Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MRPLUTO on June 19, 2004, 05:29:35 AM
-
From The Washington Post, June 18, 2004:
Later, opening a two-day western swing, Bush used remarks at a GOP fund-raiser in Spokane, Wash., to argue for patience in Iraq, drawing an analogy to the ruins of Germany after World War II. Bush told the audience he wanted to read "something from the New York Times." This drew derisive laughter, but Bush interrupted to say the passage was from 1946.
"Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. The basic elements of recovery and peace are lacking," he read. Bush then said: "Now, that was a pessimistic view of the future for Germany. Fortunately, my predecessors were not pessimistic people." Bush did not mention that the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe was not proposed until 1947.
====================
So, when the NYT printed this, it was true, and perhaps in some way this statement of a painful truth helped focus people on what would become the Marshall Plan.
But what does George W. care? He got his cheap, ignorant laugh at the expense of the New York Times. He has no doubts about the correctness of his plans and certainty of their success, even when events go against him. His lack of understanding gives him the resolve to "stay the course". For Bush, ignorance is strength, and, like blinders on a horse, allow him to plod forward without the doubts that a more perceptive person would have. And all the better to be able to laugh at his critics, even though they speak wisely.
====================
The "Nobody-is-wrong-all-the-time Department"
Bush is right about one thing: "my predecessors were not pessimistic people". But neither were they callow and poorly-educated, given to seeing the world through rose-colored glasses.
-
So I take it you won't be voting for Bush in November, then?
-
You are correct, however I don't really like Kerry very much, either.
-
For foreigners its same situation, when Putin were agains Jelcin.
Nobody knew what kind of men Putin is, but everybody knew that Jelcin is drunken idiot.
I belive that most votes for Kerry will be not for Kerry but agains Bushtard....
-
Iraq is in no way similar to the WW2 Germany or Japan. In WW2, Germany and Japan were totally defeated, not just militarily, but on a national scale as well. The german and japanese populations were massively supporting their regimes. Once they were defeated, the winners had an absolute control over them. Iraq is a completely different affair. The regime was just supported by the nomenklatura that lived as parasites on this regime, while the rest of the population didn't support it. However, imagining that the people not supporting Saddam's totalitarian regime are nice democrats, willing to adopt the occidental way of life, as the average occidental could imagin it, is an huge error. In May 2003, SADDAM'S ARMY was defeated, not Iraq's army. Iraq as a nation was not defeated, because there had no solidarity between the army and the rest of the population. The result is an incomplete control of the iraqi nation. The non-baathists (other pan-arabic nationalists, or religious zealots) don't consider themselves as defeated, to see why they should obey. And ironically, that's the only defeated group (baathist parasites) that is keen on collaborating (of course, the head of the party has been removed, but the basis remains).
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Iraq is in no way similar to the WW2 Germany or Japan. In WW2, Germany and Japan were totally defeated, not just militarily, but on a national scale as well. The german and japanese populations were massively supporting their regimes. Once they were defeated, the winners had an absolute control over them. Iraq is a completely different affair. The regime was just supported by the nomenklatura that lived as parasites on this regime, while the rest of the population didn't support it. However, imagining that the people not supporting Saddam's totalitarian regime are nice democrats, willing to adopt the occidental way of life, as the average occidental could imagin it, is an huge error. In May 2003, SADDAM'S ARMY was defeated, not Iraq's army. Iraq as a nation was not defeated, because there had no solidarity between the army and the rest of the population. The result is an incomplete control of the iraqi nation. The non-baathists (other pan-arabic nationalists, or religious zealots) don't consider themselves as defeated, to see why they should obey. And ironically, that's the only defeated group (baathist parasites) that is keen on collaborating (of course, the head of the party has been removed, but the basis remains).
Traduisé en anglais:
AMERICANS YOU MUST GIVE UP NOW! THERE IS NO HOPE! TAKE IT FROM A FRENCHMAN - WE WOULD GLADLY SURRENDER!
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Iraq is in no way similar to the WW2 Germany or Japan.
Another man's view:
Occupations then and now (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20040617.shtml)
Has the Bush administration's Iraq occupation been ever-shifting, contradictory, beset by bureaucratic squabbles and undone by events on the ground? So were the occupations of Japan and Germany. Rebuilding a foreign country in the wake of a war is necessarily untidy business, and can only succeed if a wide berth is given for surprises and mistakes.
Talk amongst yourselves. ;)
-
He has no doubts about the correctness of his plans and certainty of their success, even when events go against him
I'm sure everyone that sends men into battle second guesses themselves. You obviously have never been in a position of leadership or you wouldn't have typed what you did.
It would be foolish for a leader to show any doubt that a plan will succeed.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Traduisé en anglais:
AMERICANS YOU MUST GIVE UP NOW! THERE IS NO HOPE! TAKE IT FROM A FRENCHMAN - WE WOULD GLADLY SURRENDER!
That was a sad answer to an elaborated one:o
-
Quote:
"But what does George W. care? He got his cheap, ignorant laugh at the expense of the New York Times."
Big deal. Anybody can get a cheap, "ignorant" laugh at the expense of the NYT......
As for the above "foreigner's" comments, look up the "UN Oil For Food Scandal". We don't call you the "Axis Of Weasels" for nothing....
C.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
That was a sad answer to an elaborated one:o
Not an answer, simply a translation... Have you forgotten your french? :D
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
You are correct, however I don't really like Kerry very much, either.
Pick the lesser of the two evils :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Traduisé en anglais:
AMERICANS YOU MUST GIVE UP NOW! THERE IS NO HOPE! TAKE IT FROM A FRENCHMAN - WE WOULD GLADLY SURRENDER!
Well, considering that everytime the US go to war alone (read: when the othersdon't make the dirty work) they always loose lke in 1812, in Vietnam, etc... and that in the current situation, they are almost alone (well, they have to make most of the dirty work by themselves, I don't count the Tonga islands that were bribed to let Dubya make a nice list (with typos!) of the Coalition of the Willing)...:lol
But I got to admit, you are great to show up at the last minute to claim all the credits :aok
-
Sacre bleu!
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Well, considering that everytime the US go to war alone (read: when the othersdon't make the dirty work) they always loose lke in 1812, in Vietnam, etc... and that in the current situation, they are almost alone (well, they have to make most of the dirty work by themselves, I don't count the Tonga islands that were bribed to let Dubya make a nice list (with typos!) of the Coalition of the Willing)...:lol
But I got to admit, you are great to show up at the last minute to claim all the credits :aok
Not a student of history are you? Seem to forget those boys of Teutonic heritage running over France in a few weeks and occupying it for a few years until someone came along and invaded the place to kick them out. Happened about 60 years ago.
Who is it that lost the War of 1812?
Oh, and by the way, Nixon forced North Vietnam to the negotiating table with a couple of military operations.
Go back and play with yourself at World War II Online and leave the rest of us alone.
-
As long as the Democraps let Al Gore give Speeches and Hillary play Politrics I don't think Bush has much to worry about Kerry.....Maybe Kerry would ask Jane Fonda to be on his ticket.....?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
We lost the war of 1812?
I didn't know I was a British subject... interesting.
I want Fish and Chips.
-
Not to denigrate the war-time exploits of our allies, but where would you be today if the cavalry didn't show up at the last minute? Besides, isolationist sentiment was so strong in this country (and it appears to be growing again today) that it guaranteed that we wouldn't show up until the last minute. There were millions of Americans who exerted enormous influence on Roosevelt's government to keep it from getting involved in what they viewed as Europe's "sordid little war."
It appears that we do not learn from the mistakes of history. Isolationism and appeasement still have their adherents today, who have failed to grasp that these political philosophies cannot guarantee a nation's safety from external threats.
Playing kissy-face with terrorists will not pay any dividends.
-
Cerceuilvolant
were you born a handsomehunk or did you have to study to become one... you tend to ask questions that even you either can't answer or answer incorrectly.... Maybe Mommy shouldn't have rocked the cradle too hard....or Daddy was rockin Mommies cradle and you ended up brain damaged....
There's nothing more funnier than a French man taking about American History.... BTW didn't the French screw up Viet Nam in the 50's? Yep Uhh huh. Ohhh and who liberated yer assses in WWII? Almost forgot about the American volunteers that saved yer butts in WWI. When's the next time we pull France outta the cesspool? Never again, your on your own now. Learn to fight Buttwipes.
Other than that how's the rest of your day going?
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Well, considering that everytime the US go to war alone (read: when the othersdon't make the dirty work) they always loose lke in 1812, in Vietnam, etc... and that in the current situation, they are almost alone (well, they have to make most of the dirty work by themselves, I don't count the Tonga islands that were bribed to let Dubya make a nice list (with typos!) of the Coalition of the Willing)...:lol
But I got to admit, you are great to show up at the last minute to claim all the credits :aok
Gotta call BS on that.
1 The US WON in 1812, (Treaty of Ghent 1814) Where our English cousins ceded even more territory to the then fledgling Nation of The United States of America. I think you are probably confused with Napoleon who had his arse handed to him by the russians that same year.
2 We didn't lose in Vietnam, a war we were dragged into by (yup you guessed it) the french. We just didn't win. The military won the battles. The incompetent and traitorous democrat President johnson and his frenchlike imbecillic polices put the nation in an unfavorable situation at home and an untenable situation in SE Asia. Lamentably the paranoid President the succeeded johnson continued many of the same policies of the previous administration.
carry on with your drivel, that is all.
-
(http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/ww2/Dday/images/98-2517.gif)
You see the sad thing about this picture is that it probably pisses off you French types more than any Hitler in paris photo that I could post. However the beutiful thing is that you will never admit that openly and thus you will just stew in your own anger and shame....
Enjoy!
-
Many a victorious army has marched through the aptly named arc de'triomphe. :D
But seriously, this whole Franco-American name calling neener neener game needs to die a peaceful death.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Many a victorious army has marched through the aptly named arc de'triomphe. :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
(http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/rochs_1a.jpg)
For God sake man, pull it down!!!!
-
Don't forget, war is peace.
-
Nice form boys.
A man offers his opinion and the best you can do is attack his nationality.
-
Originally posted by storch
Gotta call BS on that.
1 The US WON in 1812, (Treaty of Ghent 1814) Where our English cousins ceded even more territory to the then fledgling Nation of The United States of America. I think you are probably confused with Napoleon who had his arse handed to him by the russians that same year.
I would call it a tie. The US won it's objectives at sea, but they didn't succeed in meeting thier goal of annexation of British North American territroy.
-
Wasn't the objective to get the British to stop enslaving Americans as seamen in the Navy?
That's what started it all, IIRC.
-
DETH TO FRANREEKA!!! DETH TO GREAT SHAITAN CHIRAQ!!!!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Nice form boys.
A man offers his opinion and the best you can do is attack his nationality.
as allways nacionalist do when ends arguments
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I would call it a tie. The US won it's objectives at sea, but they didn't succeed in meeting thier goal of annexation of British North American territroy.
Who told you the goal of the war was to annex British North American territory? If the U.S. had had such a goal, then they'd have started the war by attacking England first.
-
Virgil was there. Virgil knows.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Virgil was there. Virgil knows.
No, Virgil was not there. However, Virgil did study SOME history, and from what he read ENGLAND started the War of 1812.
-
Haha, that was great. I wanted to push you in this **** pool and you jumped in it! :aok
You showed me that you loved to play with poo
-
Originally posted by Toad
Wasn't the objective to get the British to stop enslaving Americans as seamen in the Navy?
Yes, but you aren't going to do that by attacking Upper and Lower Canada.
That's what started it all, IIRC.
Yep, the British (and I believe also France to a degree) didn't respect US neutrality. And there is the incident regarding the Chespeake. Totally justifiable war in my opinion.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Who told you the goal of the war was to annex British North American territory?
I didn't say it was the goal. I said it was a goal.
"The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada.
While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida, a Spanish possession. The fact that Spain and England were allies against Napoleon presented the southern war hawks with an excuse for invading Florida. By this time, also, the balance of political power had shifted south and westward; ambitious party leaders had no choice but to align themselves with the war hawks, and 1812 was a Presidential election year."
...
"The fundamental strategy was simple enough. The primary undertaking would be the conquest of Canada. The United States also planned an immediate naval offensive, whereby a swarm of privateers and the small Navy would be set loose on the high seas to destroy British commerce. The old invasion route into Canada by way of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River led directly to the most populous and most important part of the enemy's territory. The capture of Montreal would cut the line of communications upon which the British defense of Upper Canada depended, and the fall of that province would then be inevitable. But this invasion route was near the center of disaffection in the United States, from which little local support could be expected. The west,"
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm
If the U.S. had had such a goal, then they'd have started the war by attacking England first.
No, they would have attacked Upper and Lower Canada, like they did. There was no way in hell that the US could have invade and conqure England. But looking at the numbers involve the US certainly could have conqured British North America.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, Virgil was not there. However, Virgil did study SOME history, and from what he read ENGLAND started the War of 1812.
Hawker hear's ya. Hawker don't care.
-
Funkypants hears you. Funkypants puts on his robe and wizard hat.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes, but you aren't going to do that by attacking Upper and Lower Canada.
It started as a naval war and spread. Not so unusual, especially in those times. War is war; I don't think they would have agreed to just keep it on the water.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It started as a naval war and spread. Not so unusual, especially in those times. War is war;
I kind of agree. The cause of the war was on water. The declaration of war was by Madison. And his war plan included the invastion of BNA.
I don't think they would have agreed to just keep it on the water.
Histroy shows this to be true. If you look at the sacking of Washington, the Battle of New Orleans etc. But I don't think that forces in BNA were a threat to the US. Perhaps there might have been some peacemeal attack, but the British couldn't even hold Washington. And when the position of the "war hawks" is taken into account, it seems pretty clear that the invasion of BNA was ment as a conquering and not a pre-emptive strike, so to speak.
I wish I knew were I could get my hands on some source docs on the internet for this issue.
-
I don't think "threat" has anything to do with it.
It started over impressment. Once it started, beating the enemy and taking as much of his land/resources as you could became the goal. That's pretty much the way they did it then.
Didn't see too many countries get into a war, beat the doo-dah out of someone and then send people and money to rebuild the country of the vanquished.
It was different then. "To the victor go the spoils." How politically incorrect!
-
Sounds good to me.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Funkypants hears you. Funkypants puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Haha, beautiful.