Is Europe really worth America's trouble?
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next
Constantinople @ Wed May 04, 2005 6:48 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
"Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen."
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
? I don't think that makes sense. Yes, Japan did bomb Pearl Harbor, but it's been documented that Roosevelt knew before hand and let it happen. Roosevelt needed something to change the public opinion in the US from isolationist to ready for war. Roosevelt himself was for war in Europe and etc.
When I say let Pearl Harbor happen, I don't mean that the attack could have been prevented, just that he could have allowed the US to be more prepared. If they had prior knowledge it could have been a more fair fight.
That whole "FDR knew about it" thing is bogus. Even if we had known, our fighting back against them would have been enough to justify a war since they were coming to bomb the harbor. We didn't need a statement where we were totally surprised in order to join the war. The Japanese would have been the agressors either way.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 04, 2005 7:02 pm
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
... That whole "FDR knew about it" thing is bogus. ...
I was hoping somebody would say that.
![[BB]](./images/smilies/beers.gif "Beers")
.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 04, 2005 7:04 pm
"...but it's been documented that Roosevelt ..."
I have documents that prove that UFO's are landing in my sock drawer every night.
---In fact, there's a website that catalogs sock drawer landings.
.
Zipperfish @ Wed May 04, 2005 8:40 pm
The US and other maritime powers do not recognize Canada's claim of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. If climate change proceeds as predicted by most scientists, the Northwest will be navigable at least part of the year in ten or twenty years. That means it'll turn into a veritable vessel highway.
That's why Martin is constituting Innu (Inuit?) Rangers to patrol teh area -- possession is 9/10 of the law, and we want to prove squatetrs rights on the area.
But that's a deliberately argumentative aside -- otherwise agreed Peter!
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Thu May 05, 2005 1:46 am
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
"...but it's been documented that Roosevelt ..."
I have documents that prove that UFO's are landing in my sock drawer every night.
---In fact, there's a website that catalogs sock drawer landings.
.
I have documents that prove that UFO's are landing in my sock drawer every night.
---In fact, there's a website that catalogs sock drawer landings.
.
I do believe the Roosevelt thing is a little different. You know, you people are truly rude. I will admit that it isn't complete fact, but there is much compelling evidence to say that it could be possible.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm <---interesting read
You know, you people could try being less patronizing, or at least you Jaime. Please show us your documents or be quiet when you make fun of other peoples links.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html <---another interesting read.
Another interesting thing:
$1:
During World War 2, study groups of the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy.
The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed.
Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The industrial countries were to be guided by the "great workshops," Germany and Japan, who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (and now would be working under US supervision).
The Third World was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo put it. It was to be "exploited" (in Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. (The references are to Southeast Asia and Africa, but the points are general.)
Kennan even suggested that Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of "exploiting" Africa. Naturally, no one suggested that Africa should exploit Europe for its reconstruction, perhaps also improving its state of mind. These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this.
The Vietnam War emerged from the need to ensure this service role. Vietnamese nationalists didn't want to accept it, so they had to be smashed. The threat wasn't that they were going to conquer anyone, but that they might set a dangerous example of national independence that would inspire other nations in the region.
The US government had two major roles to play. First was to secure the far-flung domains of the Grand Area. That required a very intimidating posture, to ensure that no one interferes with this task -- which is one reason why there's been such a drive for nuclear weapons.
The government's second role was to organize a public subsidy for high-technology industry. For various reasons, the method adopted has been military spending, in large part.
Free trade is fine for economics departments and newspaper editorials, but nobody in the corporate world or the government takes the doctrines seriously. The parts of the US economy that are able to compete internationally are primarily the state-subsidized ones: capital-intensive agriculture (agribusiness, as it's called), high-tech industry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, etc.
The same is true of other industrial societies. The US government has the public pay for research and development and provides, largely through the military, a state-guaranteed market for waste production. If something is marketable, the private sector takes it over. That system of public subsidy and private profit is what is called free enterprise.
The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed.
Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The industrial countries were to be guided by the "great workshops," Germany and Japan, who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (and now would be working under US supervision).
The Third World was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo put it. It was to be "exploited" (in Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. (The references are to Southeast Asia and Africa, but the points are general.)
Kennan even suggested that Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of "exploiting" Africa. Naturally, no one suggested that Africa should exploit Europe for its reconstruction, perhaps also improving its state of mind. These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this.
The Vietnam War emerged from the need to ensure this service role. Vietnamese nationalists didn't want to accept it, so they had to be smashed. The threat wasn't that they were going to conquer anyone, but that they might set a dangerous example of national independence that would inspire other nations in the region.
The US government had two major roles to play. First was to secure the far-flung domains of the Grand Area. That required a very intimidating posture, to ensure that no one interferes with this task -- which is one reason why there's been such a drive for nuclear weapons.
The government's second role was to organize a public subsidy for high-technology industry. For various reasons, the method adopted has been military spending, in large part.
Free trade is fine for economics departments and newspaper editorials, but nobody in the corporate world or the government takes the doctrines seriously. The parts of the US economy that are able to compete internationally are primarily the state-subsidized ones: capital-intensive agriculture (agribusiness, as it's called), high-tech industry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, etc.
The same is true of other industrial societies. The US government has the public pay for research and development and provides, largely through the military, a state-guaranteed market for waste production. If something is marketable, the private sector takes it over. That system of public subsidy and private profit is what is called free enterprise.
--from What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky
Now, the thing I find odd is the fact that we forget so easily the concentration camps the US had during WW2 against normal Japanese civilians. Sure, some things can be put into context, but the fact remains that we still put innocent people into concentration camps.
Another interesting article:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/spe ... facism.htm
I doubt you all will read any of that stuff though....
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Thu May 05, 2005 1:50 am
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
"Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen."
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
? I don't think that makes sense. Yes, Japan did bomb Pearl Harbor, but it's been documented that Roosevelt knew before hand and let it happen. Roosevelt needed something to change the public opinion in the US from isolationist to ready for war. Roosevelt himself was for war in Europe and etc.
When I say let Pearl Harbor happen, I don't mean that the attack could have been prevented, just that he could have allowed the US to be more prepared. If they had prior knowledge it could have been a more fair fight.
That whole "FDR knew about it" thing is bogus. Even if we had known, our fighting back against them would have been enough to justify a war since they were coming to bomb the harbor. We didn't need a statement where we were totally surprised in order to join the war. The Japanese would have been the agressors either way.
This doesn't make sense. You start off saying "the FDR knew about it" thing is bogus, then you say "even if we had known." This basically shows that YOU haven't probably read anything about it, but are just putting down what I said because it ruins the image of the great American patriotic war. I'll admit, I would never want to be under Nazi run, and the concentration camps made the war just, BUT the American people at the time wanted nothing to do with it, but FDR did, he just needed a reason. Some say he provoked the Japanese to attack, knew they would attack, with-held info from the Americans in Hawii.
BeaverBill @ Thu May 05, 2005 3:06 am
$1:
Soon, freed Middle Easterners are going to make a few simple deductions: France profited mightily from Saddam; America removed him. The E.U. wanted nothing to do with the new democracy in Baghdad; Americans from places like San Antonio and Tulsa died to preserve it. An Iranian knows that the U.S., not Germany or Belgium, wishes him to be free and is more likely to take the risks to see it happen. An Afghan could assure him of that.
The muscle-flexing of China has given Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan second thoughts. They worry not that the United States invites them into partnerships, but that we might not. The Americans allow outsourcing to India, buy thousands of Hondas, and send young men to the Korean DMZ. Europe sells China new bombs, the French fleet goes on maneuvers with the communists, and the E.U. keeps it tariffs and subsidies high. A once-caricatured America starts to look very good again.
There is another wild card at play that explains the decrease in anti-Americanism. After September 11, the American people are in a much less apologetic mood--more likely to pull troops or cut off aid than to ask forgiveness for imaginary grievances. No one here laments that we left the Philippines or are departing Germany. We took out Saddam without Belgians and Frenchmen, without bases in Turkey, and despite, not because of, the U.N. or Arab league.
America runs high trade deficits with Asia and Europe. It lets 20 million illegal aliens cross our borders. It spends liberally on defense, patrolling sea-lanes and protecting commerce rather than setting up autocracies and stealing oil.
Americans are finally beginning to wonder whether all these ungrateful folks are worth the toil and treasure. In response, critics abroad are beginning to sense that their cheap rhetoric may have real consequences, that maybe the U.S. was a good deal for the world, after all.
George W. Bush did not cause this new round of anti-Americanism. But he may well have done more than anyone to end it.
The muscle-flexing of China has given Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan second thoughts. They worry not that the United States invites them into partnerships, but that we might not. The Americans allow outsourcing to India, buy thousands of Hondas, and send young men to the Korean DMZ. Europe sells China new bombs, the French fleet goes on maneuvers with the communists, and the E.U. keeps it tariffs and subsidies high. A once-caricatured America starts to look very good again.
There is another wild card at play that explains the decrease in anti-Americanism. After September 11, the American people are in a much less apologetic mood--more likely to pull troops or cut off aid than to ask forgiveness for imaginary grievances. No one here laments that we left the Philippines or are departing Germany. We took out Saddam without Belgians and Frenchmen, without bases in Turkey, and despite, not because of, the U.N. or Arab league.
America runs high trade deficits with Asia and Europe. It lets 20 million illegal aliens cross our borders. It spends liberally on defense, patrolling sea-lanes and protecting commerce rather than setting up autocracies and stealing oil.
Americans are finally beginning to wonder whether all these ungrateful folks are worth the toil and treasure. In response, critics abroad are beginning to sense that their cheap rhetoric may have real consequences, that maybe the U.S. was a good deal for the world, after all.
George W. Bush did not cause this new round of anti-Americanism. But he may well have done more than anyone to end it.
What a load of poppy cock. Saddam was propped up by the US, when he was considered "their SOB". You choose to ignore that part. Now the people suffer as much under the hand of the US and warring factions. Things have not improved, as is painted by the right wing press. Thousands and thousands of children have been mutilated, slaughtered and deformed over this war, as if they haven't suffered enough under the Iran- Iraq war, Gulf War and sanctions. US bombs are not smart, they kill, mutilate and destroy everything in it's way and the US military has been proven to practice the same mentality. The bombs and bullets are laced with DU.... which its harmful effects are yet to be "proven" by the lives and suffering of the average pleb over the next fifty years. (as if recent Afgan history isn't proof enough.) The US is not dispised by Europeans because of misguidance by the press and its gov'ts but by the US's actions, attitudes, and the constant coverup and alterations of the truth. Europe's press is free and less censored. (there has been more deaths in Iraq of the press than in whatever conflict world wide) I remember sitting with the tele and eating supper when the Palistinian conflict arose on the nightly news report. A man with his child were crouched behind an oil drum hiding from Isreali bullets. The man took a cap and slumped dead in front of his child . You don't see that in north america nor England, for that matter, therefore war is just a video game or a political ideal with no humanitarian impact, a surreal concept of superiority. Europe is not blindfolded nor take to be treated as mentally deficient kindly by war propaganda nor by Americanization, of which you choose to consume and recycle with no questions asked. America's track record (since what you say and what you do are two different concepts) has done more to the world's perception of America than you proclaim and, ultimately, choose to ignore.
Constantinople @ Thu May 05, 2005 10:02 am
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
"Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen."
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
? I don't think that makes sense. Yes, Japan did bomb Pearl Harbor, but it's been documented that Roosevelt knew before hand and let it happen. Roosevelt needed something to change the public opinion in the US from isolationist to ready for war. Roosevelt himself was for war in Europe and etc.
When I say let Pearl Harbor happen, I don't mean that the attack could have been prevented, just that he could have allowed the US to be more prepared. If they had prior knowledge it could have been a more fair fight.
That whole "FDR knew about it" thing is bogus. Even if we had known, our fighting back against them would have been enough to justify a war since they were coming to bomb the harbor. We didn't need a statement where we were totally surprised in order to join the war. The Japanese would have been the agressors either way.
This doesn't make sense. You start off saying "the FDR knew about it" thing is bogus, then you say "even if we had known." This basically shows that YOU haven't probably read anything about it, but are just putting down what I said because it ruins the image of the great American patriotic war. I'll admit, I would never want to be under Nazi run, and the concentration camps made the war just, BUT the American people at the time wanted nothing to do with it, but FDR did, he just needed a reason. Some say he provoked the Japanese to attack, knew they would attack, with-held info from the Americans in Hawii.
That still doesn't make sense. If they were going to attack us, that is enough for us to declare war. Why would FDR let us be attacked without warning when just being attacked and defending ourselves would have been enough for a declaration of war?
Pimpbrewski @ Thu May 05, 2005 10:24 am
huh??? oh forget it
BartSimpson @ Thu May 05, 2005 10:36 am
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
"Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen."
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
Yeah, Japan was FRAMED!
? I don't think that makes sense. Yes, Japan did bomb Pearl Harbor, but it's been documented that Roosevelt knew before hand and let it happen. Roosevelt needed something to change the public opinion in the US from isolationist to ready for war. Roosevelt himself was for war in Europe and etc.
When I say let Pearl Harbor happen, I don't mean that the attack could have been prevented, just that he could have allowed the US to be more prepared. If they had prior knowledge it could have been a more fair fight.
It is accepted that the US probably had signals intelligence incating an attack was imminent - but you are seeing this information through 21st century eyes. In 1941 signals intelligence was a new thing and the old guard did not trust it. Just the following year this prejudice was repeated when signals intelligence PROVED Japan would move on Midway with a feint to the Aleutians and STILL the old farts insisted the main force was to attack Alaska. Fortunately, Chester Nimitz trusted the guys developing the intel and he took a chance and went against all his higher-ups including FDR who had once been Secretary of the Navy.
If FDR had been handed absolute proof in the form of signals intellignece that Japan was attacking on Dec 7th he would not have believed it nor acted on it.
If there was a cover up it was to cover up negligence.
Jaime_Souviens @ Thu May 05, 2005 10:43 am
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
I do believe the Roosevelt thing is a little different. You know, you people are truly rude. ...You know, you people could try being less patronizing, or at least you Jaime.
Oh, c'mon. The old "aliens in the sock drawer" bit is funny...
But seriously. If you go LOOK at what I originally posted, you'll see that I deliberately took your name OFF the quote. I wasn't mocking you, I was mocking the whole mentalité of citing vague and unknown reports from vague and unknown sources.
(And it was relatively late & I was getting punchy.)
But if you were offended, I apologize. I did try to avoid that.
But I won't promise not to be patronizing. I mean, hell, why is there an internet if you can't be patronizing?
And you, you come out of Texas with all your guns blazing, you ought to expect a response or two.
.
BartSimpson @ Thu May 05, 2005 10:58 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The US and other maritime powers do not recognize Canada's claim of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. If climate change proceeds as predicted by most scientists, the Northwest will be navigable at least part of the year in ten or twenty years. That means it'll turn into a veritable vessel highway.
That's why Martin is constituting Innu (Inuit?) Rangers to patrol teh area -- possession is 9/10 of the law, and we want to prove squatetrs rights on the area.
But that's a deliberately argumentative aside -- otherwise agreed Peter!
That's why Martin is constituting Innu (Inuit?) Rangers to patrol teh area -- possession is 9/10 of the law, and we want to prove squatetrs rights on the area.
But that's a deliberately argumentative aside -- otherwise agreed Peter!
I think it'll still fal to that 12 mile limit. If Canada can show a place where the passage narrows to less than 24 miles than Canada will have an internationally recognized right to protect her waters. Even the US will have a tough time arguing that.
No matter how it goes, the US should ask permission of Canada before treating Canada as an adversary.
BartSimpson @ Thu May 05, 2005 11:05 am
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Just because politicians invoke God, it doesn't mean that they mean it. They talk about ethics, too...
LOL!!!!
Constantinople @ Thu May 05, 2005 11:07 am
I like your sig, Peter.
Jaime_Souviens @ Thu May 05, 2005 11:25 am
I never saw the relationship between Canada and the United States as cooperative. Nor do I see it as adversarial.
Look. You can have two brothers who are always nice to each other and look out for each other's interests. You can also have two brothers who hate each other and seek to undermine each other.
---But you can also have two brothers who are both friendly and highly competitive. It's all fair game and neither gets upset about it.
Two brothers who go together to the same bar and both try to hit on the same woman. THAT'S Canada and the United States.
.
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next