Pages: 1
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
Yeah...Reagun was great. Let an illegal gun runner setup shop in the White House. Poked his nose into the democratically elected operations of governments in Central America. Supported and trained Death Squads. Appointed James Watt as Secretary of the Interior. A fox, who didn't even claim to be a vegetarian, appointed to guard the hen house. Did you trust him? Ran up the federal deficit. Oh, and didn't he create a war in Granada? That was sure an important action.
Do you remember the term "Teflon President"? No responsibility for anything ever stuck to him. That must have been from being an actor and great communicator instead of a responsible president. When the rescue mission went into Iran, Jimmy Carter stood up and took responsibility since he was Commander in Chief. That's what a leader is supposed to do. Don't dodge around and lay blame on the mechanics that didn't seal up the bearings on the choppers.
Oh, did you realize that all Federal empoyees got to have a paid day off last Friday? Sure made for a nice three day weekend. How much did that cost? Sure doesn't fit with the image of Reagan being a fiscally responsible prez. When I was in school our folks had a sick-day policy. If we were too sick to go to school we were too sick to do anything but lay in bed. No watching TV, no playing games, no reading books until after lunch. What meaning does a day of mourning have it it makes for a three day weekend. I don't remember a three day weekend for Nixon.
Not a fan of Reagon...
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
Jay,
Not a bad quote but I don't believe a word of it. Do you care to comment on what I said...in your own words? Using some one elses quote shows a shallow grasp of the issues. Did you live and work through the Reagun years? If RR bankrupted the USSR why were US economists going over for years before and later advising the commies on how to ease their economy into a pseudo-freemarket, pseudo-capitalist economy? How do I know this is true? I know an economist who was part of that team. The commies knew that they weren't going to survive long before RR came to the White House.
Here is an editorial letter written last Friday.
******
As Ronald Reagan is laid to rest today, the American political establishment and world leaders gather for a national spectacle in DC, and eulogies ring out like the droning of cathedral bells, it is crucial to this moment in history that we not whitewash the legacy of the 40th president.
Reagan's trademark was his sunny optimism and his inability to comprehend much below the surface of the scripted lines he uttered to create a new story for America. The president who ushered in the "Brave New World" of 1984 with unprecedented doublespeak, made conservatism respectable but remade America in the image of the wild west cowboy whose self-interest trumped our traditional commitment to the common good and common decency.
While Reagan's policies were not as ideologically consistent as his rhetoric, he planted the seeds of national disgrace and national disaster that are now being harvested by his successor, George W. Bush.
Reagan came to power with the "October surprise", a secret CIA deal with the Iranian theocracy to withhold the release of American hostages until after the election.
Reagan then turned around the New Deal and the Great Society and turned America's back on the poor, on minorities, on the environment. The word "homelessness" entered the lexicon under his watch and the great divide between the rich and the poor began a stunning expansion.
His laissez faire approach to the values of the "free market" led to the corporate scandals that threaten to engulf us today. And his undermining of the Constitution and the will of Congress in waging an illegal war against Nicaragua set the stage for the Bush administration to ignore the will of the international community, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions to wage a war without end against a formless enemy and, in so doing, undermine America's moral position and traditional alliances in the world.
It took an actor-president to convince middle America that ruthless counter-revolutionaries and death squads and the murderers of American nuns in Central America (some of which were trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia) were "freedom fighters". And that allowed his ideological heir, George W. Bush, to repeat the words "fighting for freedom" like an obscene mantra as we wage pre-emptive wars of occupation which offer exorbitantly high rates of return to the current president's financial backers.
Former president Reagan presided over the "me decade", which saw record numbers of his administration become convicted felons, by making Americans feel good about being the biggest and the baddest. His true legacy lies in the extreme rightward drift of American politics, with its divide and conquer approach, which puts profit and power above human rights and human decency, and which turns the American drama into a tragedy of unprecedented proportions.
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
Starky,
Thanks for spending your life defending America's freedoms. You don't say so, but is that 22 years in the military?
It seems that unless someone has served in the military they don't have any business speaking out against things that they feel are wrong. That line of thought swings towards a totalitarian society.
So, does this mean that I have a debt to you for your choices? I paid my taxes and did my part to run a successful company to keep people employed and the economy strong. Isn't that a part of the American responsibility too. Different choices.
To blame congress for spending money and then giving all of the credit to Reagun for whatever you choose is contradictory. RR was in office, he was the leader. He takes the credit and the blame. At least that's how I run my company. If something goes wrong, I take the credit, when things go right, I share the credit with everyone.
There is no way that I'm going to go into Ollie North's doings. He got off on a legal technicality. Go study.
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
If you're going to go on and on about spelling, oh...by the way, I typed what I want, no mis-spellings or mistakes, go look at the title of the thread. It's spelled mourning. Morning is the time between dawn and noon roughly.
How would you know if I'm a treehugger? For all you know, I might be a major stock holder in Maxim or Boise-Cascade. Maybe a geneolgist. Maybe I own a Christmas tree farm. Lots of tree things in the world besides tree huggers. Truth be told, I'm an arborist. Go look it up.
Here's a question for you, well, actually two...
Who said this?
Which political party was he from?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
I'll make it a little easier, it wasn't Shrub, [that's what a little Bush is called in Texas] there are too many multi-syllable words in the sentence.
Here's a few more words to ponder. These by Richard Aldington, "Patritotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility." I'll leave you with some of the most profound words, from the great American wordsmith, John Prine, "Your flag decal won't get you into heaven any more, it's already overcrowded from your dirty little war."
See you in a few days.
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
Whew...I figured any responses would be very partisan. Too bad there can't be an open dialog. So, just because I don't agree with conservative thought, I'm emotional? Rubbish! It's easy to sit there and pound the keys and blow off an opposing thought without engaging in any dialog.
The quote that I included, guess who wrote that? There was this fella who lived a few years ago, believe it or not, a Republican. Theodore Roosevelt...
RR was a great actor, at least when he was in politics, not so on the screen. I have a painful memory of him from one episode of Death Valley Days. If you look at a tick list of what happened during his watch in the White House, you might not have the same opinion. But, compared to what we have in the White House now, I will agree, RR is a pretty good president.
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
In case it isn't obvious, I'm Liberal and proud of that. Contrary to your broad-brush generality, I love the US. I'm proud to be part of this country that has such promise to share its strengths. The worst strength though is it's military might. I'm not a pacifist either. The US could win more friends by being friendly instead of the bullying that has gone on for too long. Leave the partisanship go. You and I aren't enemies, we see the same thing but have different solutions. Truth be told, we're probably not that far apart on a lot of things.
YOur last post is very tempting. The two-year-old inside me almost got control of the keyboard and started to pick a fight by poking you in the eye. Fortunately, I put the tike to bed.
America, Love it or Change it-
*Gary McDonald
Posted by: tomthetreeguy
{John O posted before I was done typing, he has made some good points. The US had an impact but wasn't a solo player. ]
Until someone comes along with a better way of looking back at the place that the US held in WW II,
Glenlivet has my vote for giving the best synopsis of the US's place. I haven't read a lot about the details of the history but all that I've read shows that Glen Levit is pretty close to right, meaning correct, not the political persuasion.
I follow another forum that has many professional and amateur historians. There have been many small discussions about the role of various powers in different points in history. They play an interesting game of conjecture where someone will propose an alternate history. Something like the possibility of an American fighter squadron or destroyer bumping into the Japanese navy prior to Pearl Harbor. What would be different? Would the US Navy been able to react fast enough to get battleship row cleared and ready for a fight, did we have enough air power to put up enough of a fight to have changed the course, what if Hitler didn't declare war on the US when he did, on and on. Pretty interesting to sit on the sidelines and read the responses from people who are well read and well educated in history play that game. In the discussions about Europe, the US played a part but was surely not the 800 pound gorilla that some of you want to believe.
Can anyone write a counterpoint to Glenlivet's points?
Tom
Posted by: dirthead
Tomthetreeguy....oh, never mind......jumping into a debate about politics with someone like you is largely a waste of time, so much of your ideology and political beliefs are controlled by your emotional thought rather then rational thinking and common sense, not to say that republicans or conservatist have all the answers but they are at least headed in the right direction. Nothing I, or anyone else, say will convince you to open your thinking and to re-examine your views or beliefs.....and yes I do read from the opposite political spectrum from myself.
CaptQuint- Its always fun to read your rebuttals, your a very articulate writer.
Posted by: dirthead
Glenlivet- Whats the deal man, do you really think that WWII would have had the same outcome if the US had not been in the war? If the US had not been apart of the Allieds then the people of the UK would probably be speaking german now, England and the other allieds did not have the resources or the manpower to go it alone without the US....they would have LOST without the United States, and yes the United States did win the war in the SouthPacific....two nukes dropped and thats all the Japeness needed to convince them that it was over for them, and who dropped those bombs....hmm, was it Canada or the UK....NO, you know the answer.
Yes it may have been a "team" effort to win WWII, but may no mistake...the United States was the captain of that team, and without that teams captain the team would have lost. The US was the MVP of WWII, sorry to bust your bubble.
Posted by: dirthead
You still did not answer my question, What do you think the outcome would have been if the United States had not been involved in WWII?
Also, I dont know your political ideology, maybe its conservative.....maybe its liberal....I dont know, but whenever I hear liberals speak of a person being patriotic, or showing patrioism, they try and make it sound like a bad thing. Being a patriot is not a bad thing, but being close minded to other cultures and societies is......lets not confuse the two. There is a big difference between having blind nationalism and following a sociopathic leader (Nazi party, Hitler) and being a patriot who loves their country, make no mistake I am a patriot.
Posted by: dirthead
Glenlivet- Your last post was interesting and informative, but my contention was never that other Allied countries did not suffer and sacirfice, or that they were not vital to the Allied victory. It is that the US involvment was required for that victory. England would have eventually fallen (not to say it would have been easy for the germans), that would mainly leave the Russians for Germany to deal with. The Russians had the numbers, but they did not have the resources to last a war that could have lasted much longer without US involvment. Also, as Im sure your aware of, germany had an aggresive program in jet/rocket propulsion that was just starting to yield good results for them in 1944/45. There was also the German counterfieting (sp?) of British $Pounds that if not stopped near the end of the war could have wrecked the wartime British economy.
Let me just say again, Im not trying to belittle other countries involvment in WWII, its just that the US was the MVP for the Allieds.
This has been a very interesting post, both for debating and learning.
Posted by: JohnO
I voted for him - Jimmy was a nice guy, but he disgraced this country in front of the whole world. Reagan brought pride back to the nation. Can you imagine what would have happened if Ronnie had been in office when the Iranians took the hostages? They'd still be digging the shrapnel out of their guts over there...
He was a decent enough fellow. Gave a good speech. I think much of the fondness being expressed right now is as much for the age as the man - looking back on the 80's now, they seem like such a simpler time. I sure had a good time in the 80's - partied my tail off.
Posted by: JohnO
Would WW2 have been won without America? I'd say very unlikely. We literally won the European war based on better and more plentiful war supplies. The US could produce more war material, and transfer it in a more organized fashion than anyone. Patton's dash across France was exciting, but it was the Red Ball Express that made it possible. The US supplied the bulk of warships that won the Battle of the Atlantic - and supplied two key weapons systems that did the U boats in - the VLR Liberator aircraft, and the jeep carrier. In addition, NCR manufactured the early mechanical computers used to break the Enigma code, a large part of winning in the Atlantic. The Polish secret service cracked the Enigma code, the US did it on a huge scale. If the submarine offensive had not been defeated, the UK would probably have had to sue for peace in mid 1942. In the absence of Lend-Lease, they might have tossed in the towel even sooner. Could Germany have defeated the USSR without the UK and US in the fight? Quite possibly - they were fairly close to doing just that in '42. Could the war have been won without US troops? Except for the early N Africa action, US and British troops fought together in every major campaign, so that is a question that simply cannot be answered.
Even before 1941, US technology and troops were in action. When the Bismark had sunk the Hood, and was escaping into the North Atlantic, it was a PBY patrol aircraft with British markings but operated by a US Navy crew that found it. And how did they know to look there? Because the Bismark had been spotted a few hours earlier by a 'neutral' US Coast Guard cutter, who clandestinely radioed the contact in blatant disregard of the rules of neutrality. Now, what was a Coast Guard cutter doing, cruising east of Iceland? Looking for the Bismark, in an even greater disregard of neutrality.
I prefer to think of that war as a team effort. If you start singling out one player or another, you dishonor a great deal of bravery and sacrifice. And that discussion disregards the contributions of the Russians, who took horrendous casualties.
I do question the European line of thought that we in the US should come running every time they start quarrelling with each other. WW2 could have been avoided entirely, had the UK and France acted more decisively in the mid to late 1930's, when Hitler started flaunting his abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, then the remilitarization of the Rhine, then the occupation of Austria and the Czech republic. The start of that war was entirely the responsibility of the European nations, and their much vaunted diplomatic skills failed, leading to death on an unimaginable scale, and the almost complete extermination of European Jews. One can even trace the rise of fanaticism in Germany to France and the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. The Marshall Plan, authored in the US, insured that this did not happen again. The US did not singlehandedly win that war, but it was not obligated to clean up a mess made by Chamberlain and Dadalier. They could have stopped it. And they didn't.
As for Reagan and the Cold War - he beat them. And he did it the capitalist way - he outspent them. They were right, come time to hang us, we'd sell them the rope. But they couldn't afford it. The military buildup, Star Wars, all were designed with one purpose in mind - to bankrupt the USSR. At that, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Whether or not what followed is better than the cold war remains to be seen.
Posted by: JohnO
Gotta respond again - to say that Britain, France, and the USSR had depleted German wartime capacity by 1943 flies in the face of production figures. They were, in fact, rising, and peaked in late 1944. France was actually contributing to the German effort at that time, not taking away from it. And, yes, the western front did tie up a lot of troops that could have pushed the balance on the eastern front, not to mention the 500,000 or so in Italy. Enough to stop the Russians? That will never be known.
None of the principles regarding the US jumping in at the last minute and knocking Germany out hold true. After 1943, the Germans were fighting like fiends. The supposedly beaten German army after Kursk still held the vastly larger USSR armies up for another two years, invoking a few million casualties in the process. I read a book written by a French pilot in the RAF - called The Big Show. The author (Pierre Clostermann) ended up leading a flight of Hawker Tempests, and they lost a lot of pilots in early 1945, eight out of twelve in one attack. The Germans had not stopped fighting, even then. Much of the German mobility on the eastern front was lost, because the US Army Air Force had systematically destroyed the German's fuel refining capability, cutting off supplies of gasoline. No air support (which was quite effective in stopping tanks - Rudel was reported to have destroyed hundreds of Russian tanks with his cannon armed Stuka), no high mobility for their armor. The thousands of tanks the Russians built were aided in no small part by machine tools and production technology supplied by the US. It's no miracle that the USSR under a paranoid Stalin was able to get production going so quickly, they were guided by the masters of rapid production.
The only true conclusion that can be reached is that a team of nations defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy. And that people were dying right up until the end.
Posted by: Bing
morning of day
Posted by: Starky
I remember when I was in high school and turned 18, the first election I voted on was when Reagan was running the first time. I voted for the Democrat, whoever that was, because I thought Reagan was going to get us in world war 3. Now looking back, he's the best president I have seen in my lifetime. Some may not agree and that's ok, but when the president is your boss you pay more attention to his decisions because they directly affect your life.
I just wanted to say I think he was a good president and a good guy.
Posted by: Starky
Sorry you reminded me. At least Billy kept us entertained. Anyone ever try Billy Beer. Talk about pi$$ water
Posted by: Starky
Capt. Quint,
Thanks. I think you very elequintly put into words what most of us would like to say to the tree hugger. It's a shame I have spent the last 22 years of my life defending his right to spread his bull $hit but that's what makes America great.
Posted by: Starky
Yes, I've spent 22 years in the military and No, you don't owe me anything. As far as paying your taxes goes, that's the law not your choice. Being in the military was my choice. I'm sure if you had a choice to pay taxes or not, you would probably choose not to just like you chose not to be in the military.
It's good to know that somebody has privlidge to all the information that it takes for a president of the united states to come to a conclusion and make a decision. Or maybe you thought that he just lays in bed at night and thinks, "I think I'll attack a country tomorrow."
Anyone who has the guts to be president of a country like ours where everyone (except us in the military) has the right to bad mouth and riticule them for the decisions they make, gets my support. If I don't like the job they're doing then I vote for someone else next election. Maybe you would rather live in Iraq. Of course you would already be dead for what you've written in this forum, oh, wait a minute. We went over and kicked their ass and now they can bad mouth their president too. I guess you'll fit right in in Iraq.
Posted by: twentycharacters
CaptainQuint- One of the most intelligent argument rebuttles I have ever seen on here. good job and I agree. R-E-A-G-A-N was one of the best presidents we ever had.
As far as Carter goes, yeah, what did he do again besides give away the Panama Canal (we legally bought it from france and finished it- he argued that it wasnt ours. bullcrap)and lay down in the face of adversity both at home and abroad? Im sorry but I dont really think he did anything well as president. If he would have gotten 4 more years, we would all be speaking Russian right now, and standing in line for 6-7 hrs a day just for a peice of bread, or we would be history.
Posted by: twentycharacters
To my knowledge, at least Reagan was bold enough to make the public declaration of wanting the wall to be torn down. No president in 40+ years prior to him even dared to utter those words suggesting its demise. How can he not get the credit when he appealed to the leader to make that happen?
The wall actually fell under George Bush's watch, but he and everyone else knows it would not have happened without Reagan proclaiming it and issuing the challenge.
Posted by: kawasaskirules
yea my dad said he was proud to serve in the army when he was president
Posted by: CaptainQuint
Quote
Originally posted by: Diesel3247
only being 25 i had no idea what president reagan did for the country and the world.
He did a lot for you.
You are living in a world where you don't have to worry about being incinerated by tens of thousands of nuclear weapons wielded by the most evil and murderous empire in history -The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You also won't have to be drafted to fight yet another war in Europe this time with the Soviet Union. You also won't have to fight communist regimes on our southern border either. If you would have to fight today you would do so with the best military and weapons on the planet which is something else to thank former President Reagan for.
He came along at an extremely critical time for our country. The country was in horrible shape economically and it was truly in a Carter caused malaise. We were also in desperate shape militarily. I had family in the military at the time and things were bad - unbelievably bad. Liberty and Freedom were in full retreat across the globe and the plague of communism seemed unstoppable. We were considered an impotent and fading power on the world stage and indeed we were. A very very dangerous time for the US and the world. Reagan came along at just the right time. The right man, the right policies, the right ideology at the right time in history.
A minor misstep or two along the way (beirut) but future non-politicized history will likely judge him as the best president of the 20th century.
Posted by: CaptainQuint
I wasn't going to but I have to.
Tomthetreeguy, with all due respect you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Let an illegal gun runner setup shop in the White House.
What and whom are you talking about? cite?
Poked his nose into the democratically elected operations of governments in Central America. Supported and trained Death Squads.
The communist regimes were far more brutal than any of these mythical death squads that that were supposedly killing innocents all over central America. Fighting proxy wars as the USSR and the US were doing in the Cold War is nasty business. In the end, the Soviets, Cubans and their Communist allies were kept from establishing a beachhead in Central America and which in turn kept the US from facing a communist army and communist missiles on the southern border. One more defeat of Communism which hastened its death and kept us safer.
Ran up the federal deficit.
Congress ran up the deficit. Congress increased spending which despite the massive increase in tax revenue being generated by Reagan's economic policies (tax cut, cut regulations etc) ran up a deficit. The actual economic impact of said deficit is actually debatable but that is getting into economic theory which would put everyone to sleep.
Oh, and didn't he create a war in Granada? That was sure an important action.
Yes it was. It kept the Cubans and Soviets out of there and denied them access to another Caribbean airfield. It also eliminated another Communist regime in the Western hemisphere. It also sent the message that the US wouldn't hesitate to take on the Soviets when they tried to create another Cuba at our back door.
When the rescue mission went into Iran, Jimmy Carter stood up and took responsibility since he was Commander in Chief.
Jimmy Carter. It was his impotent policies that allowed the radical Islamist Iranians to come to power in the first place. Then he sat around for hundreds of days vacillating while we were humiliated daily and when he did decide to take action he screwed the pooch. Iran was symptomatic of the larger problem of Carter foreign policy and ideology in general. Not to bash Carter completely. He did make a couple a good changes in the US Nuclear C3I structure. Over all though you have to look pretty hard to find any sort of success in the Carter presidency. Back to the Iranian situation. Notice how the Iranians freed them as soon as Reagan came to office? They were scared sh*tless of him and rightly so. Oh I forgot. In the leftist fantasy world the CIA sent George Bush to Iran in the back seat of an SR-71 to negotiate with the ayatollah Khomeini to hold off on the release until Reagan took office. *sigh*
Don't dodge around and lay blame on the mechanics that didn't seal up the bearings on the choppers.
The problem went far beyond a simple mechanical error. That mission was doomed before it even lifted off for a myriad of reasons.
Oh, did you realize that all Federal empoyees got to have a paid day off last Friday?
Yeah I think everyone was pretty aware of that but thanks for getting us all up to speed.
Sure made for a nice three day weekend. How much did that cost? Sure doesn't fit with the image of Reagan being a fiscally responsible prez. What meaning does a day of mourning have it it makes for a three day weekend.
Good lord. Are you that petty? It was the death of a President and a state funeral. Sorry if it interfered with your schedule. Good freaking grief. Let it go.
I don't remember a three day weekend for Nixon.
At the request of Nixon himself as I understand it. Can you imagine the squealing and pissing that would have taken place in the media/left if Nixon had been given a state funeral?
If RR bankrupted the USSR why were US economists going over for years before and later advising the commies on how to ease their economy into a pseudo-freemarket, pseudo-capitalist economy?
There were plenty of communist sympathizers running over to the USSR during the Cold War to help all they could to keep the workers paradise afloat. It helped them bolster their arguments that the US should adopt similar policies. Some people call them collaborators or traitors. Either would do....
snipped the tedious leftist BS editorial
Where did you dig up that editorial? The latest issue of the Interantional Socialist Worker newspaper? The It is so full of outright lies and horsesh*t it must have come right out of some left wing communist/socialist/leftist rag. If not, it had to be written by someone of the same political stripe - Rall, Hitchens, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Chomsky, Mao etc. Typical communist/socialist/leftist propaganda filled with the usual worn out BS and lies wrapped in smug superiority and general hate for America and American values. They could at least try to be original once in a while.
Yeah...Reagun was great.
Well that is one thing you said that I agree with. But you misspelled Reagan. It is R-E-A-G-A-N
Posted by: CaptainQuint
To blame congress for spending money and then giving all of the credit to Reagun for whatever you choose is contradictory. RR was in office, he was the leader. He takes the credit and the blame.
Not contradictory. Facts are facts. Congress controls the purse strings especially so on the spending side. That is just a constitutional fact of life. Congress agreed to cut spending but they simply didn't. Actually if congress would just simply hold spending instead of increasing it every year there would be no deficit in a few years. The main cause of deficits is the monstrous size of the federal government, the equally monstrous number of federal employees and the likewise monstrous amount of waste. Frankly if congress were held to the same standards they hold "greedy corporations®" the whole legislative branch for the past few dozen decade would be in jail.
There is no way that I'm going to go into Ollie North's doings. He got off on a legal technicality. Go study.
Good lord Oliver North. That was the big gun runner bombshell you had. lol.
Posted by: CaptainQuint
Anyone who uses the following as sources to back up their assertions lacks any sort of credibility and shows that they have a very tenuous grasp on reality outside their own twisted little vision of the world:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0213/black.php
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
http://www.bush-zombiereagan.com/street/20040614095759.html
The last link being especially vile. It is stunningly obvious that the poster of the above links is a raving loon and the final link confirms it.
Also anytime a person uses the term "jingoism" your radar should go up. It is usually someone with a deep seated hostility or downright hatred for the US. Socialist/globalist types for the most part. Of course they want to make you ashamed to be proud of your country-THEY HATE IT. A hatred seated in envy or one seated in a polar opposite ideology but the hatred is there nonetheless. They see the US as the oppressor in the world. The bully. The focus of tyranny and evil doing the bidding of their corporate masters.
From a policy standpoint, if these types start squealing and pissing about something you are on the right track. Keep doing what you are doing and do more of it.
Posted by: CaptainQuint
Raptormatic hit it dead on Raptornext. Having suffered through public education system not too terribly ago and having a fair amount of contact with their curricula now I would say definitely expand your reading beyond the textbook. Most modern textbooks are wildly biased and plain inaccurate in many cases. This even more important when or if you go to college.
Read everything you can get your hands on and examine it critically. Look into the authors background and motivations. If you do see the inaccuracies or don't agree with what is in your school text book in my experience it does absolutely no good to confront your teacher about it or expose classroom bias. Just smile and give the answers they want to hear. Just continue to educate yourself and search for the truth. There is a great deal of good information out there if you know where to look. In the 8th grade I would say a very good place to start is The Federalist Papers. I read it first back when I was in 5th grade and it definitely started the changes my thinking about what I was being taught by the state run indoctrination center. Research into the US revolution, its founding documents and the men that authored them is a great place to start. The American Republic Primary Sources is a good one. James Madison and the Future of Limited Government, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The writings of Madison, Jefferson, Paine and the other founders.
As dry and daunting as it might seem at first start reading the classics too. The ancient greek and roman literature, Shakespeare, Locke, Machiavelli, the list seems endless. Many of these books are usually in a dusty corner of the library but some have become available on line.
Above all, read read read read read read read and learn to think critically.
Posted by: TRV
Interesting points of view from a generally conservative ATV bulletin board crowd! I will state my opinion on a few subjects posted here:
1. RR was a great President compared to any of the Democrats from Johnson on. He let us hold up our heads again and started bringing the economy back around. Remember 16% interest rates? I do, and as a career banker hope they never come back around. He was a great Patriotic leader at a time when America needed to feel good about itself again.
2. Anyone who thinks the US was not the main player whose military might was essential for an Allied victory is just lacking common sense and a real knowledge of history. The idea of war is to defeat your enemy, not take casualties!
3. Liberals are the enemy who want to take away YOUR rights, especially 2nd amendment rights. Time and time again they prove that the rules don't apply to them only to you while they say they are for the common man. Don't believe it for a minute, virtually all politicians are out for themselves!
Vented! Whew!
Posted by: TRV
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/index.html
This is for the folks who don't believe the US involvement in WWII was key to Allied victory. This was a war of logistics and both Stalin and Churchill have been quoted that without Lend-Lease and US involvement that the Germans could have won. Wars are not fought without machines and materials and the ability to position these assets at the correct time and place. The US war production was overwhelmingly superior to all others, becoming over 60% of the Allies total by the end of the war. It's good to have National pride, all life is precious, but some folks on this posting aren't looking at the big picture of how WWII was really won. For you doubters, go to the above link and enjoy the reading then come back a little more enlightened. Maybee after this discussion we can talk about Economic Indicators and their impact on interest rates and Markets around the world. That one should be real lively!
Posted by: JayRRT
tomthetreeguy;
It is said that to be conservative before you are 20, (like I was) means that you have no heart. (I can live with that) And to still be liberal after you are 30, means you have no brain.
Posted by: JayRRT
TreeHugger;
wow, you must be one of those two or three hundred people who voted against him. Thank God there aren't more folks like you. four more years of whimpering Jimmy would have been hard to live through.
Posted by: Just4Kicks
WOW!!! I am so glad I came across this thread! This has got to be some of the best reading I have done in a while. I will not get involved other than to say "please keep it coming, I don't want it to end." I could sit around a camp fire for hours with you guys....I'd even supply the beer.
Posted by: Glenlivet
No need to compare Bush and Reagan. You can have both!
http://www.bush-zombiereagan.com/street/20040614095759.html
I am always amused at those who wish to heap honours on a leader by crediting him/her with positive things that happened during their tenure and absolving/ignoring the bad. They say Jefferson doubled the size of the U.S. with the Louisiana purchase but he just happened to be they guy in the chair when France was hard up for war cash and offered the enormous area for sale. It wasn't some feat of statesmanship on Jeff's part, he just took the offer and collected the credit. Similarly Reagan gets credit for the breakup of the former Soviet Union, as though he strode through the Kremlin brandishing a broadsword and personally hacked the Evil Empire to bits. No boys, he was in the chair when it happened. And whether or not the Iran hostage situation was delayed to make Reagan shine in the eyes of gullible people, who imagine that Islamics were suddenly and uniquely (as recent events denote) afraid of a doddering old man and thus hastened to release the hostages immediately just on hearing news of his election (give me a friggin break!), at least Carter worked right up through the eve of the election day securing their release. (Though Ron took the bows)
Carter in his turn was foolishly naive to give away the canal that was bought with enormous suffering and moolah by U.S. industry and effort, and was/is of such strategic and practical importance.
If he was in a giving back mood, why not just give Hawaii back to the heredetary kings? At least that place was siezed by military force and is less a justifiable U.S. posession than the Panama canal. BR>I yearn for the days of old, where at least you got to see Gerry Ford do a lipstand out of Airforce One now and again to releave the monotony. Or Johnson hold his yelping dog up by the ears. ('He likes it')
<sigh>
Posted by: Glenlivet
Quote
Originally posted by: oldturtle
Strange isn't it how anyone can say Reagan deserves no credit for ending Cold War and Jefferson deserves no credit for Louisiana Purchase. And yet many of same people will try and convince us that Clinton deserves all the credit for the good economy from 1992-2000. Where is the honesty? Are they also going to say Lincoln gets no credit for winning Civil War and FD Roosevelt gets no credit for winning World War 2?
I (for one) won't make such a claim for Clinton.
The North won the U.S. Civil War due more to a preponderace of military, and more exactly industrial capacity than by any military brilliance from either Lincoln or his general staff. This is not to cast aspersion on the great President by any means, he who first supported the construction of the 'impossible' railroad to cross the continent and who gave us the stirring Gettysburg Address and black emancipation, among other accomplishments.
And no, FDR did not win the Second World War. He did a fine job of countering the Great Depression with his New Deal alright.
Many in the U.S. never seem to have noticed the word 'World' in the name WW2 nor understand the meaning. That conflict involved many many nations and the loss of many MILLIONS of service personnel and civilians (IE: 20 million for Russia, +11 million for China, 5 million Germans etc.) over a period of six years. The U.S. was involved during three of those years and suffered the loss of in the neighbourhood of something around three hundred thousand casualties. Nothing to sniff at by any means and the contributions of the United States to the Allied effort were great and greatly appreciated, but despite what some overly patriotic schoolbooks might suggest, the U.S. did not 'win' the war, let alone did FDR do it.
D-day had five beaches, not the two your history books and the Time magazine I once subscribed to say. The U.S. had two beaches, two were British, and one was Canadian. It was a team effort that you guys came into late and fresh, after Pearl Harbour was attacked.
Thanks a ton for helping but don't take credit for everything.
Posted by: Glenlivet
I admire your patriotic zeal, friend but you're a victim of rampant jingoism. Yes I know about the bombs. Shall I list the nationalities of the scientists? Niels Bohr, Teller, Albert Einstein, J.R. Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Emilio Segri? Good old American names, you say? It was an International effort all the way through.
Get it through your head The U.S. didn't go in there and 'win the war' no matter how loudly you hawk it or how many badly written school books you can quote. Your fathers helped a great deal and I won't dare insult the contribution by suggesting it was other than very timely and welcome assistance. But you can't really insult the rest of the allied forces by claiming that after sitting on your asses throughout half the fighting and killing that the U.S. won it all? You might as well have waited until Buster Douglas dropped Mike Tyson and rushed into the ring and booted the downed Tyson in the head a couple of times and claim you won that fight too. Get a grip.
I seriously doubt the veterans of the United States armed forces that fought and died or suffered wounds or watched friends die in Europe alongside those of all the other countries' combatants would be proud that their descendants should claim that the U.S. get all the credit for winning the war.
You've been reading too many Sgt. Rock comics.
There's a bubble alright but it is around those who cannot see past their own border.
My hat is off to the U.S. services veterans of that conflict and those of their number who did not return.
Posted by: Glenlivet
<You still did not answer my question, What do you think the outcome would have been if the United States had not been involved in WWII?>
Sorry, I didn't perceive that you wanted a reply to that specific question. Here it is.
At the start we must acknowledge that the U.S. had an effect on hostilities before it's active entry into the war effort. There was the selling of ordinance and materiel to England, including selling them 50 old four stacker destroyers that had been in mothballs since the first world war, at that time still called the 'Great War'. There was pretty much constant commerce of this type and we must presume that had the states not entered hostilities in Europe that this would have continued. Not that this was all one sided trade with the allies! IBM supplied pre-computer punch card enumerator technology and machinery to Germany which they used in tabulating and tracking the Jewish populations. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0213/black.php
As well, Ford and GM operated plants that produced military vehicles in Germany before the war and converted to strictly war production during the fighting. "The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks.... On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
In fact following VE day, Ford and GM applied for and received from the U.S. government an award for damages sustained to their axis plants as a result of the Allied bombing! Makes you proud to be a taxpayer, doesn't it?
Anyway the states would have been happy to remain a shopkeeper to the fighters, had it not been drawn actively into the fighting. (as we see, some of the 'shops' kept on profiting from both sides anyway)
The United States provided an equal measure of heavy bombers over Germany from England as did Great Britain itself. As many B17's and Liberators as there were lancasters and Wellingtons. later statisticians however have come to the conclusion that this great and expensive effort didn't contribute as much to the promotion of war so as to defeat the enemy, as they thought at the time. The great many civilian casualties amounted more to a wartime atrocity than did they contribute to crippling Germany's ability to wage war. It did not 'break the spirit' of the German people any more than the bombing of London broke the spirit of the British. Why did they think it would? Even the precision bombing raids such as the Schweinfurt ball bearing factory, a very costly raid in terms of lost aircraft and crews, had a negligable effect on German war production. The Germans simply used plain bearings. The Ruhr dams were breached, yes. Two of the three. The third one kept on producing electricity. The bombing and destruction of Hamburgh, Berlin, Dresden, all happened very late in the picture to an already defeated nation and just killed hoards of innocents. If there were only Britain's bombers and not the U.S. 8th over there at all it would have had virtually no real effect on the war's outcome.
It was Churchill that promoted the concept of attacking Europes 'soft underbelly' and the ruinously costly fighting in Italy. It was completely unnecessary as Italy had capitulated and the Nazi's fought a wicked rearguard action all the way up the boot. Why attack there? Italy has alps at the European connection and some well placed bombing raids knocking out the rail and road links would have left an uncooperative Italy full of helpless Germans. Instead General Mark Clark engaged in a ruinously costly campaign in the effort to be remembered in history as a great general. He is remembered as the incompetant who bombed the Monte Cassino Benedictine abbey to rubble, prolonging the Liri valley engagement by several weeks.
So the U.S. vast war production would have in large measure been available and utilised to a goodly percentage even if it were not American soldiers using it. The convoys of war goods were in full swing on the Atlantic long before December 1941 after all. So if most of the tanks and guns and planes would have kept going that way anyway, we are left to consider military personnel and the intangibles.
If we count casualties, the U.S. lost 300,000, perhaps half of these in the European theatre. The losses of the 2nd World War in that place were on the order of 35,000,000. So the American losses were about .0042% of the total. Four tenths of one percent.
Each and every life was precious and important, of course, but as a proportion and in relative importance in the outcome of what was going on over there... I don't know how much more I can say. Would it all have doubtless come out differently but for the U.S.' participation?
As far as conjecturing what would have been the outcome had the U.S. not been involved in the Pacific, that's just not arguable. It was the States that were declared war upon, so there was no way you weren't going to be a part of it! Unless perhaps Rooseveldt had told Japan, " Hey, that wasn't very nice to bomb that harbour and those battleships, but we're going to let it go THIS TIME." Not likely. There wasn't any opting out of that one. We pitched in to help over there too. Think nothing of it, we'd do it for a pal anytime.
For that matter, it was Hitler who declared war on the United States on Dec. 11 1941, four days after Pearl Harbour, that's why you guys went to Europe anyway.
I'm not trying to belittle the accomplishments of the U.S. during the second world war. You have a military history to be proud of. I salute it. What you also seem to have though is an education system that promotes the idea that the United States just marched on in and slapped everybody into shape and won the war for the world and for peace and democracy and on and on. Good Lord
It is always the case that those who modify history for whatever motivation, be it misguided patriotism or avarice, do their readers a disservice. You have a grand military tradition and an honourable past. There is no need to fluff it up. I doubt those who gave the full measure of sacrifice would approve.
Posted by: Glenlivet
Quote
Originally posted by: CaptainQuint
Anyone who uses the following as sources to back up their assertions lacks any sort of credibility and shows that they have a very tenuous grasp on reality outside their own twisted little vision of the world:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0213/black.php
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
http://www.bush-zombiereagan.com/street/20040614095759.html
The last link being especially vile. It is stunningly obvious that the poster of the above links is a raving loon and the final link confirms it.
Also anytime a person uses the term "jingoism"... ... hatred for the US.... .
Well CaptainQuint, for a guy who advocates reading and aquiring knowledge from diverse sources in order to arrive at the best estimation of what really happened in history, you certainly are bitter about what such research can reveal!
What your vitriolic attack reveals to me though is that you have adopted the tack of trying to discredit the author rather than the words. In describing me as a U.S. hating loon with a twisted version of the world etc., you are not adding a thing to the discussion nor, as you obviously hold a differing view on the question at hand, do you advance that cause at all. You're just calling me names. Kind of puerile, don't you think?
One of the first things one learns about debating is to address the subject, not the speaker's person. You say, "I disagree with what you say because..." not "You are an idiot for saying that."
I think you are smarter than that and just let your emotions get away from you that time.
On the links I supplied, the ZombieReagan link is an example of black humour. I get a sardinic grin out of it based on its outrageous impropriety. That's why I shared it. I don't think any less of the man because of it. Black humour is not for everybody. If you don't like it, best not to look. I'll point out that the site is a .com and not a .ca, meaning it was put up by your fellow countrymen and not a Canadian.
The other sites are some that I found that illustrate the points I presented and are those first results I found with Metacrawler when I typed in a search with keywords from what I was saying, to illustrate that I'm not making things up. They aren't cherished favorites of mine, just the first results of those searches. It would have been silly and pompous of me to cut and paste a whole list of sites verifying my words now wouldn't it? Perhaps I ought to just supply the keywords from now on so that you can search with your own favorite search engine and you may thus choose which websites you find agreeable and worthy of 'credibility'.
In any case, regarding the debating process, here's how it works. The question originally asked by dirthead was whether the Second World War would have been won by the Allied side had the U.S. not been an active participant. My reply is above. When you find yourself in disagreement, you do some research (or trust that you have enough information to just comment from your knowledge) and you rebut my statements and/or raise logical arguement of your own. That's the democratic process. Or you can call me names. That's what kids do.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Posted by: Glenlivet
Quote
Originally posted by: dirthead
... my contention was never that other Allied countries did not suffer and sacirfice, or that they were not vital to the Allied victory. It is that the US involvment was required for that victory. England would have eventually fallen (not to say it would have been easy for the germans), that would mainly leave the Russians for Germany to deal with. The Russians had the numbers, but they did not have the resources to last a war that could have lasted much longer without US involvment. Also, as Im sure your aware of, germany had an aggresive program in jet/rocket propulsion that was just starting to yield good results for them in 1944/45. There was also the German counterfieting (sp?) of British $Pounds that if not stopped near the end of the war could have wrecked the wartime British economy.
Let me just say again, Im not trying to belittle other countries involvment in WWII, its just that the US was the MVP for the Allieds.
Now that's a rational rebuttal. No, I have no crystal ball to say with any certainty what would have happened had the isolationists had their way and America not fought, but I have to believe that the German defeat would still have occurred and that the Soviet Union would have had a much more dominant prescence in Europe at the conclusion. Here's why I think this:
The U.S. did not enter hostilities until the spring of 1942 following Hitler's declaration of war. For the sake of our speculation we must presume that the Pearl Harbour attack still happened but that Hitler did not declare war on the U.S. and that Rooseveldt (or rather his cabinet) did not engage in war in Europe.
The Battle of Britain had taken place in early 1941, before U.S. involvement. (pardon me, Packard geared up and built Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engines for use in Spitfires and Mosquitos) Britain had hung on by the skin of it's teeth and had so reduced the strength of the Luftwaffe that the invasion of Britain, operation Sea Lion, was put on hold indefinately. The Luftwaffe no longer had enough planes to protect invading forces until it could rebuild same. This never happened due to events in the East.
In the summer of 1941 the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union (after a diversion to Greece to bail Italy out of a pickle it had got itself into).
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/directive21.htm
Hitler failed to capture Moscow, owing to a late start thanks to Italy's screwups, and due to the onset of one of the coldest and most miserable Russian winters on record. Then Hitler had the brilliant idea to divert his forces including Von Paulus' Sixth army (The one that had been so effective in blitzkreig attacks in Poland) down to Stalingrad and take that city.
http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Stalingrad.htm
Von Paulus did manage to take Stalingrad's core but next year's winter trapped him in there and the entire sixth army, or what remained of it, was eventually captured. A great big part of Germanys war strength gonzo. Goering had promised Hitler that the Luftwaffe would supply the trapped army and and this was attempted, but only a 1/6th of the needed supplies got through. The cost to the Luftwaffe in losses was enormous. Then the Russians started to reclaim their lost ground.
The greatest tank battle in history was fought at Kursk. Around 2500 German Panzer IV's, Tigers and well over 3000 Russian T-34's and other heavy models blasted it out on the rolling hills of Ukraine. Germany lost., and with it lost a great measure of it's strength. No U.S. or any other Allied participation, remember. The Soviets under Rokossovsky, Vatutin and Zhukov pressed toward Berlin, slaughtering Germans along the way. The timetable of the Soviets' arrival in Berlin was not materially affected by events on the Western front. The U.S. did not supply Russia with it's guns and tanks, they made them themselves. The U.S. did supply some trucks under the lend-lease program through the Mermansk route (for which they never got paid) but in the numbers considered, that was moot.
Stalin pushed for an invasion and a continental Western front, but this was more to permit his forces to gain more ground against Germany for post-war occupation reasons than military necessity. Do you think that a dictator who had just purged most of his own General staff on paranoid delusions of revolt and had just starved millions of Ukraines cared about his losses on the battlefield? Ya think?
He wanted to control more of post-war Europe. While it is tempting to think that the U.S.' adding it's weight to allied combat in the west tied up German forces there that could have been applied to the eastern front and thus permitted Hitler to repulse the Russians, it just isn't so. Hitler was fighting a retreating action in Russia from the spring of 1943 steadily onwards and the Allied invasion of Europe wasn't to be until June 6 1944. The Russians were coming and that was that. At the end of hostilities Germany of course was depleted. Russia was not. Even had it taken longer, Russia was still manufacturing tanks, guns, everything needed to wage war in the capacity it always had. It also still had enormous populations to recruit. Hitler might just have subjugated the place had he used every advantage and taken Moscow in a timely fashion, but he didn't. From that time his fate was sealed. I'm no fan of the former Soviet Union. It was a hideous and inhuman regieme. But facts is facts.
So it didn't matter whether German soldiers occupied northern France, Belgium, Holland Norway et all (Or even England if they HAD further reduced their ability to wage war by going for that egg again) If Berlin were full of Russians and Hitler's head on a pike, those soldiers had better not be waiting for a paycheck from home.
While my earlier analogy to the U.S. 'victory' in Europe being like jumping into the ring in the 13th round and booting the fallen Mike Tyson in the head was a bit extreme, some of the principal holds. Germany's ability to wage war had been severely curtailed by the forces of france Britain, Canada, Australia, et al before 1942 and was severely cut back after that time in theaters the U.S. had no participation in.
You can't really jump in and help whack a weakened foe and then claim, "Ya couldn't have done it without me".
For Hitler's rockets and the like having more time to batter London and other British cities I must point out that just such devastation was done to German cities without it having a material effect on German ability to wage war. In any case even HAD Hitler taken England the German goose was cooked anyway.
As has been pointed out by Stephen Ambrose, the United States couldn't have afforded a Soviet Union with the vastly increased power and prescence that occupation of the greater part of Europe would have given it. Not only would valuable trading partners be lost but the recognized rival political presence would be so much stronger. (This was also the motivation for the postwar Marshall Plan which injected more than 13.3 billion American 1947 dollars into the rebuilding of ruined Europe. The populations of these devastated regions were ripe for the sweet promises of hawkers of communist propaganda and must be prevented from falling that way. No point waging war to prevent Soviet takeover by aggression only to see them get those countries by default)
I have no crystal ball of course and intangibles not forseen could have resulted in a different outcome. We have to look dispassionatly at the known facts and decide what is most likely based on them, not on emotion or prejudice.
I was pleased to hear at last another voice, CaptainQuint in his second post, mention the school history texts are written to pass the scrutiny of school authorities and thus they conform more to the desired idiology than to historical fact. Sadly these tracts along with movies of liberal license such as 'Pearl Harbor' and 'U-571' are the source of most peoples lore on WW2, and what the American part consisted of. (Americans didn't capture an Enigma machine, the Poles conscripted to build them sneaked one out to England and the British cracked it at Bletchley Park. Some Americans were on the team.)
Again I have no wish to underrate the U.S. contribution or role in the events of that conflict. Their very presence caused Italy to capitulate and sign an armistace on the eve of the landings at Salerno! They didn't want to fight ya! (Didn't much want to fight anyone. There are photos that show lines of literally hundreds and hundreds of grinning Italian infantry in the African desert walking into captivity guarded by a few British soldiers with rifles =)
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_12.htm
That campaign was international as well, with representitives from essentially every allied nation including Indian Gurkhas with their oddly curved knives!
As far as making a sports reference and naming an MVP for the war, that would either have to go to England, which stood alone against the German assault, bankrupting their world prominence, commonwealth and empire in the effort, (from which they have never and never shall recover) or to the Soviet Union, who applied such a massive amount of war materiel and manpower against German armed forces from the East that they streamrolled their way back to Germany and right to the capitol city by sheer weight of metal and men. (and women).
Things would have been different if it were not for the U.S. participation in Europe alright, but I doubt it would be that Germany would have won. I am in no way looking to take away any credit when I say you guys were great, but late. The handwriting was on the wall.
That's my opinion.
Posted by: Glenlivet
Quote
Originally posted by: TRV
Anyone who thinks the US was not the main player whose military might was essential for an Allied victory is just lacking common sense and a real knowledge of history.
! At that I am speechless.
Posted by: Glenlivet
Quote
Originally posted by: JohnO
The only true conclusion that can be reached is that a team of nations defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy. And that people were dying right up until the end.
That sums it up nicely. I have a good idea that if one were to ask the surviving veterans of the conflict, who were over there (and I have had long discussions with many in my career as paramedic) that's what one would hear.
Thank you.
Mike
Posted by: LimonFresco
The Democrat you voted for was Jimmy Carter. He has been called the best EX-president of all time.
Posted by: TreeDoc
Oh Tom, Tom, Tom............from one Arborist to another..........DUDE, you've got to turn that radio dial away from that liberal skank Gina Garafolo (sp) and Al Franken. Your mind has been polluted! Come away from the dark side my child, we'll take care of you!
Posted by: luny2nz
I'm one that thinks Reagan was a great man. It says alot about the dems- slamming him and him and his policies before he's cold.
I wish he could run again-he would have my vote. I think the republicans are the lesser of two evils. At least they have hints of integrety and character. Tomthetreehuggerguy-lol
Posted by: oldturtle
Strange isn't it how anyone can say Reagan deserves no credit for ending Cold War and Jefferson deserves no credit for Louisiana Purchase. And yet many of same people will try and convince us that Clinton deserves all the credit for the good economy from 1992-2000. Where is the honesty? Are they also going to say Lincoln gets no credit for winning Civil War and FD Roosevelt gets no credit for winning World War 2?
Posted by: Raptormatic
Glenlivet:
Very articulate writing as well as historically accurate and unbiased.
However, I must disagree with you on a previous post about Lincoln and his "greatness".
The Emancipation Proclimation was an unenforcable act that only freed slaves in the Southern States. A closer look at Lincoln will reveal that in his only trial concerning slavery as an Illinios lawyer he represented and won for the slave OWNER. In fact, the War for Southern Independence was never fought over slavery, but like most wars, over money. In 1860, the southern states were paying for 80-90% of the federal government's expenses through tarrifs on tobacco and cotton with dwindling influence in the legislature becuase of population density in the Northern states. Because of this, the Southern states decided to secceed (which they can according to the Constitution). However, the North could not afford to allow this as cheap goods would begin to enter Charleston and New Orleans and bankrupt the North.
As far as the "great railroad" goes, it was the beginnings of politics that we see in Iraq with Halliburton. Lincoln informed his rich political backers of the planned location of the railroad. The backers then bought (or stole) the land and sold it back to the federal government for a handsome profit without incurring any of the build costs. We see this in evidence in Iraq where we destroyed power grids and civilian infrastructure and then allow Halliburton to rebuild it at a handsome (and overcharged) profit through no-bid contracts. As we are well aware, the Iraqi military had their own generators and infrastructure and did not rely in the civilian one that we destroyed. It is no coincidence that Vice-President Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton and retired with a $13 million bonus package before he was Bush's running mate.
Like much of history, it is written by the victors and successes in time and is often skewed to that end. If you seek to further your information about Lincoln I suggest this link and author http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo68.html
Posted by: Raptormatic
RaptorNext:
The states that were to form the Confederacy did not secceed all at once, but over about 6 months time as things progressed. Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware were slave states but did not secceed. The Emanciptation Proclimation did not free slaves in these states. The Maryland state legislature was preparing to vote on seccession with the vote expected to be in favor of leaving the Union. Lincoln had the majority of the state legislators arrested to prevent this from happening.
If you are interested in this subject I suggest 2 books:
When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams and The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo
Your 8th grade history book contains a certain amount of political correctness or else it would not be purchased by the state. Unfortunately, this political correctness clouds or otherwise destroys a history that you should know and be proud of as a Southerner.
As I said in a previous post, history is written by the victors and is usually skewed or omitted to that end.
Posted by: Raptormatic
While not educated beyond common knowledge on WW II, I do feel that Glenlivet was mistaken on Lincoln as a great president.
My previous posts give some of the reasons why I disagree.
As far as WWII goes, I agree that it was a team effort with the US playing a key role. However, to begin to argue an MVP or to name one country as the sole reason the war was won or lost is a discussion without point. It is fine to examine the American, British, Canadian, and other Allied contributions and losses and make conclusions based on those facts.
It is generally accepted that Michael Jordan was the MVP for the Chicago Bulls. Could the Bulls have won a championship without Michael Jordan? Probably not. Could Michael Jordan have won a championship by himself? Certianly not.
Historians, in order to be so, must leave patriotism and passions at the door when examining a particular point or event in time. As such they must often times give the devil his due in order to properly record or examine events. Very seldom does this happen. As such we must read arguments from all sides, even if we disagree, in order to get a true and accurate picture of the past.
Posted by: RaptorNext
Raptormattic, I just finished 8th grade "Arkansas History" and that is about as far as my knowledge goes in this subject but, are you sure all of the Sourthern states decided to secceed? If i'm not mistaking there were a couple or more that didn't, correct? I could be mistaking so don't hold me to it.
Posted by: Diesel3247
only being 25 i had no idea what president reagan did for the country and the world. my brother (older) is a huge fan of president reagan and i never paid any attention to it. to look back and watch everything that has been on tv on the 40th president is easy to say the we are better as a nation because of what he has done.
don't mess with texas.
-W-
dan-o
god bless america
Posted by: Diesel3247
i agree....what i meant was i didn't realize the impact of his presidency until i was a able to read about them or see them during his rememberence. i like the guy. think he did a great job. our nation is better for having him and am greatfull to have learned more about his presidency knowing the great things he did not only for our country but the world.
