| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Adam Albright" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2006 10:51:20 AM |
| Object: |
The United States in today's world |
Times change. Just after the completion of World War Two the United
States was feared because of its military might, respected and had a
right to claim the moral high ground. We fought two determined enemies
and defeated both. We freed Europe and eliminated Japan's brutal
military and set it on the road to democracy. Things were good. Boom
times in America. Then it all started to go horribly wrong.
Korea happened. It caught America off guard. Over 50 years have pasted
and nothing beyond a fragile armistice is the result. Then we got
stuck in Vietnam. That was the first war America lost. Several more
foolish adventures with American blood spilled all over the globe.
Again, unlike in World War Two the United States in spite of being
unchallenged militarily kept losing. Five years into Afghanistan
to hunt down and capture Bin Laden and still no result. A stupid
detour into Iraq and that war on the verge of full blown civil war.
What has happened?
Lack of leadership. We're in a bad streak of weak ineffective
presidents. Both parties are guility. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. None of the above were
a Truman or Roosevelt, that's for sure.
Lack of will. One thing stands out. In wars that were declared as war
by Congress as our founding fathers wisely put in the Constitution, we
win hands down. The last declared war was WWII. None have been since
and guess what, we haven't won a war since either. That's because
there hasn't been a national will to win. It happened with Korea,
again in Vietnam and again now in Iraq. The American people were never
solidly behind the war effort, they grow tired of the endless fighting
and they sooner or later end, but not in victory.
Sadly in the eyes of much of the world the United States has
transformed from respected leader to warmonger and bully. There is no
doubt this has happened and it is accelerating. The art of diplomacy
has been replaced by the shrill cries of saber rattling and
warmongering. Mostly noteable by a little retard from Texas that
fancies himself king and free to do as he wants, no laws stand in the
way of the drunk from Texas.
Instead of skillful diplomacy we have a cowboy screaming axis of evil.
Instead of negotiated settlement of disputes we have ultimatums of do
what I want, or I'll attack. Instead of using the UN to show the world
a real danger as was done in the Cuban missle crisis, we have a stooge
lying his ***** off then saying if you don't enforce your resolutions,
I'll do it on my own my invading and occupying country against
international law.
While there are many villains in the world, the biggest threat to
world peace is the moron currently squating in the oval office. It is
the fool named Bush that has turned the world against the United
States. It is the fool Bush that has pushed North Korea to accelerate
their development of more nuclear weapons. In is the fool Bush that
berates Iran and demands they stop their nuclear ambitions while Bush
rushes more bunker busters to Israel and makes noises of a future war
with Iran.
Bush has accomplished one thing no other president has. In six years
time he has managed to ***** away over two centuries of trust and
respect. The days when world leaders listened to and often followed
America's lead, are long past. Today the world looks at Americans and
wonders what has happened that they allow a lunantic to remain in
power.
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 06:46:46 PM |
|
|
Here is a quote from an article by Julius Streicher in 1944:
Der Stürmer, #23/1944, What is Americanism
"The family ties between hundreds of thousands of German families and
their American relatives led many to think that America would never
join a second war against Germany. Now that that has happened, many
Germans still believe that America will never allow Bolshevism to
conquer and destroy Germany. Recent events have proven how false and
dangerous this idea is. One has to be be foolish or irredeemably
stupid to believe that anything good can come to Europe from the land
of presumed opportunity. That that did not happen after the First
World War, and will not happen after the second. The Jews have made
America what it is today: a nation raped by the Jews , a nation whose
130,000,000 people of many colors and races have been forced into
helping the Jews achieve world domination!"
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 09:02:36 PM |
|
|
Bush has accomplished one thing no other president has. In six years
time he has managed to ***** away over two centuries of trust and
respect. The days when world leaders listened to and often followed
America's lead, are long past. Today the world looks at Americans and
wonders what has happened that they allow a lunantic to remain in
power.
Although he has made great inroads into wrecking the US reputation, he
did have some help from earlier presidents. Colombia and Turkey were
at one point the largest recipients of US military aid and training
which went into brutual suppression of the lower classes (e.g. the
Turkish Kurds) to the benefit of the elite and "foreign" investors -
all of which, the US were willing sponsors, if not participants. The
only reason that the US complained in the end about the Turkish
treatment of the Kurds was the Turk's refusal to let the US use their
country as a base for Vietnam 2.0 (naughty Turks - how dare you listen
to the opinion of your people over the US).
Of course, the regular practice of US-directed state terrorism and
ignoring the rest of the world wouldn't have helped. When Nicaragua
complained to the World Court, UN Security Council, and UN General
Assembly about the US involvement in the Contra terrorists (all of whom
ruled against the US), those organisations were labelled tools of the
Soviets, vetoed, or plain ignored by the US. Meanwhile, Nicaragua went
to custard until a US-approved regime could take power. Obviously,
Latin America has a lot of trust and respect for the US.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberals Make No sense" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 11:38:15 AM |
|
|
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
--
"We the returning soldiers of this war will be the force to tell the truth
about this conflict and about the despicable actions of the Democratic
Party."
SGT Mark Russak
"B" Co. 1/110th Inf.
2-28 BCT
Camp Habbaniyah
APO AE 09381
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:gv9me29do90opio8c0amakq0rmq414o7dj@4ax.com...
Times change. Just after the completion of World War Two the United
States was feared because of its military might, respected and had a
right to claim the moral high ground. We fought two determined enemies
and defeated both. We freed Europe and eliminated Japan's brutal
military and set it on the road to democracy. Things were good. Boom
times in America. Then it all started to go horribly wrong.
Korea happened. It caught America off guard. Over 50 years have pasted
and nothing beyond a fragile armistice is the result. Then we got
stuck in Vietnam. That was the first war America lost. Several more
foolish adventures with American blood spilled all over the globe.
Again, unlike in World War Two the United States in spite of being
unchallenged militarily kept losing. Five years into Afghanistan
to hunt down and capture Bin Laden and still no result. A stupid
detour into Iraq and that war on the verge of full blown civil war.
What has happened?
Lack of leadership. We're in a bad streak of weak ineffective
presidents. Both parties are guility. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. None of the above were
a Truman or Roosevelt, that's for sure.
Lack of will. One thing stands out. In wars that were declared as war
by Congress as our founding fathers wisely put in the Constitution, we
win hands down. The last declared war was WWII. None have been since
and guess what, we haven't won a war since either. That's because
there hasn't been a national will to win. It happened with Korea,
again in Vietnam and again now in Iraq. The American people were never
solidly behind the war effort, they grow tired of the endless fighting
and they sooner or later end, but not in victory.
Sadly in the eyes of much of the world the United States has
transformed from respected leader to warmonger and bully. There is no
doubt this has happened and it is accelerating. The art of diplomacy
has been replaced by the shrill cries of saber rattling and
warmongering. Mostly noteable by a little retard from Texas that
fancies himself king and free to do as he wants, no laws stand in the
way of the drunk from Texas.
Instead of skillful diplomacy we have a cowboy screaming axis of evil.
Instead of negotiated settlement of disputes we have ultimatums of do
what I want, or I'll attack. Instead of using the UN to show the world
a real danger as was done in the Cuban missle crisis, we have a stooge
lying his ***** off then saying if you don't enforce your resolutions,
I'll do it on my own my invading and occupying country against
international law.
While there are many villains in the world, the biggest threat to
world peace is the moron currently squating in the oval office. It is
the fool named Bush that has turned the world against the United
States. It is the fool Bush that has pushed North Korea to accelerate
their development of more nuclear weapons. In is the fool Bush that
berates Iran and demands they stop their nuclear ambitions while Bush
rushes more bunker busters to Israel and makes noises of a future war
with Iran.
Bush has accomplished one thing no other president has. In six years
time he has managed to ***** away over two centuries of trust and
respect. The days when world leaders listened to and often followed
America's lead, are long past. Today the world looks at Americans and
wonders what has happened that they allow a lunantic to remain in
power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 01:28:25 PM |
|
|
"Liberals Make No sense" <Lmns@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KpGGg.1430$T8.1275@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
Typical, not so bright repug. Since he can't answer the post he attacks the
poster.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 12:40:27 PM |
|
|
Liberals Make No sense wrote:
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
Actually, I looked closely, and was not
able to find a single lie. Although
your entire post (one line) strikes
me as either the ranting of an idiot or a liar
since you didn't back it up with one intelligent
remark.
We're in a bad streak of weak ineffective
presidents. Both parties are guility. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. None of the above were
a Truman or Roosevelt, that's for sure.
This is a bold statement, but I have to say
it sounds about right to me.
Totally agree with everything else you posted.
Hope you keep it up. We need to hear more.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 02:09:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:38:15 -0400, "Liberals Make No sense"
<Lmns@earthlink.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
To prove that you need to do three things:
1. quote the lie.
2. demonstrate it is untrue.
3. demonstrate he knew it was untrue.
Your current attempt is feeble even for a five year old.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 05:56:07 PM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:38:15 -0400, "Liberals Make No sense"
<Lmns@earthlink.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
To prove that you need to do three things:
1. quote the lie.
2. demonstrate it is untrue.
3. demonstrate he knew it was untrue.
Use the same standard about president Bush, and his decision to attack Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 07:42:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:56:07 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Use the same standard about president Bush, and his decision to attack Iraq.
see http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismslies.html#LIES
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#FALSEHOODS
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 07:53:32 PM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:56:07 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Use the same standard about president Bush, and his decision to attack Iraq.
see http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismslies.html#LIES
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#FALSEHOODS
You are not a credible source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Albright" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 09:22:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:53:32 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:56:07 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Use the same standard about president Bush, and his decision to attack Iraq.
see http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismslies.html#LIES
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#FALSEHOODS
You are not a credible source.
I bet you have that phrase made into a rubber stamp you repeat so
often. <snicker>
.
|
|
|
| User: "A Brick in the Wall" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 07:26:22 AM |
|
|
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:dvene2p9n1c788878qma12i1u0lufcf29o@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:53:32 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:56:07 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Use the same standard about president Bush, and his decision to attack
Iraq.
see http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismslies.html#LIES
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#FALSEHOODS
You are not a credible source.
I bet you have that phrase made into a rubber stamp you repeat so
often. <snicker>
Don't you wonder why David thinks he is a credible source though?
Even when he's caught in outright lies?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 10:56:17 PM |
|
|
If Bush II and his henchmen in the Imperial Grand Strategy are as bad
as we all think, how come Kerry didn't win in the last election?
Surely, the skimpy-on-the-truth messages of nationalism and national
security invoked during the leadup to the invasion didn't really fool
the American public that the administration had suddenly developed
ethics, morals, or even a clue. The propaganda machine must have been
truly excellent at its job.
Also, there appeared to be a real drive to oust the administration -
only 52% of the voting age population voted. I think the rest of the
world would like to thank the other 48% for helping reduce instability
in the Middle East, maintaining world peace, keeping oil prices down,
and generally helping us feel safe.
It's all well and good bemoaning the current state of play in the world
and apportioning blame to an intellectually-unendowed man and his
administration, but surely some responsibility has to be taken by those
who could have done something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 10:42:29 AM |
|
|
Wyvern schrieb:
If Bush II and his henchmen in the Imperial Grand Strategy are as bad
as we all think, how come Kerry didn't win in the last election?
Surely, the skimpy-on-the-truth messages of nationalism and national
security invoked during the leadup to the invasion didn't really fool
the American public that the administration had suddenly developed
ethics, morals, or even a clue. The propaganda machine must have been
truly excellent at its job.
Well, it's either that or the Americans have become extremely naive in
their conception of politics. How can it be otherwise anyway?!?
Presidential debates are reduced to fundamental questions with a limit
of only a few seconds to answer? No surprise the only answer to such a
complex situation like 9 / 11 was "invade Iraq"...
Basically, people vote according to a very hazy opinion based on
impression...
And the fact that there is only two parties makes it also, well, not
very democratic...
So, if a party succeed in making people believe smear campaign, that's
it...
Also, there appeared to be a real drive to oust the administration -
only 52% of the voting age population voted.
Which is quite revealing,. But no one seems to examine this VERY
worrying statistic.
I think the rest of the
world would like to thank the other 48% for helping reduce instability
in the Middle East, maintaining world peace, keeping oil prices down,
and generally helping us feel safe.
It's all well and good bemoaning the current state of play in the world
and apportioning blame to an intellectually-unendowed man and his
administration, but surely some responsibility has to be taken by those
who could have done something.
Bingo... But we have to admit that Bush is the biggest mistake ever...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Albright" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 09:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:56:07 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:38:15 -0400, "Liberals Make No sense"
<Lmns@earthlink.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
To prove that you need to do three things:
1. quote the lie.
2. demonstrate it is untrue.
3. demonstrate he knew it was untrue.
Use the same standard about president Bush, and his decision to attack Iraq.
Bush said among other things:
Iraq is a threat to the security of the United States. That's proven
*****. Cheney is on the record saying they had WMD's. That also is
*****. While not directly saying it in so many words Bush time
after time deliberately used language to imply to simple minded fools
like you David that Iraq was either behind or involved with Bin Laden
in planning and/or carrying out events on 9/11 and by inference always
attempted to link his "war on terror" with the need for invading Iraq.
Bush deliberately lied about the cost of his prescription drug bill in
order to get conservatives to vote for it. Days later a staff member
accountant that did the number crunching admitted under oath to
Congress that Bush knew the true cost was at least 150 billion more.
Bush first lied claiming nobody told him about the potential severity
of massive hurricane that struck the Gulf coast lst year. Only after a
video tape surfaced showing Brown told him point blank in a video
conference did Bush change his story.
Days before his first election Bush swore on a stack of bible he gave
up drinking years before. Then when his arrest record for drunk
driving came to light he admitted he lied to "protect" his family.
Bush is nothing but a liar. He's fooled idiots like you over and over.
He does not fool most Americans any longer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Albright" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 11:39:08 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:38:15 -0400, "Liberals Make No sense"
<Lmns@earthlink.net> wrote:
AdamNotsobright - You are the biggest lying idiot on the planet.
Too much truth for you *****? Bush is a fucking idiot and so are
you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 02:07:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:51:20 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Lack of will. One thing stands out. In wars that were declared as war
by Congress as our founding fathers wisely put in the Constitution, we
win hands down. The last declared war was WWII. None have been since
and guess what, we haven't won a war since either. That's because
there hasn't been a national will to win
And why has there been no will? WW II was a war to defend the US
homeland. Every war since has been a war for the benefit of US
business on someone else's turf. It is hard to get excited about the
necessity to prevail in a mugging against a foe that can't hurt you.
It is right and fitting the will was low. Properly it should have been
non-existent.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 06:42:48 PM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
[snip]
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
[snip]
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 11:21:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
Have you ever heard of the Lend/Lease Act? We were the main supplier of
military equipment to England and eventually Russia beginning in 1939,
and had U-Boats sinking our frieghters in the Atlantic in 1940. The
Germans, Japanese, and Italians had already formed the Axis. We could
not enter the war because public opinion was isolationist, not
pro-Nazi, and Roosevelt was always a fervant anti-fascist. American
business could not trade with Germany because of sanctions imposed
after the invasion of Poland, and most wouldn't have wanted to anyway.
Nazi socialism did not count on trade to sustain it economically. It
counted on plunder and slavery to feed and clothe it, while chasing
away the most brilliant minds in Germany because of their idiotic
religious policies.
(see Einstein and R.J. Oppenheimer) LEARN YOUR HISTORY
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 11:42:17 AM |
|
|
wrote:
saroman0414@gmail.com wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
Have you ever heard of the Lend/Lease Act? We were the main supplier of
military equipment to England and eventually Russia beginning in 1939,
and had U-Boats sinking our frieghters in the Atlantic in 1940. The
Germans, Japanese, and Italians had already formed the Axis. We could
not enter the war because public opinion was isolationist, not
pro-Nazi, and Roosevelt was always a fervant anti-fascist. American
business could not trade with Germany because of sanctions imposed
after the invasion of Poland, and most wouldn't have wanted to anyway.
Nazi socialism did not count on trade to sustain it economically. It
counted on plunder and slavery to feed and clothe it, while chasing
away the most brilliant minds in Germany because of their idiotic
religious policies.
(see Einstein and R.J. Oppenheimer) LEARN YOUR HISTORY
Unfortunately you've got it wrong, including your perception of
Lend-Lease. Apparently you have no interest in the essay cited earlier
in the thread because you've bought into the revisionist ***** of
those who would write history according to their propoganda interests.
The article is completely documented and referenced so you can go to
the source if you like. The author is a well-respected Belgian
historian now living in Canada and with no apparent allegiance other
than to historical fact. Do yourself a favor and read it, although on
the basis of your comments I suspect you also prefer the Bush
administration "history" of its Iraq successes.
Why, I'll bet you didn't know that the US was supplying Germany with
94% of its engine oil imports as late as September 1941 delivered
through neutral countries. Of course you didn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 02:46:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
deal.nathan@gmail.com wrote:
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
Have you ever heard of the Lend/Lease Act? We were the main supplier of
military equipment to England and eventually Russia beginning in 1939,
and had U-Boats sinking our frieghters in the Atlantic in 1940. The
Germans, Japanese, and Italians had already formed the Axis. We could
not enter the war because public opinion was isolationist, not
pro-Nazi, and Roosevelt was always a fervant anti-fascist. American
business could not trade with Germany because of sanctions imposed
after the invasion of Poland, and most wouldn't have wanted to anyway.
Nazi socialism did not count on trade to sustain it economically. It
counted on plunder and slavery to feed and clothe it, while chasing
away the most brilliant minds in Germany because of their idiotic
religious policies.
(see Einstein and R.J. Oppenheimer) LEARN YOUR HISTORY
Unfortunately you've got it wrong, including your perception of
Lend-Lease. Apparently you have no interest in the essay cited earlier
in the thread because you've bought into the revisionist ***** of
those who would write history according to their propoganda interests.
Do you seriously believe that the cite you gave is not propaganda?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 04:20:15 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
saroman0414@gmail.com wrote:
deal.nathan@gmail.com wrote:
saroman0414@gmail.com wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
Have you ever heard of the Lend/Lease Act? We were the main supplier of
military equipment to England and eventually Russia beginning in 1939,
and had U-Boats sinking our frieghters in the Atlantic in 1940. The
Germans, Japanese, and Italians had already formed the Axis. We could
not enter the war because public opinion was isolationist, not
pro-Nazi, and Roosevelt was always a fervant anti-fascist. American
business could not trade with Germany because of sanctions imposed
after the invasion of Poland, and most wouldn't have wanted to anyway.
Nazi socialism did not count on trade to sustain it economically. It
counted on plunder and slavery to feed and clothe it, while chasing
away the most brilliant minds in Germany because of their idiotic
religious policies.
(see Einstein and R.J. Oppenheimer) LEARN YOUR HISTORY
Unfortunately you've got it wrong, including your perception of
Lend-Lease. Apparently you have no interest in the essay cited earlier
in the thread because you've bought into the revisionist ***** of
those who would write history according to their propoganda interests.
Do you seriously believe that the cite you gave is not propaganda?
Of course, it's obvious that Dr. Pauwels is a propagandist. You can
tell by the title of some of his other publications:
"A History Of The Names Of Countries And Peoples"
"The Canadians And The Liberation Of Belgium"
"Women, Nazis, and Universities: Female University Students in the
Third Reich, 1933-1945"
"Canadian Foreign Investment Policy"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 07:10:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
[snip]
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
[snip]
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
You really need to study some history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 08:55:18 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
saroman0414@gmail.com wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
[snip]
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
[snip]
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
You really need to study some history.
I have, and I suggest you do the same. Hopefully you will read
something other than the views of the US government. I suggest you
start with the fully documented and referenced essay "Profits =FCber
Alles! American Corporations and Hitler" by Jacques R. Pauwels which
you can find at
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html. It is
published by the History Cooperative which provides the following
information at its web site: "Four leaders in historical scholarship
and cutting-edge technology have joined forces to create the premier
resource for historians on the Web. The American Historical
Association, the Organization of American Historians, the University of
Illinois Press, and the National Academy Press have announced the
launch of The History Cooperative on March 30, 2000. For the first
time, the full text of current issues of the American Historical Review
and the Journal of American History will be available electronically to
members of the AHA and OAH and to institutions that subscribe to the
print versions of the journals."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 09:11:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
[snip]
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
[snip]
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
You really need to study some history.
I have, and I suggest you do the same.
Then you don't learn well.
The dates of the Lend-lease program are a real goos indication that you have no
idea what you are talking about, or perhaps you are lying deliberately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 09:40:01 AM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
[snip]
Then you don't learn well.
The dates of the Lend-lease program are a real goos indication that you h=
ave no
idea what you are talking about, or perhaps you are lying deliberately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
I guess you're not interested in reading the essay I recommended, so
let me provide you with a few quotations from the essay that are
relevant to Lend-Lease:
"Nineteen forty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate
America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils
of Hitler's triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other
wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a
possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and
ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict
"cash-and-carry" basis and then through "Lend-Lease," President
Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with
military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little
Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely. By the end of
1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US
itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate
America's factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et
al., also had branch plants), or in Germany."
"The USSR, however, became the first country to fight the Blitzkrieg to
a standstill. And on December 1941, the Red Army even launched a
counter-offensive. It was henceforth evident that the Germans would be
preoccupied for quite some time on the Eastern Front, that this would
also permit the British to continue to wage war, and that the
profitable Lend-Lease business would therefore continue indefinitely."
"The situation became even more advantageous to corporate America when
it appeared that business could henceforth also be done with the
Soviets. Indeed, in November 1941, when it had already become clear
that the Soviet Union was not about to collapse, Washington agreed to
extend credit to Moscow, and concluded a Lend-Lease agreement with the
USSR, thus providing the big American corporations with yet another
market for their products."
"Finally, the much-publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large
extent neutralized - and arguably dwarfed - by the unofficial,
discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate
sources to the German enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 American
oil trusts increased the lucrative oil exports to Germany; large
amounts delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states. The American
share of Germany's imports of vitally important oil for engine
lubrication (Motoren=F6l) increased rapidly, from 44 per cent in July
1941 to 94 per cent in September 1941. Without US-supplied fuel, the
German attack on the Soviet Union would not have been possible,
according to the German historian Tobias Jersak, an authority in the
field of American "fuel for the F=FChrer.""
As I said, the US always goes where the money is, morality be damned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 02:45:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
[snip]
Then you don't learn well.
The dates of the Lend-lease program are a real goos indication that you have no
idea what you are talking about, or perhaps you are lying deliberately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
I guess you're not interested in reading the essay I recommended, so
let me provide you with a few quotations from the essay that are
relevant to Lend-Lease:
"Nineteen forty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate
America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils
of Hitler's triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other
wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a
possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and
ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict
"cash-and-carry" basis and then through "Lend-Lease," President
Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with
military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little
Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely. By the end of
1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US
itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate
America's factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et
al., also had branch plants), or in Germany."
"The USSR, however, became the first country to fight the Blitzkrieg to
a standstill. And on December 1941, the Red Army even launched a
counter-offensive. It was henceforth evident that the Germans would be
preoccupied for quite some time on the Eastern Front, that this would
also permit the British to continue to wage war, and that the
profitable Lend-Lease business would therefore continue indefinitely."
"The situation became even more advantageous to corporate America when
it appeared that business could henceforth also be done with the
Soviets. Indeed, in November 1941, when it had already become clear
that the Soviet Union was not about to collapse, Washington agreed to
extend credit to Moscow, and concluded a Lend-Lease agreement with the
USSR, thus providing the big American corporations with yet another
market for their products."
"Finally, the much-publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large
extent neutralized - and arguably dwarfed - by the unofficial,
discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate
sources to the German enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 American
oil trusts increased the lucrative oil exports to Germany; large
amounts delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states. The American
share of Germany's imports of vitally important oil for engine
lubrication (Motorenöl) increased rapidly, from 44 per cent in July
1941 to 94 per cent in September 1941. Without US-supplied fuel, the
German attack on the Soviet Union would not have been possible,
according to the German historian Tobias Jersak, an authority in the
field of American "fuel for the Führer.""
As I said, the US always goes where the money is, morality be damned.
You excerpt vindicates my decision not to read the article. It is nothing but
partisan anti-America trash.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
23 Aug 2006 09:40:06 AM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
[snip]
Then you don't learn well.
The dates of the Lend-lease program are a real goos indication that you h=
ave no
idea what you are talking about, or perhaps you are lying deliberately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
I guess you're not interested in reading the essay I recommended, so
let me provide you with a few quotations from the essay that are
relevant to Lend-Lease:
"Nineteen forty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate
America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils
of Hitler's triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other
wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a
possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and
ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict
"cash-and-carry" basis and then through "Lend-Lease," President
Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with
military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little
Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely. By the end of
1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US
itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate
America's factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et
al., also had branch plants), or in Germany."
"The USSR, however, became the first country to fight the Blitzkrieg to
a standstill. And on December 1941, the Red Army even launched a
counter-offensive. It was henceforth evident that the Germans would be
preoccupied for quite some time on the Eastern Front, that this would
also permit the British to continue to wage war, and that the
profitable Lend-Lease business would therefore continue indefinitely."
"The situation became even more advantageous to corporate America when
it appeared that business could henceforth also be done with the
Soviets. Indeed, in November 1941, when it had already become clear
that the Soviet Union was not about to collapse, Washington agreed to
extend credit to Moscow, and concluded a Lend-Lease agreement with the
USSR, thus providing the big American corporations with yet another
market for their products."
"Finally, the much-publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large
extent neutralized - and arguably dwarfed - by the unofficial,
discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate
sources to the German enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 American
oil trusts increased the lucrative oil exports to Germany; large
amounts delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states. The American
share of Germany's imports of vitally important oil for engine
lubrication (Motoren=F6l) increased rapidly, from 44 per cent in July
1941 to 94 per cent in September 1941. Without US-supplied fuel, the
German attack on the Soviet Union would not have been possible,
according to the German historian Tobias Jersak, an authority in the
field of American "fuel for the F=FChrer.""
As I said, the US always goes where the money is, morality be damned.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Albright" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 10:13:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:11:33 GMT, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net>
wrote:
saroman0414@gmail.com wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
saroman0414@gmail.com wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
[snip]
WW II was a war to defend the US homeland.
[snip]
That's not exactly true. Had the Nazis not been stalled by the British
and Russians indicating an eventual German defeat, there was an
excellent chance the US would have entered the war on the side of the
Axis because of the significant support the Nazis had from American
business throughout the 1930s. The US delayed its entry into the war
until it became clear which side likely was going to win. A strong
moral imperative would have involved the US actively on the Allies side
from the outset of the war in 1939. As always, the US went where the
money was. Always did, still does.
You really need to study some history.
I have, and I suggest you do the same.
Then you don't learn well.
The dates of the Lend-lease program are a real goos indication that you have no
idea what you are talking about, or perhaps you are lying deliberately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Lying deliberately is what you David do best.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The United States in today's world |
22 Aug 2006 02:04:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:51:20 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Several more
foolish adventures with American blood spilled all over the globe.
Again, unlike in World War Two the United States in spite of being
unchallenged militarily kept losing.
There was a reign of terror is South America, installing dictators and
smashing fledgling democracies on the fear they might not be friendly
enough to US business.
The US meddled in:
Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, Honduras, Venezuela, Columbia,
Bolivia, Panama, Cuba, Haiti and probably a few more.
The support for the Iraq war was lowest in South America than any
other continent. They were all too familiar with what America meant by
"liberating".
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city
by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time
people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
~ Gore Vidal
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
~ George Orwell
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
