Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Stage1 on August 03, 2008, 12:36:39 PM
-
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this ----- It should make us all think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, tell them the following :
FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing!!!! Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But Wait, There's more.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation .
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!
The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
-
well.......you know, there is something to think about in that writing.
-
Link?
-
well.......you know, there is something to think about in that writing.
Yeah, it could be said there is some nonsense mixed with other stuff said many times before.
-
I dont for a minute believe this was said by the quoted Senator. For one thing he tends to agree with the people he is quoted as attacking. If he had actually attacked Kennedy like that it would have met with great criticism and absolutely no one attacks Hillary and lives to breath later.
-
It is mighty scary that some idiots actually believe this stuff.
-
MT,
So far I don't see anyone who says it's true in the thread yet. The reason I asked for the link is simply because it sounds like typical internet BS. So far snopes doesn't have anything on it.
-
MT,
So far I don't see anyone who says it's true in the thread yet. The reason I asked for the link is simply because it sounds like typical internet BS. So far snopes doesn't have anything on it.
Except of course the guy who posted it.
-
Snopes says Glenn did not say that and offer an explanation as to how it came to be attributed to him.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp)
Even if he didn't say all of that, what is not true in those statements?
-
If Glenn didn't say it perhaps he should have. What in there isn't true?
It's also worthy of note that the Clinton/Reno attack against Texans in Waco left no survivors. Bush has done much better in Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
It is mighty scary that some idiots actually believe this stuff.
Believe what?
That Glenn said it or the content?
-
If Glenn didn't say it perhaps he should have. What in there isn't true?
It's also worthy of note that the Clinton/Reno attack against Texans in Waco left no survivors. Bush has done much better in Afghanistan and Iraq.
RIGHT ON!!!!
-
There are a lot of lies of ommision in that list....
1. Germany declared war on us 1st.
2. Truman started the war in Korea? I'm pretty sure it was a UN police action.
3. The 39 deaths in Iraq don't include anyone other than US military personnel. I wonder what the real number is?
no need to go on. You know it's a bunch of hooie as much as I do.
-
There are a lot of lies of ommision in that list....
1. Germany declared war on us 1st.
2. Truman started the war in Korea? I'm pretty sure it was a UN police action.
3. The 39 deaths in Iraq don't include anyone other than US military personnel. I wonder what the real number is?
no need to go on. You know it's a bunch of hooie as much as I do.
So, does that mean you do not fault Bush for going into Iraq since it was/is a UN action?
-
1. Germany declared war on us 1st.
So, the point is that they never attacked us.
2. Truman started the war in Korea? I'm pretty sure it was a UN police action.
Pretty sure? Link?
3. The 39 deaths in Iraq don't include anyone other than US military personnel. I wonder what the real number is?
Real number of what? The context is military causalities.
no need to go on. You know it's a bunch of hooie as much as I do.
No need to go on because this is all you have....a weak attempt to refute facts.
-
It is mighty scary that some idiots actually believe this stuff.
It's also mighty scary that idiots support Obama and Billary :)
We've liberated 2 countries, and got rid of an awful dictator.
How many kids/people have died in the ghetto since we've been in Iraq, or for that matter Afghanistan. I guarantee you, it's ATLEAST 3 times more.
The Americans dont kill civilians on purpose MT but when they do, they're called Nazis by the media. If a terrorist beheads a kid on television and then send it home for his family to see, you're lucky if it gets 5 minutes on the air.
-
If Glenn didn't say it perhaps he should have. What in there isn't true?
It's also worthy of note that the Clinton/Reno attack against Texans in Waco left no survivors. Bush has done much better in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You really need to examine some of the items there. Oh and BTW there were survivors from Waco. Some of the davidians bailed out of the building after the fire started.
-
You really need to examine some of the items there. Oh and BTW there were survivors from Waco. Some of the davidians bailed out of the building after the fire started.
Some of them bailed before the fire started, not after. If you have conflicting facts please enlighten me.
Be more specific, which of those listed is not true? I'm willing to discuss it.
-
So, the point is that they never attacked us.
Pretty sure? Link?
Real number of what? The context is military causalities.
No need to go on because this is all you have....a weak attempt to refute facts.
They declared war... what kind of attack should we have waited for?
The Korean Conflict was a UN action. Look it up yourself.
The context is "39 combat related killings ". The actual number of "combat related killings " in Iraq in the past 3 years has been estimated at anyhwere from 45,000 to 600,000 with the best estimate at 150,000. I wonder how many violent deaths there were in Detroit over the same period?
No need to go on, you're done.
-
It is mighty scary that some idiots actually believe this stuff.
More scary, is that so many idiots don't.
-
If Glenn didn't say it perhaps he should have. What in there isn't true?
It's also worthy of note that the Clinton/Reno attack against Texans in Waco left no survivors. Bush has done much better in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Also do not forget that Clinton/Reno exterminated 44+ by chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide).
-
They declared war... what kind of attack should we have waited for?
.
Saddam declared war On the US on more then one occasion. Including on December 27,2000
What kind of attack should we have waited for?
I guess firing missles on our jets enforcing the no fly zone isnt an attack.
-
FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
Germany was attacking our Allies and had UBoats in the Atlantic Ocean who did attack our shipping fleets under an agreement with Japan, Germany declaired war on the US by attacking our fleets.
Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to declare war on the US and after the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbor December 7th, 1941, he did on December 11th. All restrictions on German U-boats not to attack American shipping were removed. Almost 400 US ships were sunk by the Germans in Operation Drumbeat (ie the war on America).
-
Saddam declared war On the US on more then one occasion. Including on December 27,2000
What kind of attack should we have waited for?
I guess firing missles on our jets enforcing the no fly zone isnt an attack.
I predict silence. He will not respond to this because he can't.
-
So, the point is that they never attacked us.
You shouldn't have slept through history class..
-
They declared war... what kind of attack should we have waited for?
The Korean Conflict was a UN action. Look it up yourself.
The context is "39 combat related killings ". The actual number of "combat related killings " in Iraq in the past 3 years has been estimated at anyhwere from 45,000 to 600,000 with the best estimate at 150,000. I wonder how many violent deaths there were in Detroit over the same period?
No need to go on, you're done.
:lol you're an idiot if you think 150,000 people have died in the war in Iraq. The offical count this time last year was 80,000 estimated at most
I dont think 70,000 people have died in this past year.
-
Germany was attacking our Allies and had UBoats in the Atlantic Ocean who did attack our shipping fleets under an agreement with Japan, Germany declaired war on the US by attacking our fleets.
Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to declare war on the US and after the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbor December 7th, 1941, he did on December 11th. All restrictions on German U-boats not to attack American shipping were removed. Almost 400 US ships were sunk by the Germans in Operation Drumbeat (ie the war on America).
Iraq invaded our ally Kuwait. Iraq surrendered unconditionally. Iraq refused to abide by the terms of surrender we set. I need to copy this so I can paste it everytime this comes up.
-
"FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year. "
GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE USA AFTER JAPAN ATTACKED THE USA.
Is that one clear?
The first casualties actually happened before the attack, when U.S. vessels got hit in the Atlantic.
So, would you think that a Republican would have kept the USA out of WW2, or....on the other side?
-
I dont know, do you think a democrat would've actually let us gone to war after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor? A modern democrat I might say. There's so many damn restrictions they'd impose, we'd either lose the war or lose 10x as many men.
-
"FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year. "
GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE USA AFTER JAPAN ATTACKED THE USA.
Is that one clear?
The first casualties actually happened before the attack, when U.S. vessels got hit in the Atlantic.
So, would you think that a Republican would have kept the USA out of WW2, or....on the other side?
The one about the Vietnam war starting in 1963 was one as well. We had Special Forces' A-teams in Laos and Vietnam as early as 1959.
-
Let's examine this...
FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
As stated, Germany declared war on the US AFTER Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I don't think this needs any further discussion.
Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.
North Korea invaded South Korea first. The UN on the whole voted to intervene.
John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Actually, the French started it in the mid-1950s.
Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.
And Nixon (Republican) abandoned the South when the North was on the verge of calling it quits. Subsequently, a re-invigorated north walked all over South Vietnam.
Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this WAS a UN action. Not a popular one, but a UN action nonetheless
In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Never mind the fact that under FDR and Truman's watch the US was the foremost industrial provider of military aid to the Allies in all theaters (lend-lease) and were key participants in the liberation of Western Europe and much of the Pacific.
But Wait, There's more.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation .
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!
The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
And as if the REST of this statement isn't just a bunch of half-truths IF ANY and blind Liberal-bashing, we have this. Most of which is irrelevant to the arguments being made or even a valid COMPARISON. This goes BEYOND apples and oranges.
I'd like the two parties to stop whining and wagging fingers at what the OTHER side is doing and start thinking long and hard about what THEY'RE doing.
-
Well, you had the democrats lead you through WW2 and the losses were as they were. FDR was a Democrat, and he was fighting against odds to aid the Brits in the campaign against Nazism.
BTW, the British were engaged in the Pacific war a little before the USA.,....timezone issue.
The first shots fired in anger in the Pacific war were not at Pearl...
And as for Vietnam....CC, the USA was "involved" before 1960. It really started with the French, and I think the roots went down to 1955/1956, but that's out of memory so take it with a grain of salt.
I am disappointed with Glenn, for the list consists of selected data, starting with FDR, and the thesis you might build out of it will not hold too well....
-
Iraq invaded our ally Kuwait. Iraq surrendered unconditionally. Iraq refused to abide by the terms of surrender we set. I need to copy this so I can paste it everytime this comes up.
What does Iraq have to do with Germany and Hitler? I didn't say anything about Iraq..
-
What does Iraq have to do with Germany and Hitler?
The argument seemed to be that while Hitler didn't attack the US, he did attack our allies. These argue that Saddam did not attack the US. My argument is that he did attack our ally.
-
The argument seemed to be that while Hitler didn't attack the US, he did attack our allies. These argue that Saddam did not attack the US. My argument is that he did attack our ally.
You apparently didn't read past the first 5 words, if that's what you think I said.
-
You apparently didn't read past the first 5 words, if that's what you think I said.
Which first 5 words? These?
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this
<edit>
I was addressing a broader rebuttal, not your specific post though I fail to see how there is not a direct correlation between Saddam and Adolf.
-
Adolf had his u-boats sinking US ships before declairing war. And he had the swift nuts to hold his deal to Japan and declairing war on the USA, while Japan was not at war with Hitler's enemy, the UK. So this deal baffles me, was it a one-way deal or what?
Blocks of power with shifting military-alliance deals = wars short ahead.
IMHO WAR=BAD BAD BAD, unless you read about some chips of it in a comfy place 50 years later..........at most
-
Some of them bailed before the fire started, not after. If you have conflicting facts please enlighten me.
Be more specific, which of those listed is not true? I'm willing to discuss it.
Here is the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
"At around noon, three fires started almost simultaneously in different parts of the building. Even then, as the fire spread, only nine people left the building.[17]"
Yes it's wiki but at the same time it also matches what I saw when watching the video quite some time ago. There was footage of them bailing out of the building during the fire.
As for other items in the original post that were shall we say, less than accurate either by ommission or implication, Saxman covered most of them pretty well. I disagree with him regarding Nixon abandoning the South Viets, that was congress doing that. Nixon got them to the table and had an end to the fighting. Congress refused to allow the US to go back, not Nixon. As to whether that was the right thing to do, better minds and time will have to deternmine that. So far it seems to have turned out OK.
-
Here is the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
"At around noon, three fires started almost simultaneously in different parts of the building. Even then, as the fire spread, only nine people left the building.[17]"
Yes it's wiki but at the same time it also matches what I saw when watching the video quite some time ago. There was footage of them bailing out of the building during the fire.
As for other items in the original post that were shall we say, less than accurate either by ommission or implication, Saxman covered most of them pretty well. I disagree with him regarding Nixon abandoning the South Viets, that was congress doing that. Nixon got them to the table and had an end to the fighting. Congress refused to allow the US to go back, not Nixon. As to whether that was the right thing to do, better minds and time will have to deternmine that. So far it seems to have turned out OK.
I knew some got out but I didn't know it was after the fire was started. Perhaps I was wrong in my belief about that, I reserve the right to reassess upon finding a more authoritative source. Without knowing what you object to in the original post how can I argue?
-
Well, you had the democrats lead you through WW2 and the losses were as they were. FDR was a Democrat, and he was fighting against odds to aid the Brits in the campaign against Nazism.
BTW, the British were engaged in the Pacific war a little before the USA.,....timezone issue.
The first shots fired in anger in the Pacific war were not at Pearl...
And as for Vietnam....CC, the USA was "involved" before 1960. It really started with the French, and I think the roots went down to 1955/1956, but that's out of memory so take it with a grain of salt.
I am disappointed with Glenn, for the list consists of selected data, starting with FDR, and the thesis you might build out of it will not hold too well....
First, FDR was a fascist. His ideals were exactly the same as Hitler and Mussolini, (minus the jew killing, as I've stated before).
Next, the brits were helping India in their attempts to fight Japan before USA got involved.
The French Conflict was quite different from the American Conflict with vietnam. Vietnam was fighting with the French for total independence. America was fighting with North Vietnam for south vietnam's freedom from communism. Both wars were botched.
-
:lol you're an idiot if you think 150,000 people have died in the war in Iraq. The offical count this time last year was 80,000 estimated at most
I dont think 70,000 people have died in this past year.
Children today.. so precocious, so ill informed.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/iraq_handover/numbers_game_revisited
The final analysis and computation compensated for a series of possible biases - such as the under-reporting of deaths because people have moved away from households and relocated across them, the impossibility of visiting some households for security reason, and the effects of migration of Iraqis to neighbouring countries. Although adequately controlled, these biases are still present, and this makes the final estimate of "151,000" the one that is, for that survey, the closest to the true toll. The survey released by the New England Journal of Medicine, therefore, concludes that between 104,000 and 220,000 people died in Iraq during the three years after the coalition forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, with the highest probability that the true number is 151,000.
-
Also do not forget that Clinton/Reno exterminated 44+ by chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide).
Hydrogen cyanide is a chemical compound with chemical formula HCN. A solution of hydrogen cyanide in water is called hydrocyanic acid. Hydrogen cyanide is a colorless, very poisonous, and highly volatile liquid that boils slightly above room temperature at 26 °C
Hydrogen cyanide (under the brand name Zyklon B) was perhaps most infamously employed by the Nazi regime in mid-20th century.
Hydrogen cyanide is commonly listed amongst chemical warfare agents that cause general poisoning.[10] As a substance listed under Schedule 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention as a potential weapon which has large-scale industrial uses, manufacturing plants in signatory countries which produce more than 30 tonnes per year must be declared to, and can be inspected by, the OPCW.
CS gas is the common name for 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (also called o-Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile) (chemical formula: C10H5ClN2), a substance that is used as a riot control agent and is generally accepted as being non-lethal.
Clinton /Reno used CS not HCN
-
Clinton /Reno used CS not HCN
They used a flammable form of military CS, that when ignited, released HCN.
The government's use of C.S. gas inside the house is one of the most disturbing aspects of the entire tragedy. C.S. gas is never supposed to be used inside a building. Used inside, it can create fires, and it can produce cyanide, which can immobilize and kill. Dave Hall, who has conducted his own exhaustive investigation of the role of C.S. gas, believes that the gas contributed to the mass casualties at Waco. He talked with the manufacturer of C.S. gas, Aldridge Chemicals. The company emphasized that this product was intended for outdoor riot control only; it was not supposed to be a weapon. In fact, the company says it stopped selling C.S. to Israel in 1988 because the government there was shooting the chemical into buildings occupied by Palestinians. Many of those people subjected to the gas became ill, and others died from the exposure in enclosed quarters, as reported by Amnesty International's Chemical Report on C.S. Agent #6.
Hall has learned that the C.S. gas played a large part in the Waco tragedy. It both contributed to the very high temperature fire and incapacitated its victims so that they could not move to escape the building. In the autopsies of Waco fire victims, cyanide--from breathing C.S. gas--was found in the victims' blood. Also, Hall reports, "Our state fire marshal says they aerated the building in such a way as to create the fire and to contain the gas in there, which was as flammable as coal dust. They knew all these things."
There was a very long delay before fire trucks reached the site. Hall explains that the fire trucks were held back by the A.T.F. because, had they shot water on that fire, the gas present would have combined with the water to create a hydrogen cyanide steam cloud that would have been deadly to the agents surrounding the place.
Hall provides this chronology: Smoke was seen coming from the complex at 12:05. Within minutes, fire was spotted in four different locations. But fire trucks were not called until approximately 12:30. They were held back under the claim of danger from exploding ammunition.
Dr. George F. Uhlig is a professor of chemistry at the College of Eastern Utah and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel. Here's some of what he had to say in a report for KPOC-TV:
"In my opinion, the C.S. was diluted with either acetone or ethanol, as the autopsies indicated both solvents were in the lungs of the individuals killed at the Branch Davidian complex.... The liquid aerosol...came into contact with a flame, and the flame front traveled from particle to particle rapidly to create the 'fireball' described by survivors. We used a similar concept in designing fuel-air explosive devices in the Air Force. An explosive device would detonate, sending out an aerosol of either liquid or solid material of the proper particle size. A second explosion would then 'touch off' the aerosol mix, with devastating results. While the flame front in the case of the Branch Davidians' complex did not generate the overpressure of the fuel-air explosive device, the results were similar. The structure burned rapidly to the ground, and the C.S. agent was burned in the process. Cyanide radicals were generated as the C.S. burned, combining with normal fluids in the lungs of the people to generate hydrogen-cyanide gas....
"It was probably a good decision on the part of federal agents on the scene not to attempt to put out the fire using water. The resulting steam generated by the water coming into contact with the hot structure would further generate hydrogen cyanide, and the resulting cloud of cyanide gas and steam could have been carried by the prevailing winds over populated areas. This could have killed people not even involved in the incident, or at least made them extremely sick."
Dave Hall says that for six hours straight--from 6 AM to noon on the day of the fire--massive amounts of the C.S. gas were injected into the Davidians' home. This was despite a previously agreed-upon plan to use "light doses" because the children had no gas masks. At this point, Hall notes, we must keep in mind that the F.B.I. and the A.T.F. were fully aware that the Davidians were using kerosene lanterns inside the compound both day and night. They knew this because they had infrared surveillance equipment in the air and on the ground at the complex. They were also, of course, aware of the lethal capabilities of C.S. gas, because these were spelled out in their manual.
A telling fact is that after the fire, the A.T.F. destroyed everything that remained of the Branch Davidians' home and its site. Usually, after a disaster, authorities take pains to preserve evidence so that it can be studied to fully understand what happened. So why would they immediately level the evidence at Waco?
Texas state fire marshals were refused access to investigate the fire scene. They were told it was the jurisdiction of the A.T.F. (After the whole thing was over, the A.T.F. raised its own flag over the ruins.)
source: http://www.bigeye.com/pentwaco.htm
-
Now that made the hair on my neck go up. :noid
-
Mav,
The point is it happened under Nixon's watch. The "quote" (which I believe someone proved was NOT true) doesn't differentiate between actions of Congress and actions of the President. The President of the United States can ASK and campaign for a declaration of war, but can't MAKE ONE himself. CONGRESS declared war on Japan and Germany, not FDR, so to say that FDR "Got America into WWII" is as accurate as saying "Nixon abandoned Vietnam." However as that's the context of the quote, that's the equivalent example on how it can be twisted to focus negatively on the other party (and before you go saying that we can't blame Dubya for the mess we got into in Iraq, remember we also had a Republican Congress at the time, too, and voting has gone almost right down the Party Lines).
The Republicans and Democrats BOTH are making an embarrassment of this nation. So long as the Party Line is an unbridged bottomless chasm, and the Parties themselves populated by a bunch of primates flinging their own poop at each other just because of what side of that canyon each other's on things are only going to get WORSE. You can't blame ONE PARTY. NEITHER is going to bring our nation down by themselves. Unfortunately, that end IS the only thing they're actually working TOGETHER towards. There IS no right and wrong for our government, I think that BOTH sides view the Party as something more meaningful or important than the Constitution of the United States.
-
We were involved in Indochina long before Kennedy was president. Uncle Ho actively aided the Allied effort against the Imperial Japanese forces in the region. President Truman basically underwrote a great part of the French's effort to reclaim Indochina due to the "Red Scare". The first U.S. administration to actually assign military advisers to the RVN was President Eisenhower a Republican.
"In 1955, the first U.S. military advisers arrived in Vietnam. President Dwight D. Eisenhower justified this decision on the basis of the domino theory--that the loss of a strategic ally in Southeast Asia would result in the loss of others. "You have a row of dominoes set up," he said, "you knock the first one, and others will fall.” President Eisenhower felt that with U.S. help, South Vietnam could maintain its independence."
Here is the source http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=517
-
If you won't accept the facts as stated in the original post without quibbling over technicalities you certainly cannot claim Bush got us into Iraq.
-
CS gas is not known to have caused any deaths or permanent injuries, however its use has been banned in some American military operations
"Police and Security News" states: "In a confined space, CS can readily induce panic behavior if the adversary is unable to escape the contaminated area." According to a handbook called the "Police Chemical Agents Manual," during exposure to CS a person is "incapable of effective concerted action." Toxicologists describe the effects of CS as incapacitating, and certainly not the agent of choice if a fire is anticipated.
there are at least two reasons why CS probably did not worsen the situation during the seige. First, on the day tear gas was deployed there was a steady 17 to 24 mph wind, which, combined with gaping holes in the compound made by the tanks, created a situation where much of the tear gas was blown away. Second, there was a supply of gas masks inside the comound, some of which were used by the Davidians during the seige. A fire report written by Texas-based investigators called the tear gas operation a failure.
Sources:
"Police Chemical Agents Manual" written by Thompson S. Crockett
"Police and Security News" May/June 1988, article by William E. Burroughs, Staff Instructor, Smith & Wesson Academy.
Fire Investigation Report, Branch Davidian Compound, Waco TX, report date July 13, 1993 by Paul C. Gray et al.
They used a flammable form of military CS, that when ignited, released HCN.
They also used diesel fuel in the tanks, fuel which when burned can form carbon monoxide, a deadly poison. Is it your position that the authorities then used carbon monoxide against the davidians?
-
:rolleyes:
-
They also used diesel fuel in the tanks, fuel which when burned can form carbon monoxide, a deadly poison. Is it your position that the authorities then used carbon monoxide against the davidians?
I think the bullets they fired blindly into the compound were a lot more likely to kill men, women, and children than the diesel fuel.
-
I think the bullets they fired blindly into the compound were a lot more likely to kill men, women, and children than the diesel fuel.
I would agree.
I think however that the CS they used was an attempt to have the BD's evacuate the compound rather that poison them. The fact that they did it poorly and caused death was due to incompetance, not design.
-
I would agree.
I think however that the CS they used was an attempt to have the BD's evacuate the compound rather that poison them. The fact that they did it poorly and caused death was due to incompetance, not design.
I'm inclined to agree that the final assault was not premeditated mass murder. However, their gross negligence in protecting the lives of the children in that compound led to the same results imo. This entire siege was ill conceived, illegally executed, and falsely reported. I hope it forever weighs heavily on those responsible.
-
So, the point is that they never attacked us
Not so German subs had been attacking & sinking US shipping long before the USA entered WW11. In fact US war ships had permission to sink German subs as well before the USA had officially entered the war. So I would say Germany had attacked the USA first. (EDIT)->After reading all of the thread I see others have pointed out these facts.
-
I don't know what you could say about a day in which you have seen four beautiful sunsets.
I sort of like that John Glenn quote the best.
-
First, FDR was a fascist. His ideals were exactly the same as Hitler and Mussolini, (minus the jew killing, as I've stated before).
Next, the brits were helping India in their attempts to fight Japan before USA got involved.
The French Conflict was quite different from the American Conflict with vietnam. Vietnam was fighting with the French for total independence. America was fighting with North Vietnam for south vietnam's freedom from communism. Both wars were botched.
The USA was also involved with pressing down Japan's power before being attacked, and that may be the reason behind it. As for FDR, I guess I see him completely different. Were his ideals conquest and domination?
-
The USA was also involved with pressing down Japan's power before being attacked, and that may be the reason behind it. As for FDR, I guess I see him completely different. Were his ideals conquest and domination?
His ideals were conquest and domination of the American people. Up until then, most americans were still rather independent minded.
-
WOOT?
Next thing you'll tell me is that Abe Lincoln was the first Fascist.... :noid
-
WOOT?
Next thing you'll tell me is that Abe Lincoln was the first Fascist.... :noid
I would say he was the first totalitarian president. But that wouldn't be true.
-
Funny how no one likes to remember that technically Lincoln's decision to use military force to prevent the southern secession was against the law....
:noid
-
Lincoln = the guy who ended slavery in the USA
FDR = the guy who used public initiative to end the great depression
Awful guys...awful....
-
It seems to me that FDR-bashing in a Conservative right of initiation. You're not a true Conservative if you don't believe FDR is the spawn of Satan.
:rolleyes:
-
The one about the Vietnam war starting in 1963 was one as well. We had Special Forces' A-teams in Laos and Vietnam as early as 1959.
We also had CIA pilots flying supplies to the French at Dien Bien Phu, lost a few in the process.
ack-ack
-
Kennedy could have shut down our support to South Vietnam. Instead, he turned it into a real war. It has been reported that he had second thoughts and was going to shut it down. It has been speculated that this angered LBJ to the point of having Kennedy assasinated. Not a far fetched theory imo.
-
It seems to me that FDR-bashing in a Conservative right of initiation. You're not a true Conservative if you don't believe FDR is the spawn of Satan.
:rolleyes:
Spawn of Satan?... No. But a politician who had grown a little too powerful?... Yes. I don't begrudge him for his New Deal policies, that's what Democrats do. I do however have a problem with him attempting to pack the Supreme Court with six additional justices in an effort to thwart the existing nine justices who unanimously ruled three times against FDR and his New Deal. Suddenly, the non-political branch of the federal government was caught up in an intense and bitter national political debate. The Supreme Court would never be the same again.
FDR was the one who started this nonsense. Judges should not be political.
-
I'll add a feather in FDR's hat with his sense of realism regarding Facsism/Nazizm, for he had to fight against quite some odds for the USA to stick to the Brits rather than...testing out how that bearded guy in Germany would work out....
-
His ideals were conquest and domination of the American people. Up until then, most americans were still rather independent minded.
I would ask you this, LS. If what you've said about FDR was true, then how come he didn't simply do so during the Great Depression?
The collapse of the US stock market in 1929 led to a worldwide economic depression called the Great Depression in the United States.
The "Black Tuesday" stock market crash of October 29, 1929, marked the beginning of a decade of high unemployment, poverty, low profits, deflation and lost opportunities for economic growth and personal advancement. Although the causes of the Great Depression are still uncertain, the basic cause owas a sudden loss of confidence in the economic future (hence the decline in stocks.) Many economists agree with Milton Friedman's argument that blames the length of the depression (but not its cause) on an unwillingness by the Federal Reserve System to help banks avoid runs on their deposits. The traditional explanation of a combination of high consumer and business debt, ill-regulated markets that permitted malfeasance by banks and investors, growing wealth inequality, and natural disasters such as the Dust Bowl and 1926 Miami Hurricane creating a downward economic spiral of reduced spending and production are also offered as alternative explanations. The depression was a worldwide phenomenon, and was worse in some countries such as Germany; it apparently began in the U.S.
The initial government response to the crisis exacerbated the situation; protectionist policies like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, rather than helping the economy, merely strangled global trade. Industries that suffered the most included agriculture, mining, and logging.
The depression caused major political changes, the most notable among them being the New Deal, which instituted large-scale federal relief programs aimed to aid the agricultural industry and support labor unions. The formation of the New Deal coalition by Franklin Delano Roosevelt was another notable accomplishment. This disaster had a profound effect on the psychology of an entire generation and strongly influenced the development of post-war monetary institutions.
Contents [hide]
1 Causes
2 Hoovervilles
3 New Deal
4 Recession of 1937
5 Afterwards
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
[edit] Causes
USA GDP annual pattern and long-term trend, 1920-40, in billionsMain article: Causes of the Great Depression
Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view. First, there is orthodox classical economics, monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian Economics and neoclassical economic theory, which focuses on the macroeconomic effects of money supply, including Mass production and consumption. Second, there are structural theories, including those of institutional economics, that point to underconsumption and over-investment (economic bubble), or to malfeasance by bankers and industrialists.
There are multiple originating issues: what factors set off the first downturn in 1929, what structural weaknesses and specific events turned it into a major depression, how the downturn spread from country to country, and why the economic recovery was so prolonged.
In terms of the initial 1931 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors and the stock market crash, while economists point to Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre-World War I parities ($10.98 Pound)[1]. The vast economic cost of World War I weakened the ability of the world to respond to a major crisis.
Economists dispute how much weight to give the stock market crash of October 1929. According to Milton Friedman, "the stock market in 1929 played a role in the initial depression." It clearly changed sentiment about and expectations of the future, shifting the outlook from very positive to negative, with a dampening effect on investment and entrepreneurship, but some feel that an increase in interest rates by the Federal government could have also caused the slow steps into the downturn towards the Great Depression.
[edit] Hoovervilles
Main article: Hoovervilles
A Hooverville was the popular name for a shanty town, examples of which were found in many United States communities during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The word "Hooverville" derives from the name of the President of the United States at the time. These settlements were often formed in unpleasant neighborhoods or desolate areas and consisted of dozens or hundreds of shacks and tents that were temporary residences of those left unemployed and homeless by the Depression. People slept in anything from open piano crates to the ground. Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for technically trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated out of necessity. Some of the men who were made to live in these conditions possessed building skills and were able to build their houses out of stone. Most people, however, resorted to building their residences out of box wood, cardboard, and any scraps of metal they could find. Some individuals even lived in water mains. Most of these unemployed residents of the Hoovervilles begged for food from those who had housing during this era. Several other terms came into use during this era, such as "Hoover blanket" (old newspaper used as blanketing) and "Hoover flag" (an empty pocket turned inside out). "Hoover leather" was cardboard used to line a shoe with the sole worn through. A "Hoover wagon" was a car with horses tied to it because the owner could not afford gasoline; in Canada, these were known as Bennett buggies.
[edit] New Deal
Main article: New Deal
From 1933 onward, President Roosevelt argued a reconstruction of the economy would be needed to prevent another, or avoid prolonging the current depression. New Deal programs, such as the National Recovery Administration (NRA), sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending. Instituting regulations which ended what was called "cut-throat competition," which kept forcing down prices and profits for everyone. (The NRA, which ended in 1935).
Setting minimum prices and wages and competitive conditions in all industries. (NRA)
Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to 93% increase the purchasing power of the working class. (NRA)
Cutting farm production so as to raise prices and make it possible to earn a living in farming (done by the AAA and successor farm programs).
The most controversial aspect of the New Deal agencies was the National Recovery Administration (NRA). It lasted less than a year (1933-34) and ordered:
businesses to work with government to set prices;
the NBA board to set labor codes and standards.
These reforms (together with relief and recover measures) are called by historians the First New Deal. It was centered around the use of an alphabet soup of agencies set up in 1933 and 1934, along with the use of previous agencies such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to regulate and stimulate the economy. By 1935, the "Second New Deal" added social security, a national relief agency (the Works Progress Administration, W.P.A) and, through the National Labor Relations Board, a strong stimulus to the growth of labor unions. Unemployment fell by two-thirds in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933 to 1937) but then remained high until 1942.
In 1929, federal expenditures constituted only 3% of the GDP. Between 1933 and 1939, they tripled, but the national debt remained about level at 40% of GNP. (The debt as proportion of GNP rose under Hoover from 20% to 40%; the debt as % of GNP saored during the war years, 1941-45.) After the Recession of 1937 and victories in the 1938 elections, opponents of the New Deal, who called themselves conservatives, formed a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, by 1943, they had abolished all of the relief programs. Socieal Security continued. The New Deal was, and still is, controversial and widely debated. Opinions about the New Deal fall into three basic categories: that it was a total success, that it was helpful then but created repercussions that hurt us today, or that it was a catastrophe for libertarian principles. Democrats and progressives are generally more positive about the New Deal, while Republicans and economic conservatives are generally more negative.
Here's a link to it for further reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States)
I personally don't think that someone who's aim was the "conquest and domination" of the American people would have acted this way when he had a perfect oppurtunity to do so.
-
Anyone who thinks FDR wasn't a complete tyrant needs to google "Executive Order 6102". Wiki it while you're at it too :mad:
-
Anyone who thinks FDR wasn't a complete tyrant needs to google "Executive Order 6102". Wiki it while you're at it too :mad:
Here's the Wiki quote:
Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "Forbiding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates." It required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933, violation of Executive Order 6102 was punishable by fine up to $10,000 ($166,640 if adjusted for inflation as of 2008) or up to ten years in prison, or both. Because of this forced immediate sale of gold to the Federal Reserve at the government set price of $20.67 per ounce, this Executive Order is often referred to as the Gold Confiscation of 1933. Shortly after this forced sale, the price of gold from the treasury for international transactions was raised to $35 an ounce; the U.S. government thereby devalued the U.S. dollar by 41%.
In 1931 the Bank of England was forced off the gold standard as depositors demanded conversion of their notes to gold, threatening insolvency of the Bank. This pattern was repeated throughout Europe, and subsequently speculators targeted the United States' gold reserves, converting US dollars to gold, causing tremendous gold outflow, worsening deflation, and threatening the solvency of the United States' reserve. In February and March 1933, bank panics led people in the US to hoarding gold coins as suspicion about banks devolved into distrust of paper money, further worsening these same economic pressures. Before Britain left the gold standard, the Federal Reserve's own reserve ratio was 81.4%; by March 1933 it had fallen to 51.3%.
Shortly after taking office, in March and April 1933 Roosevelt implemented a series of policies to combat the crisis of solvency of the US monetary and banking systems, including Executive Order 6073, the Emergency Banking Act, Executive Order 6102, Executive Order 6111, and later the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933 Banking Act and HJR-192. These acts and executive orders effectively suspended the gold standard in the United States [1][2].
Order 6102 specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art"--a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and electricians among others. The order further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins (a face value equivalent to five troy ounces of Gold). Nevertheless, anecdotal accounts later related that many persons who possessed large amounts of gold simply ignored the order and hid their gold until the Order ceased to be in effect.[
I would say that it was an emergency move to help combat the Depression. It doesn't even seem to be a drop in the bucket compared to the Patriot Act.
-
Which first 5 words? These?
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this
<edit>
I was addressing a broader rebuttal, not your specific post though I fail to see how there is not a direct correlation between Saddam and Adolf.
Then you should also take a look at history. Hitler declared war on the US as was sinking US ships long before the US attacked Germany. In fact it's that sole reason I'd be willing to be that made Germany the immediate target because they were affecting our trade lanes.
-
Lincoln = the guy who ended slavery in the USA
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -Abraham Lincoln
-
Lots of truth in the original post.
The other sides #1 gambit: Downplay the person...pray most people were asleep in history class.
I wouldn't say Korea was an officially declared war. It was termed a UN "Police Action". That being the case the first Gulf War under GHWB would be termed the same.
ROX
-
minh's letter to truman make it pretty clear... vietnam was about oil, rubber and tin... and keeping control of those resources out of hands of brown people.
-
Lincoln = the guy who ended slavery in the USA
FDR = the guy who used public initiative to end the great depression
Awful guys...awful....
Lincoln bumbled his way through the civil war, and eventually ended slavery after violating practically all the principles that Americans hold dear.
FDR bumbled his way through the depression, enacting totalitarian plans that repeatedly made the depression worse in the process holding off economic success. The ONLY reason we came out of the depression was that he was lucky enough that America got attacked. It would have not ended for years to come.
As for his conquests? The answer is really simple. Look up what Hitler and Mussolini did. When you see that FDR acted exactly the same as the two "Most evil people" from that time period, the only conclusion you can come to is that FDR was also one of the most evil people from that time period.
-
Here's the Wiki quote:
I would say that it was an emergency move to help combat the Depression. It doesn't even seem to be a drop in the bucket compared to the Patriot Act.
the patriot act is not an executive order. You know this, right?
The patriot act is the will of the people created through a representative congress, signed into law by the duly elected president, and judged by the judiciary for right and wrong. Might as well see it for what it truly is, I guess.
-
minh's letter to truman make it pretty clear... vietnam was about oil, rubber and tin... and keeping control of those resources out of hands of brown people.
any particular letter or one specifiaclly?
Does Vietnam currently supply any of these things, rubber, oil and tin, to the global marketplace in any reasonable quantity?
-
Lincoln = the guy who ended slavery in the USA
FDR = the guy who used public initiative to end the great depression
Awful guys...awful....
Except....the Great Depression didn't really end until America's economy went on a war footing.
-
Does Vietnam currently supply any of these things, rubber, oil and tin, to the global marketplace in any reasonable quantity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam#Economy
Manufacturing, information technology and high-tech industries form a large and fast-growing part of the national economy. Vietnam is a relative new-comer to the oil business, but today it is the third-largest oil producer in Southeast Asia with output of 400,000 barrels per day (64,000 m³/d). Vietnam is one of Asia's most open economies: two-way trade is around 160% of GDP, more than twice the ratio for China and over four times India's.[10]
Vietnam is still a relatively poor country with an annual GDP of US$280.2 billion at purchasing power parity (2006 estimate)[11]. This translates to a purchasing power of about US$3,300 per capita (or US$726 per capita at the market exchange rate). Inflation rate was estimated at 7.5% per year in 2006. Deep poverty, defined as a percent of the population living under $1 per day, has declined significantly and is now smaller than that of China, India, and the Philippines. [12]
As a result of several land reform measures, Vietnam is now the largest producer of cashew nuts with a one-third global share and second largest rice exporter in the world after Thailand. Vietnam has the highest percent of land use for permanent crops, 6.93%, of any nation in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Besides rice, key exports are coffee, tea, rubber, and fishery products. However, agriculture's share of economic output has declined, falling as a share of GDP from 42% in 1989 to 20% in 2006, as production in other sectors of the economy has risen. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the unemployment rate in Vietnam is 5.4% for 2007. Among other steps taken in the process of transitioning to a market economy, Vietnam in July 2006 updated its intellectual property legislation to comply with TRIPS. Vietnam was accepted into the WTO on November 7, 2006. Vietnam's chief trading partners include Japan, Australia, ASEAN countries, the U.S. and Western European countries.
-
Then you should also take a look at history. Hitler declared war on the US as was sinking US ships long before the US attacked Germany. In fact it's that sole reason I'd be willing to be that made Germany the immediate target because they were affecting our trade lanes.
We were supporting those they were at war with. Our ships were legitimate targets.
-
Lincoln bumbled his way through the civil war, and eventually ended slavery after violating practically all the principles that Americans hold dear.
FDR bumbled his way through the depression, enacting totalitarian plans that repeatedly made the depression worse in the process holding off economic success. The ONLY reason we came out of the depression was that he was lucky enough that America got attacked. It would have not ended for years to come.
As for his conquests? The answer is really simple. Look up what Hitler and Mussolini did. When you see that FDR acted exactly the same as the two "Most evil people" from that time period, the only conclusion you can come to is that FDR was also one of the most evil people from that time period.
So, we had massive purges of non-Fascists, used poison gas in Ethiopia, and herded Jews' into the ovens' right here in the U.S.? :huh
-
the patriot act is not an executive order. You know this, right?
The patriot act is the will of the people created through a representative congress, signed into law by the duly elected president, and judged by the judiciary for right and wrong. Might as well see it for what it truly is, I guess.
Yeager, that's true; The Patriot act went through the normal channels' of gov't. However, I myself would not term it the 'will of the people.'
-
So, we had massive purges of non-Fascists, used poison gas in Ethiopia, and herded Jews' into the ovens' right here in the U.S.? :huh
We created hundreds of extra bureaus just for all our fascist friends to rule parts of the government, we shot at and killed beggars in D.C., and imprisoned Japanese people for no good reason.
It's pretty damn close.
-
We created hundreds of extra bureaus just for all our fascist friends to rule parts of the government, we shot at and killed beggars in D.C., and imprisoned Japanese people for no good reason.
It's pretty damn close.
You do know that F.D.R. had a golden oppurtunity to turn his back on capitalism, by nationalizing our industry during the great depression though? I would think that if he truly was a fascist, or a communist, he would have followed Stalins' example.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and mention that if some of the programs' and agencies' that F.D.R. put in place during his term had been there in Hoover or Coolidge's, The Great Depression probably wouldn't have been so bad on the U.S. They wouldn't have prevented the Great Depression ( The cost of World War one was finally taking it's toll) But it would have been a lot less worse on us, IMHO.
As for shooting and killing beggars' in D.C., Are you referring to the Bonus march of 1932?
...As for the Nissei, One could call it a knee-jerk bad move, however, it did have two benefits; One, it did make it harder for a Japanese sabotuer or Fifth columnist to operate in the U.S. And two, Even though the Nissei had to live in much harsher conditions' than what they had in the general public, It was easier to protect them from anti-japanese sentiment. So...Bad as it was, It had it's plusses.
-
You do know that F.D.R. had a golden oppurtunity to turn his back on capitalism, by nationalizing our industry during the great depression though? I would think that if he truly was a fascist, or a communist, he would have followed Stalins' example.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and mention that if some of the programs' and agencies' that F.D.R. put in place during his term had been there in Hoover or Coolidge's, The Great Depression probably wouldn't have been so bad on the U.S. They wouldn't have prevented the Great Depression ( The cost of World War one was finally taking it's toll) But it would have been a lot less worse on us, IMHO.
As for shooting and killing beggars' in D.C., Are you referring to the Bonus march of 1932?
...As for the Nissei, One could call it a knee-jerk bad move, however, it did have two benefits; One, it did make it harder for a Japanese sabotuer or Fifth columnist to operate in the U.S. And two, Even though the Nissei had to live in much harsher conditions' than what they had in the general public, It was easier to protect them from anti-japanese sentiment. So...Bad as it was, It had it's plusses.
[sarcasm]You know, you're right. As bad as the Final Solution was, it had it's plusses. No longer did the Germans have to deal with Shady jew businessmen. Nor did they have to deal with the staunch capitalist base natural to the jewish community. They could live on how germans wanted to, without fear diminishing support for the Fatherland.[/sarcasm]
And to see the NIRA, and not tell that this was about as anti-capitalist as possible is just plain foolish.
It's equally as foolish to think that FDR's programs enacted by Hoover would have been beneficial. What was a particularly heavy economic swing due to stupid trading became an out and out famine due to what FDR did. Like I said before, the only thing that saved this country from becoming a third world country was the fact that a war started.
Had Hoover (another one of the worst presidents of all time) enacted these roadkill laws, the country might have failed right then and there.
We are Golly-geen lucky that FDR and Hoover couldn't get their hands on more power, and that they ultimately failed.
-
As for shooting and killing beggars' in D.C., Are you referring to the Bonus march of 1932?
-
Y'know the Canadians treated Japanese citizens/residents far worse than the US did....
It's also a bit unfair to solo out FDR on the internment thing as there was a LOT of popular resentment of the Japanese nation-wide. I remember seeing photos of a barber shop in the midwest during the war with the sign: "Japs shaved, not responsible for accidents." And though it's not as well-known there WAS negative response and treatment--both civil and government--to people of German ancestry as well.
Don't let hindsight blind you laser. Everything looks so obvious now, but I'd like to see how much better YOU'D handle things in that situation with no forewarning of how it all would end up working out.
-
Looking at 20th century history, the Great depression, starting in Wall streat and spreading through the world (Although bouncing off the USSR :D), caused famine world wide. It was before FDR entered office. And then, the big droughts of the mid 30's were of such nature that no precident would stop those...
-
.
-
Angus,
I'm sure laser will come back with how FDR waved his hands and intentionally changed earth's weather patterns to create the Dust Bow as part of his grand and evil scheme to further his Socialist agenda. :rolleyes:
-
The Great depression had it's roots some many years back. The only Democrat President from 1891 to Roosevelt was Wilson if I have things right...
-
As for shooting and killing beggars' in D.C., Are you referring to the Bonus march of 1932?
I was. I thought it happened later then that.
Don't forget that in Germany, there was a lot of popular resentment against the Jews. Yet you are telling us what Germany did to the jews was awful, but what we did to the Japs was completely righteous? Also as a side note, Germany was quicker in repaying the jews, then we were in repaying the japanese.
I have said often here that FDR idealized Hitler and Mussolini. The problem is that Hitler and Mussolini idealized Woodrow Wilson. Read up on Woodrow Wilson sometime. He was a whackjob that made some of the worst despots of history look sane.
Coming up from the bottom of the worst US presidents of all time, it goes FDR, Wilson, and then Lincoln. Lincoln is only just ranked higher than Wilson because he freed the slaves.
The stock market crash was going to happen. And obviously Bush caused global warming which made the Dust Bowl. You can't change that this was going to happen. However FDR's policies rammed a recovery into the ground, where as someone should have just let it recover on its own.
Hindsight is 20/20. But given how crappy of a job FDR did, it's very easy to think that any non-fascist would have done a much better job, including me.
-
Well laser, that settles it. Next global economic crisis is yours to fix. Then in 70 years we'll all come back and talk about how bad YOU mucked it up.
-
Gladly. Give me the power and I'll fix it.
I've always wanted a Wikipedia page of myself...
-
The stock market crash was going to happen. And obviously Bush caused global warming which made the Dust Bowl. You can't change that this was going to happen. However FDR's policies rammed a recovery into the ground, where as someone should have just let it recover on its own.
Hindsight is 20/20. But given how crappy of a job FDR did, it's very easy to think that any non-fascist would have done a much better job, including me.
Unfortunately, it was the economy running on it's own that ran itself into the ground. It wasn't gonna recover on it's own, without any action from the gov't. in this instance. Keynesian economic theory failed in 1929, and there was no reason to let it stay that way.
IMHO, we would have lost WWII as well, due to complete failure of our industry in the '30's, if F.D.R. wouldn't have stepped in. We were lucky to have him. It was Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover we should have never had.
-
Unfortunately, it was the economy running on it's own that ran itself into the ground. It wasn't gonna recover on it's own, without any action from the gov't. in this instance. Keynesian economic theory failed in 1929, and there was no reason to let it stay that way.
IMHO, we would have lost WWII as well, due to complete failure of our industry in the '30's, if F.D.R. wouldn't have stepped in. We were lucky to have him. It was Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover we should have never had.
Economies DO run themselves in the ground. Think of it as natural selection in the business world. Suddenly a crash happened and purged all those that made stupid decisions. Soon people would get back to making the right decisions.
"Nature abhors a moron."
-
FYI the Nazis killed about the same amount of Jews as the population of Israel is today.
Did the USA mass-murder Japs on U.S. soil? Without a war? Naaa,,,and the comparison is tasteless at best...
Anyway, getting back to FDR and the depression, it is correct that unemployment wasn't "solved" before America had to mobilize. Now bear in mind that the army brings no economical benefit, you could just as well mobilize the unemployed into doing something useful, since the govt pays for the army anyway....
So it's the same thing really, - the need for mobilization due to war solved the matter basically in the same way as FDR is being critizised for....if you ever get it Lazer.....
-
Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to declare war on the US and after the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbor December 7th, 1941, he did on December 11th.
Wrong . Hitler was required to declare war if a signatory of the tripartite pact was attacked themselves .
-
Not so German subs had been attacking & sinking US shipping long before the USA entered WW11. In fact US war ships had permission to sink German subs as well before the USA had officially entered the war. So I would say Germany had attacked the USA first. (EDIT)->After reading all of the thread I see others have pointed out these facts.
Ok i skipped 2 of these already but enough . The U.S.N. was escorting convoys that included war material when the Reuben James was sunk by Nazi U-Boat . The first act of hostility was whenNiblack fired on a DKM U-Boat . Don't get me wrong it was the right thing to do . We needed to be in the war . Man you guys need to stop this bs . I would like to see anyone of the conservatives say it was wrong to get involved in WW2 . Just because it was a democratic president that lead us . Guys we are ripping this country apart with this crap . I have a balanced view on things . We needed to go into Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam . We needed to get the hell out as soon as we found him and realized the WMD were moved . We don't need no stupid arsed patriot act . We do need to monitor communications any way we can . < i am waiting with sources beyond my own eyes for the first moron who says there were no wmd's> . I don't give a rat crap about which party is which I want the best for the US . Partisan bs like this is just stupid .
-
FYI the Nazis killed about the same amount of Jews as the population of Israel is today.
Did the USA mass-murder Japs on U.S. soil? Without a war? Naaa,,,and the comparison is tasteless at best...
Anyway, getting back to FDR and the depression, it is correct that unemployment wasn't "solved" before America had to mobilize. Now bear in mind that the army brings no economical benefit, you could just as well mobilize the unemployed into doing something useful, since the govt pays for the army anyway....
So it's the same thing really, - the need for mobilization due to war solved the matter basically in the same way as FDR is being critizised for....if you ever get it Lazer.....
So it's fine if I illegally and immorally arrest and detain a random ethnic group of people, provided I don't kill them?
Unemployment wasn't solved after FDR's mobilization. Busy Work is not a real job, especially when the government spends billions of dollars it doesn't have of my money to accomplish something that doesn't need to be done.
-
Unemployment was halved by a government act....projects.
Unemployment was nilled by a desperate act...drafting for a war that was already reality.
Now I'd want to look at which groups of people you refer to. Japs in WW2 on US soil?
And secondly, which would you pick, jail or torture+starvation+execution?
Not quite the same thing...
-
It WAS wrong, but the point I've been trying to make is you're laying the blame for internment entirely at FDR's feet, which is a gross and unjust oversimplification of the situation. The ENTIRE nation was guilty, because this was the prevailing attitude of the entire nation at the time.
-
Unemployment was halved by a government act....projects.
Unemployment was nilled by a desperate act...drafting for a war that was already reality.
Now I'd want to look at which groups of people you refer to. Japs in WW2 on US soil?
And secondly, which would you pick, jail or torture+starvation+execution?
Not quite the same thing...
Unemployment was halved by FDR creating an organization that mirrored the Hitler Youth in structure, beliefs and nastiness to outsiders. Again, he made busy work. Those weren't real jobs. He wasted our money to give to other people to accomplish nothing.
-
The post office in our town says WPA across the front. I wonder what that means? Must be some kind of useless busywork or something.
-
We needed to go into Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam . We needed to get the hell out as soon as we found him and realized the WMD were moved . We don't need no stupid arsed patriot act . We do need to monitor communications any way we can . < i am waiting with sources beyond my own eyes for the first moron who says there were no wmd's> . I don't give a rat crap about which party is which I want the best for the US . Partisan bs like this is just stupid .
Be careful here, Hlbly-I myself could not agree with you more about party politics, but in this statement, you have to be able to prove that the WMD's that weren't destroyed after Desert Storm were moved or hidden. This topic is a thread in itself. And a few dozen corroded, inert Artillery shells buried in the desert isn't gonna count...
-
Economies DO run themselves in the ground. Think of it as natural selection in the business world. Suddenly a crash happened and purged all those that made stupid decisions. Soon people would get back to making the right decisions.
"Nature abhors a moron."
There are rules and regulations' in business which, if abided by, are designed to keep the playing field square and help keep commercial competition healthy. We've seen the end result of the removal of some of these rules lately, as a matter of fact. The removal of the short-sell rule, which happened last year when the Dow-Jones Industrial average was at an all-time high of over 14,000 points, to now where it's struggling to stay over 11k, had a profound effect. And, for the country as a whole, we are heading to the time when if most of our industry's head overseas, we won't have any jobs' to effect an economic recovery with. FDR was lucky in the sense that he still had his major core corporations' still on U.S. soil to help anchor the war-production effort in WWII.
There has been mention made of employment gains' jumping by Men of military age joining up en-masse at the start of the war. It should be pointed out that the effect was two-fold. Our economy had been spooling up for some time, supplying arms' and materials to countries already in the war; Our entrance did two things, One of which was the already aformentioned mass enlistment. The other was the fact that not only did our war production need to be stepped up several magnitudes over what it had been, the workers' that had previously vacated those jobs' to put on a uniform were no longer available for production work. So, the need for workers' suddenly increased from both ends' after Dec. 1941.
-
So it's fine if I illegally and immorally arrest and detain a random ethnic group of people, provided I don't kill them?
Many on this very board would have no qualms' at all about doing that with Illegal immigrants' from Mexico. I do understand your point, because many Nissei were loyal citizens, with legal Visa's or green cards. However, the cirmumstances between the ethnic groups' and their country of origin are different, in this case. Also remember, that with the Nissei seperate from mainstream american society at the time, which you will admit didn't really have the touchy-feely liberal influence that it has today (As a matter of fact, I would say it was more approaching the tendency to lynch) it might have benefitted the Nissei to not be in the general public for a while.
-
Nissei=japanese?
And the actions were during WW2?
The Brits sent German citizens to camps in Australia mind you, and I guess that in the meanwhile the british folks could stay harmless in Hitler's state while US citizens could take a park walk in Tokyo....
-
There are rules and regulations' in business which, if abided by, are designed to keep the playing field square and help keep commercial competition healthy. We've seen the end result of the removal of some of these rules lately, as a matter of fact. The removal of the short-sell rule, which happened last year when the Dow-Jones Industrial average was at an all-time high of over 14,000 points, to now where it's struggling to stay over 11k, had a profound effect. And, for the country as a whole, we are heading to the time when if most of our industry's head overseas, we won't have any jobs' to effect an economic recovery with. FDR was lucky in the sense that he still had his major core corporations' still on U.S. soil to help anchor the war-production effort in WWII.
Yes, but FDR took all the established rules and threw them out the window. He did everything he possibly could to give competition a cancer.
For example, he established non competition pacts. A decent communistic proposal. However he took the goose stepping a little bit too far. After decreeing the pacts, he would have armed thugs and mercenary terrorize those that didn't follow his "Laws."
He mandated, and then enforced at the tip of a gun the artificial inflation of prices both through extortion, confiscation and destruction of private property. Surely you've heard about the millions of pigs he outright slaughtered and did nothing with just to drive up the value of other pigs? This was only one of the more highly publicized events.
He would often march thousands of school children into city squares and have them swear on the bible to only patronize "Blue Eagle" establishments. Or, in other words, the children of the families of the nation were terrorized into cooperating with FDR. Those that did not participate had their doors broken down by axed wielding thugs in the middle of the night.
It is downright scary that you are doing all you can to support FDR. And it is diddlying terrifying that so few people really know what happened.
-
The post office in our town says WPA across the front. I wonder what that means? Must be some kind of useless busywork or something.
I believe it stands for:
"We Poke Along"
"We Piddle Along"
or
"We Putter Around."
-
I dont know, do you think a democrat would've actually let us gone to war after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor? A modern democrat I might say. There's so many damn restrictions they'd impose, we'd either lose the war or lose 10x as many men.
Prescience... at the tender age of fifteen.
I'm impressed.
-
I believe it stands for:
"We Poke Along"
"We Piddle Along"
or
"We Putter Around."
You don't have a freakin' clue what it means unless you're 85 years old. Revisionist historians... :rolleyes:
-
Lazer, I seriously recommend that you read up on the Great depression. Might give you an eye on why it happened, and then on why FDR is by most looked at in a completely different way than yours.
BTW, where did the major opposition for supporting the British come from??
Not from FDR.....
-
Lazer, I seriously recommend that you read up on the Great depression. Might give you an eye on why it happened, and then on why FDR is by most looked at in a completely different way than yours.
BTW, where did the major opposition for supporting the British come from??
Not from FDR.....
Oh! I learn about the great depression by reading about it? Reading? Are you sure.
I'm pretty freaking sure that ain't right.
Retard.