appears that Yang's grievance is that Bush has expended resources
on enriching his political allies.
If that's the case, he provides no support for it.
He was not challenged on the factual nature of his claim, but the
important place of Halliburton in our stable of contractors for
nation-building is a matter of fact, and Cheney's connection with
Halliburton is a matter of fact.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Didn't happen.
Someone gave Chalabi classified information.
For fun?
In the absence of the Bush administration providing a better reason,
we can presume whatever we want.
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More American
die as a result.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, when his real grievance is that
Bush initiated the war at all.
I'd rather take Yang's word as to what his grievance is, rather than
yours.
This would mean that LeChevalier agrees with the right wing thrust of
Yang's word.
No. I merely accept that Yang agrees with his own thrust, whatever
wing it might be labeled. I did not say I agree with Yang, merely
that I cannot attribute a different reason to Yang than the ones he
states. Compare to the above statement about Bush and Chalabi, where
Bush has provided no reason why we released classified information to
a foreigner. If Bush had provided a reason, we would have to either
take his word for it, or prove that he was lying about his
motivations.
If Yang is correct, then the only way to get a consistent
anti-terrorist policy would be to replace Bush with someone
significantly to the right of him.
That might certainly be one way to get a consistent anti-terrorist
policy. Of course it might also start World War III when we invade
other countries willy nilly to eliminate their terrorism threat.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Bush did not send any U.S. citizens to relocation camps.
How would you know?
Lack of any indications thereof.
The names and nationalities of detainees are classified.
Or non-existant.
There are detainees in Guantanamo, which fits the definition of
"relocation camp". They have names and nationalities. Therefore
"non-existence" is not a correct label.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 10:58:07 AM |
|
|
Actually, we'd all be speaking French. Given how much trouble Bush
has with English, there is no way he would have been permitted to
speak German, and making him speak French would have been an
effective way of further humiliating an occupied country - just
devious enough for the Nazis to go for it. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 09:58:19 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Actually, we'd all be speaking French. Given how much trouble Bush
has with English, there is no way he would have been permitted to
speak German, and making him speak French would have been an
effective way of further humiliating an occupied country - just
devious enough for the Nazis to go for it. :-)
Yeap, even for GWB, he would find a way of butchering the German language,
even I was able to pick it up rather easily, mind you, if you want a
challenge, take up Russian.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 12:30:52 PM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Correct. A more accurate analogy would be Bush declaring war on
Japan, fighting the war, taking Tokyo while allowing the Japanese to
retreat into Korea and THEN declaring war on Burma while the Japanese
continue a guerilla war.
No. Still a poor analogy. While Iraq wasn't directly involved in the
9/11 attack, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorist activities. They provided
funds, weapons, training bases for different terrorist organizations.
And where is the evidence for this claim?
Nowhere.
You might as well argue that the US should be invaded because the US
has provided "funds, weapons, training bases for different terrorist
organizations".
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
Cite, please, that a liberal has claimed that Bush has been too tough
on terrorists?
Liberals who opposed Bush's attack on Afghanistan wanted the Al Qaeda
to be able to strike with impunity.
Lying about people is no evidence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 02:36:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:30:52 -0500, Ray Fischer wrote
(in article <cai30c$2ps$1@bolt.sonic.net>):
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Correct. A more accurate analogy would be Bush declaring war on
Japan, fighting the war, taking Tokyo while allowing the Japanese to
retreat into Korea and THEN declaring war on Burma while the Japanese
continue a guerilla war.
No. Still a poor analogy. While Iraq wasn't directly involved in the
9/11 attack, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorist activities. They provided
funds, weapons, training bases for different terrorist organizations.
And where is the evidence for this claim?
Nowhere.
I thought the neo-convicts had even given up on this one and were
now using the justification "that we wanted to and we did and
re-elect the President because it's fun to invade other
countries, so help me Cheney/Rumsfeld" - or thoughts to that
effect.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
You might as well argue that the US should be invaded because the US
has provided "funds, weapons, training bases for different terrorist
organizations".
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
Cite, please, that a liberal has claimed that Bush has been too tough
on terrorists?
Liberals who opposed Bush's attack on Afghanistan wanted the Al Qaeda
to be able to strike with impunity.
Lying about people is no evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 12:29:30 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2004 23:17:26 -0700, (Jim Austin) wrote:
Liberals who opposed Bush's attack on Afghanistan wanted the Al Qaeda
to be able to strike with impunity. Liberals who opposed Bush's attack
on Iraq did not want the U.S. to inconvenience terrorists operating
from inside Iraq.
There was no need for a regime change in Iraq. The USA is where a
regime change is needed. We need to remove the Jews from ruling over
us.
The Finlandization of America
by Edgar J. Steele
Finally, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings has come clean. He dared to
say what everybody else in Washington already knew: America dances to
Israel's tune, as dispensed through its Washington lobby, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You can't have an Israel
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," said Mr. Hollings
from the floor of the Senate just two days ago. Of course, now it's
safe for him to do so, since he is retiring in a few months.
From the reaction to Mr. Hollings' statement, you would think he had
proposed that American Jews be rounded up, tattooed and sent off to
death camps. Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia?s Beth Shalom
synagogue, who claimed to be "horrified" by Hollings' remark,
hysterically ranted, "It makes him anti-Israel. It's
anti-Semitic...it's dangerous." Abraham Foxman, National Director of
the Anti-Defamation League, issued what has become the ADL's standard
denunciation of any national figure who implies, even, that America
carries Israel's water: "To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such
classical anti-Semitism. It's sad."
The ingratitude apparent in Mr. Hollings' recent statements
particularly must rankle AIPAC's membership, since they thought they
had bought and paid for him, to the tune of $73,275. Of course,
that's peanuts compared to what has been paid for some of AIPAC's
favorites, such as the Senators from Pennsylvania (Arlen Spector -
$366,123), Iowa (Thomas Harkin - $423,895) and Michigan (Carl Levin -
$564,858).
What? You say the Senator from your state won't return your calls?
Well, how much did you bribe...er, give in "campaign contributions" to
him or her recently? What? Well, no wonder he or she refuses to
listen to you. No wonder Israel calls the shots. Is it really any
wonder? And AIPAC is just one of Israel's seemingly countless lobby
groups.
There are lots of other Jewish organizations that also bribe...er,
contribute to Congressmen, such as the World Jewish Congress and The
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, just
to name a couple. And there are a great many wealthy individual Jews
who give serious, and I do mean serious, bribes...er, contributions,
such as Seagram's heir Edgar Bronfman, whose work on behalf of Israel
was recognized with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom (look,
you have to admit that this is so off the wall that I couldn't just
make up stuff like this). Is it really any surprise for you to learn
that well over half of all bribes...er, campaign contributions now
come from Jews?
Getting back to Mr. Hollings for a moment, the 82-year-old gentleman
from South Carolina is retiring from public office after 38 years in
the Senate. That's longer than most Americans have been alive, you
know. Oddly enough, 38 years also is almost exactly as long as it
took for the coup to take place. What coup? You really haven't been
paying attention, have you? Why, the one now reaching its climax in
America. You know, the coup that began with JFK's assassination. The
coup that put the Zionist International Banker cabal atop America for
good.
I appreciate that Hollings has come clean at last, but what I really
want to know is - where have you been for the past 38 years, Fritz?
And where were all your colleagues while America was sold down the
river? You know, the ones busy shuffling their feet and averting
their eyes during your recent floor speech? Yes, the very ones with
whom you took that oath in which you swore allegiance to America and
against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Bush recently signed off on Israel's current campaign of genocide
against the Palestinian people whose land Israel steals, inch by mile,
on a daily basis. Why? Because he, and every President stretching
back nearly one hundred years to Woodrow Wilson, the very first
American President to sell America out to Zionist interests, has bowed
low before Zionism.
"Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry
- which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against
them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and
small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another."
Israeli journalist and peace activist, Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, March 6,
1991.
John F. Kennedy reneged on his deal and look what it got him.
Incidentally, let me tell you once again about the absolute last word
on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, by Michael C. Piper - it's
available once again, in a new, expanded edition at
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf. Do yourself a
favor and order a copy. Get this latest, updated version and give
your old one away, if you already own a copy (yes, I know you paid
upwards of $200 for it on the Internet while the book was out of print
because essentially it was banned, but think of it as bread upon the
water).
During his speech to AIPAC the other day, George the Second referred
to a picture we all now have seen, of four black-clad men standing
behind Nicholas Berg and accused of having executed him, saying, "The
faces of the terrorists were cloaked, but we have seen their kind
before." Yes, indeed, Mr. President. We certainly have. We see them
every day, in our own ranks. How ironic that you should bring up this
specific incident, which already has been debunked so thoroughly by so
many.
Just as with 9-11, which now conclusively has been shown to have been
a "false flag" operation, not to mention the Oklahoma City Bombing,
the Berg decapitation quite simply wasn't done by the people being
blamed by George. There really isn't room here today to list, let
alone develop, the mounting anomalies that call the Berg affair into
question and there is not yet a unified site that discusses them all,
but go here and here for some of the more complete preliminary
discussions.
George the Second also told his masters, as represented by those
assembled at the AIPAC Conference: "(A)ll terrorists burn with the
same hatred. They hate all who reject their grim vision of tyranny.
They hate people who love freedom. They kill without mercy. They kill
without shame. And they count their victories in the death of the
innocent." Yes, Mr. President. Once again, you have said something
with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Problem is, we are the terrorists, because it is America that burns
with hatred these days. America that hates those who reject its grim
vision of democracy. America that hates so many who know the real
meaning of freedom. America that kills women without mercy. America
that kills children without shame. You and the Jewish organ grinders
for whom you are but a dancing monkey count your victories in the
deaths of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis. You have shamed us and
you have condemned us all to Hell, right along with you and your
Jewish masters.
George the Second also told the AIPAC audience that "(W)e have a duty
to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found." He
followed that up with "The demonization of Israel...can be a flimsy
cover for anti-Semitism." With those two statements, George the
Second made crystal clear where his loyalties lie with regard to the
mushrooming portion of America's population that objects to our Middle
Eastern campaign of conquest: With Israel and against America, that's
where.
Could it be any more clearly stated, folks? Of course, George is the
same fellow who gave new life to the phrase, "yer either with us or
agin us." At least, now we know what he meant by "us," and it most
assuredly isn't us, fellow Americans.
In contrast to what George the Second thinks, I rather liked what
Fritz Hollings had to say in response to his Jewish critics from the
Senate floor two days ago: "I want them to apologize to me. Talking
about 'anti-Semitic.' They're not getting by with it."
Finland avoided military invasion and conquest by Joseph Stalin's
Soviet Union back in the 1940s by adopting a Soviet-style government,
paying fealty to the USSR and otherwise acting just as it would, had
it been conquered by force. Today, the US has gone along with
International Zionism in precisely the same fashion: installing
Jewish and Christian Zionists in all governmental power points, bowing
to the wishes of Israel's lobbyists, removing Christianity from
America's culture by edict of an increasingly-Jewish judiciary,
fighting Israel's fights and even purging those who disagree with
foreign Jews pushing Zionism by imprisoning its own citizen political
dissidents on phony charges. Of course, Finland had the example of
20-80 million Russian Christians executed right next door early last
century, simply for being anti-Semitic, a lesson that America seems to
have forgotten. The term "Finlandization" has come to refer to
quislings like Finland and, now, America.
I will be speaking at the Duke International European American Unity
and Leadership Conference in New Orleans this next weekend, May 28-30.
Call 985-626-7714 or go here to reserve on line. From David Duke's
web site promoting the conference: "The leaders who will be present
at the conference recognize that the enormous media and financial
power of Zionism is not just a Palestinian problem, but the greatest
single threat to the European and other peoples of the world. The
Unity and Leadership conference is about setting an effective agenda
for the restoration of our rights, freedoms and heritage." You who
follow this list regularly know that I will be pulling no punches in
pursuit of this very agenda during my speech. And, yes, it is that
David Duke: the ex-Congressman.
For those who have indicated an interest in going, but been reluctant
to sign up because my name does not appear on the list of scheduled
speakers, rest easy. It's right there - I'm one of the "other
prominent speakers." Be assured that I will be speaking, even if I
have to do it on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. And I make it a
point of honor at these affairs to attend all proceedings and to be
available to members of this list at all times throughout.
Already, Mark Potok of the very Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center,
one of Zionism's many American apologist-*****-attack dogs, is calling
this a world-class gathering of anti-Semites. To him, I say: Unlike
Mr. Hollings, no apology to me is necessary. Just remember, though,
that's Mr. Anti-Semite to you!
New America. An idea whose time has come.
Subscribe: Send email with "subscribe" in subject line to
subscribe@conspiracypenpal.com
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 09:28:48 PM |
|
|
In article <bc3dd28f.0406111159.1e61458a@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
This is a totally baseless claim offered by yet another Right Winger
who is ignorant of the facts. This is why Bush has any votes at all.
Pure ignorance from those on the Right. People ask why Fox News does
as well as it does. Here is the answer. The Right doesn't care if
they get the facts, they only care to have their version of reality
affirmed and Fox News does that.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
FDR:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy by
retooling America for war.
GWB:
Policy: Strove to maintain our way of life in the face of the enemy by
passing an amendment banning gay marriage.
Again, a poor analogy, since FDR also attempted used his war powers to
continue his New Deal revolution that had been stalled in Congress
prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Proof?
FDR:
Policy: Allowed the generals to plan for D-Day, gave them as many men and
resources as they asked.
Result: The Invasion of Normandy was bloody, costly, but ultimately
successful.
GWB:
Policy: Goes on TV, says that the invasion of Europe can be done with a
few thousand troops. Fires Eisenhower for saying that an European invasion
requires at least 150,000 men and demotes Acheson to baby kissing duty for
saying that the war requires billions of doolars. Passes a tax cut.
Result: The invasion of Normandy was one of worst disasters in American
military history.
Intrestingly enough, Yang attacks Bush from the right. He evades the
fact that liberal opinion has become more pacifistic since FDR, and
thus today's liberals complain, not that Bush has been too soft on
terorists, but that Bush has been too tough.
The torture of innocent civilians notwithstanding?
FDR:
Policy: Consulted with allies so as to coordinate war effort.
Result: Received valuable assistance from countries such as Canada.
GWB:
Policy: Snubs other countries, insult potential allies at evry oportunity
becuase they don't believe in Reaganomics.
Result: The Canadians sit this one out. More Americans die.
Yang deliberatly evades the differences in the bahavior of America's
World War II allies from the way America's NATO allies behave today.
Then, America's allies were supportive; now, they're not.
Two reasons for that. 1) We are WRONG. 2) Bush has alienated nearly
every one of them.
FDR:
Policy: Expended government to handle war efforts.
Result: Outresourced Germany through the war.
GWB:
Policy: Outsource 90% of defense work to Haliburton.
Result: Haliburton cheats the hell out of the government, charges $5 for
each peanut sold to the army. Private contractors turn tail and run at first
oppotunity, hanging soldiers out to dry.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, implying that Bush has not used
the most effective means available, while Yang's real grievanceis that
Bush has expended too much resources.
Wasted, you mean.
FDR:
Policy: Did no mix politics with espionage.
Actually, according to a recent History Channel documentary, FDR did,
with disasterous results.
Liar.
Result: The Germans never figured out that we cracked Enigma.
Actually, it was the British who cracked Enigma, with the original
work being done by Pole.
"We" meaning the allies.
GWB:
Policy: Passes out mailitary secrets to cronies just for fun.
Didn't happen.
How do you know that? Fox News?
Result: Bush lackey Ahmed Chalabi tells German we cracked Enigma so he
can impress some prostitute. Nazi High Command changes code. More American
die as a result.
Again, Yang attacks from the right, when his real grievance is that
Bush initiated the war at all.
Mind reader.
FDR:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp.
Result: A black mark on the FDR administration .
GWB:
Policy: Send the Japanese to relocation camp, shove broomsticks up their
asses, rape female Japanese internees, tortures a whole bunch of the
Japanese internees to death, then argues that it is okay because the
president is above the law.
Bush did not send any U.S. citizens to relocation camps. His attempt
at analogy fails.
Untrue.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ashcroft_dachau.htm
Result: Receives honorary Nazi death camp medal from Hitler.
It's interesting that Yang invokes the name of Hitler while he joins
with today's self-described admirers of Hitler to oppose Bush's
policies.
Hitler was a crazed lunitic who fought in the war for his country.
Bush is a crazed lunitic who let others fight while he was drunk and
high on drugs. No comparison.
CONCLUSION:
FDR: Known as one of the greatest presidents in the 20th century.
GWB: Impeached, tried and shot for sheer incompetence.
As he would be if he followed the sort of policies advocated by
today's liberals.
You mean peace?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
12 Jun 2004 03:21:47 PM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president. Let's
debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 08:39:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:21:47 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
The people who attacked the US were paid terrorists, who just individually happened to be
mostly from SA. Why can't you idiots get that thru your head?
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
That's for sure.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
Where, and spare us the SA silliness again?
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:09 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:09 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:09 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:10 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:10 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:10 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:33:10 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 01:31:35 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Still, Fischer is hot to exonerate Iraq. Must be sympathy.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
13 Jun 2004 12:34:50 PM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD wrote:
One strain of NeoCon propaganda is that Bush is an able war president.
Let's debunk this by comparing Bush to FDR. If Bush fought WWII....
FDR:
Policy: Declares war on Japan after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
GWB:
Policy: Declares war on Burma after the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
This is a rather poor analogy, since Bush want after the country that
sponsored, supported and financed the terrorist faction that attacked
the U.S.
Are you insane, lying, or stupid?
That question would be better addressed to Fischer since he
misconstrued my references to Afghanistan as meaning Iraq.
Since NONE of the financers or terrorists of the 9/11 attacks were
either from Afghanistan or Iraq the question stands. Are you insane,
lying, or stupid?
The people who attacked the US on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
had NOTHING to do with it.
Never said Iraq did.
Neither were they from Afghanistan.
Still, Fischer is hot to exonerate Iraq.
You're hot to kill thousands of innocent people. You must be a
terrorist.
Apparently, Yang's real grievance is that Bush didn't allow
the Al Qaeda to have its privileged sanctuary in Afganistan.
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
LOL! Yeah, bin Laden is still running around free but Bush denied
him his sanctuary.
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now |
14 Jun 2004 01:01:28 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
But Bush HAS allowed them to have their sanctuary.
No. He denied their sanctuary in Afghanistan.
LOL! Yeah, bin Laden is still running around free but Bush denied
him his sanctuary.
Idiot.
Well, the interesting part is that Yemen informed the United States of Bin
ladens where abouts before Sept 11, and yet nothing was done. Maybe someone
can explain that phenomenon.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you w | | | | | |
