31
   

THE WAR IN GAZA

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 02:32 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
...My father who was then in the Congress voted against the Lend Lease program to help arm Britain, saying that "one war in this century to save the British Empire is more than enough".
I think that's a perfectly understandable position. But FDR saw it differently. Perhaps he thought the danger of doing nothing to stop Hitlerism the worse option. But its certainly true a huge number of Americans wanted nothing to do with another European war. Nevertheless FDR got his war with Nazism, and its always led me to suspect that he engineered it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 12:15 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Yes, I know that there are Irish that do not "love" the British. Then why do so many Irish live and work in Britain? Other than the Soviet Jews that went to Germany for a better life, we do not see many American Jews that live and work in Germany? For that 800 - 900 years of subjugation, does it not seem odd to then live and work in that country?????


Good question. It appears that, despite the long term and very serious political issues, neither the Irish nor the British are long-term haters. There were serious political issues that divided them and a long, often bloody conflict fought over it. However, there appears to have been an underlying mutual respect. For years Irish Catholics were taxed to support the protestant "Church of Ireland" which was run to some extent as a retirement system for British clerics of the established Church of England. Most of the churches in Ireland were originally built as Catholic, but were seized by Britain in its "establishment" Church of Ireland even though no more than 10% of the population suscribed to it. If you travel about the republic today you will find a somewhat neglected and decayed Church of Ireland church near the center of nearly every village and town - the Catholic churches are generally of more recent construction and on the periphery of the towns - the Republic made no systematic reprisals when it took over, and didn't take back what had been taken before. St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin is a Protestant Church of Ireland institution (as is Trinity College) - Johnathan Swift, a former rector, is buried there.

The Republic of Ireland and the UK enjoy generally warm and cordial relations, and , as you noted, there is lots of travel & mutual economic activity between them.

As we recently saw there is still some hatred and taste for violence among a few of the extremists in Northern Ireland. However their stupid and murderous actions were widely repudiated among all political groups in Northern Ireland.

In short, I think it is necessary to break the chain of oppression and reprisal in order to find peace. This, I believe, is a lesson that would benefit many Zionists.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 12:21 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

The Republic of Ireland and the UK enjoy generally warm and cordial relations, and , as you noted there is lots of travel & mutual economic activity between them.

In short, I think it is necessary to break the chain of oppression and reprisal in order to find peace. This, I believe, is a lesson that would benefit many Zionists.


You are only giving Zionists advice? The Palestineans would not benefit from this advice also?

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 12:25 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

You are only giving Zionists advice? The Palestineans would not benefit from this advice also?


You are correct - it should apply to both equally.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 12:36 pm
@georgeob1,
I've been to the Republic many times and always been made to feel welcome. Sometimes a bit too welcome. But I've never been to the North, which as you know is part of the UK.

You said, as we are all Europeans, that you couldn't tell a Brit from a Frenchman or a German these days. How much more ludicrous to discriminate for or against an Ulsterman from a Kerryman?.

Since the Good Friday Agreement of 1997, the amendment to the Republic's constitution regarding claim to the North, and the acceptance by the IRA of democratic means to effect change, thing have got a lot better. Except for just recently when the Real IRA and Continuity IRA (splinter groups which really should be consigned to the "dustbin of history"), have started a new round of violence. I would just like to know why?

And just so this is entirely relevant to Gaza, well, I dont think it is Smile

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 01:28 pm
@Steve 41oo,
Well, the bit about the Brits being mere homogenized Europeans was just a wisecrack intended to get a rise out of you. Cool Apparently it worked ! (However, I should acknowledge it's happening to the Irish too.)

With respect to Kerrymen - they even tell jokes about them in nearby Waterford. At least their speech is a bit musical - no one really understands Ulstermen.

There is an enduring fringe of criminal killers among both the Orange and the former IRA in Northern Ireland. However, happily neither appears any longer to reflect the aspirations of those they claim to represent, and both have been repudiated by the current government and most of the people there.

I do believe the long conflict in Northern Ireland is in many ways analogous to the continuing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians ,and that it offers some important lessons that both could seriously consider for their individual and mutual bemnefit.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 11:50 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Well I was brought up to dislike the British. My father who was then in the Congress voted against the Lend Lease program to help arm Britain, saying that "one war in this century to save the British Empire is more than enough". (We were members of various irish/Celtic groups and I played football for the local Gaelic league.) However, his early memories were forged in Ireland as were my mother's. Oddly though they didn't like 'England' as they called it, they weren't really hostile to individual Brits.

Now they've all become Europeans - hard to distinguish them from the French & Germans any more. Cool

Well, no wonder your bias, George, but thanks to Churchill, no thanks deserving to your dear dad, Great Britain survived almost surely being overrun by Hitler, and averted total disaster. Dads are not always right, George, have you considered that possibility?

Steve41oo wrote:
I think that's a perfectly understandable position. But FDR saw it differently. Perhaps he thought the danger of doing nothing to stop Hitlerism the worse option. But its certainly true a huge number of Americans wanted nothing to do with another European war. Nevertheless FDR got his war with Nazism, and its always led me to suspect that he engineered it.


Sheesh, FDR had to be drug kicking and screaming into the war, Steve, but thankfully we helped save Europe. Strange opinion you have there, are you looking for someone besides Hitler to blame the war on?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 06:46 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Sheesh, FDR had to be drug kicking and screaming into the war, Steve, but thankfully we helped save Europe. Strange opinion you have there, are you looking for someone besides Hitler to blame the war on?


I thought FDR was for the war? Regardless, Hitler was not to blame for WWII, in my opinion. I was taught in school that the French reparations caused the Weimar Republic to have its high inflation which made life so intolerable for the German citizens. So, there was fertile soil for someone/anyone to come along and promise to redress the wrongs of WWI. Hitler gave a good speech; however, he had many listeners that carried those torch lights (in the torch light parades). Notice that Italy and Spain both had strongman rulers at that time, and no one blames them for WWII. In effect, I personally believe, because Hitler threatened Britain do we now hear that Hitler and the Nazis were the real bad guys. And the racist policy against minorities solidifies that opinion, I believe.

After the smoke cleared from WWII, a staus quo was maintained for the big nations, I believe. So, Europe was not saved per se. France was saved, Britain was saved. The Soviets got to extend their hegemony over Eastern Europe, so they were not saved. Italy and Spain got a do over to choose the right side on politics. Germany was saved from Naziism.



0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 07:35 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Well, no wonder your bias, George, but thanks to Churchill, no thanks deserving to your dear dad, Great Britain survived almost surely being overrun by Hitler, and averted total disaster. Dads are not always right, George, have you considered that possibility?
I don't think you have your facts entirely right here. Britain fairly well dissuaded Hitler from attempting a cross channel invasion on her own. After the fall of France Hitler thrashed around for a few weeks hoping that the British would make some overtures of peace or accomodation. When that wasn't forthcoming (and even Spain's Franco refused him access to Spanish territiry) he launched his air attacks on the British. Hitler was fairly soundly defeated in the ensuing Battle of Britain, and (Like Napoleon before him) , concluding that he could not safely launch the planned cross channel invasion of Britain, he instead, perhaps petulantly, decided on an invasion of the Soviet Union. That step sealed his fate (and Napoleon's too).

okie wrote:

Sheesh, FDR had to be drug kicking and screaming into the war, Steve, but thankfully we helped save Europe. Strange opinion you have there, are you looking for someone besides Hitler to blame the war on?
I think you are quite wrong on this point too. The historical record is quite clear that Roosevelt foresaw the coming war after 1937 and started preparations for our entry into it soon afterwards (that's when we started the huge military & naval base construction program that carried us through the war, and it was that that finally ended the depression). We now also know that FDR was actively conspiring with Churchil t0 support Britain to the extent that political conditions here would permit and, as well, to create political conditions favorable to our entry into the conflict. We took a very aggressive political & economic stance towards Japan (even cutting off her imports of our steel and petroleum when we were japan's principal; source of both) , and in the end they solved FDR's problem for him by attacking us.

The onoy real differences between Churchil's views and those of Roosevelt involved the issues of British colonies and the post war world order.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 09:27 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

okie wrote:

Well, no wonder your bias, George, but thanks to Churchill, no thanks deserving to your dear dad, Great Britain survived almost surely being overrun by Hitler, and averted total disaster. Dads are not always right, George, have you considered that possibility?
I don't think you have your facts entirely right here. Britain fairly well dissuaded Hitler from attempting a cross channel invasion on her own. After the fall of France Hitler thrashed around for a few weeks hoping that the British would make some overtures of peace or accomodation. When that wasn't forthcoming (and even Spain's Franco refused him access to Spanish territiry) he launched his air attacks on the British. Hitler was fairly soundly defeated in the ensuing Battle of Britain, and (Like Napoleon before him) , concluding that he could not safely launch the planned cross channel invasion of Britain, he instead, perhaps petulantly, decided on an invasion of the Soviet Union. That step sealed his fate (and Napoleon's too).

You say I don't have my facts straight, but then you confirm my conclusion to a large extent. Hitler, I think, had every intent on taking Britain by ground invasion after he pounded them into submission in short order with the Luftwaffe, but surprising, the Brits dug in and although riddled, they were not beaten, and they kept turning out more aircraft at an unexpected rate. The main problem was having enough pilots, but in the end, they did enough damage to survive that Hitler decided to turn his attention elsewhere after he decided it would not be a cakewalk in the park. I believe alot of the credit goes to Winston Churchill, not much doubt, and if the U.S. had stepped further up to the plate sooner, it would not have been so severe of a test for them.

Quote:
okie wrote:

Sheesh, FDR had to be drug kicking and screaming into the war, Steve, but thankfully we helped save Europe. Strange opinion you have there, are you looking for someone besides Hitler to blame the war on?
I think you are quite wrong on this point too. The historical record is quite clear that Roosevelt foresaw the coming war after 1937 and started preparations for our entry into it soon afterwards (that's when we started the huge military & naval base construction program that carried us through the war, and it was that that finally ended the depression). We now also know that FDR was actively conspiring with Churchil t0 support Britain to the extent that political conditions here would permit and, as well, to create political conditions favorable to our entry into the conflict. We took a very aggressive political & economic stance towards Japan (even cutting off her imports of our steel and petroleum when we were japan's principal; source of both) , and in the end they solved FDR's problem for him by attacking us.

The onoy real differences between Churchil's views and those of Roosevelt involved the issues of British colonies and the post war world order.

You use the word, "conspiring" , FDR with Churchill, criminy George, they were our allies! I think "communicating with" would be a much better choice of words than "conspiring." Sure, FDR saw the troubles ahead, and war was raging while we sat here, and only a sane president would begin to take the proper preparations, so I do not see this as evidence he was chomping at the bit to go to war. I think there was some thought that we might eventually be attacked here, explaining some of the preparation. From what I have read, I do not believe he was anxious for it at all, but finally there was no alternative. If he had been anxious, he had ample chance to do it sooner. You point out public opinion, fine, but I think it was partly his opinion as well. If he was here, we could ask him, but otherwise we can only look at his actions, and they don't seem to support the idea that he was in a rush to go to war.

And in regard to the war ending the depression, I agree, but I think it was not so much our involvement in the war itself, but the turning out of war materials and sales of the same, in the 2 or 3 years leading up to the war, that helped tremendously.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 09:36 am
@okie,
Relative to this, there are some that believe FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time, it was all a ploy to enter WWII. I don't buy it, it doesn't meet the smell test, just basic logic. Sort of like the press has spun Bush into fabricating WMD, another snow job caused by people's imaginations running overtime.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 09:53 am
@okie,
Seeing the eventual necessity or probability of going to war does not indicate an anxiousness for doing it. I am surprised at the amount of revisionist history on the internet. My parents were visiting Europe, in Scandanavia in 1938 - 39, and they were told to come back to the U.S. right away, ahead of schedule. It was as if everyone knew what was going to happen. Yet, FDR did nothing for another 3 years, in terms of direct involvement. Hitler was having a cakewalk in the park for a good long while. He conquered Denmark in a matter of hours. Any sane president watching this would have to want to see this stuff stopped, eventually.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 09:53 am
Here is some interesting news out of Israel.

Reuters) - Following are excerpts from a coalition agreement initialed by Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud and the far-right Yisrael Beitenu party led by Avigdor Lieberman:

-- "The chairman of Yisrael Beitenu (Lieberman) will serve as deputy prime minister and foreign minister."

-- "The parties to this agreement regard the creation of a unity government at this time as being a national imperative."

-- "Toppling the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip will be an Israeli strategic goal."

-- "The government will act with determination to halt any firing at Israel, with the emphasis on fire from the Gaza Strip."

-- "The government will not conduct political negotiations with terrorist organizations or terrorist elements."

-- "Israel will make every effort, especially with regard to the international community, to prevent the nuclear armament of Iran, while emphasizing that a nuclear Iran, representing a danger to Israel, countries in the region and the entire free world, is unacceptable."

(Writing by Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Katie Nguyen)
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 01:11 pm
@Advocate,
Bad news for the United States. AIPAC will redouble its efforts to lead our country by its nose, making us ever more a stooge for the Zionist ambitions of the extreme right wing of Israeli politics. So far it doesn't appear that Obama, who has not yet shown the balls to take on even Nancy Pelosi, will do much to resist.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 01:51 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Bad news for the United States. AIPAC will redouble its efforts to lead our country by its nose, making us ever more a stooge for the Zionist ambitions of the extreme right wing of Israeli politics. So far it doesn't appear that Obama, who has not yet shown the balls to take on even Nancy Pelosi, will do much to resist.


Do not worry, your opinion, as expounded above, will have much company in the months ahead. Opinions regarding Israel, in my mind, are like a toggle switch, either for Israel or against her. There does not seem to be much middle ground. Your opinion will be in the majority, since this country still has a large population, I believe, that resents seeing Jews give up their historical image of "timid." Surprisingly, in urban Catholic America, where there is the most familiarity with American Jews, I believe, this sentiment finds its most ardent supporters. Perhaps, it is an atavistic trait from Catholic anti-Semitic Europe?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 01:59 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

You use the word, "conspiring" , FDR with Churchill, criminy George, they were our allies! I think "communicating with" would be a much better choice of words than "conspiring."


You certainly are aware that the USA become a member of the Allies against the Axis powers on December 8, 1941? And the UK on September 3, 1939?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:06 pm
@georgeob1,
As I am sure you well know, but won't admit, the USA has a great ally in Israel, and gets a tremendous bargain for what is loaned Israel.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:06 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Seeing the eventual necessity or probability of going to war does not indicate an anxiousness for doing it. I am surprised at the amount of revisionist history on the internet. My parents were visiting Europe, in Scandanavia in 1938 - 39, and they were told to come back to the U.S. right away, ahead of schedule. It was as if everyone knew what was going to happen. Yet, FDR did nothing for another 3 years, in terms of direct involvement. Hitler was having a cakewalk in the park for a good long while. He conquered Denmark in a matter of hours. Any sane president watching this would have to want to see this stuff stopped, eventually.


Denmark was invaded in April 1940 - half a year after the war started.

I'm rather sure that not only the British Admiralty viewed Scandinavia as a potential theatre of war in a future conflict with Germany ... in the late 1930's.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 06:42 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

As I am sure you well know, but won't admit, the USA has a great ally in Israel, and gets a tremendous bargain for what is loaned Israel.


That certainly is the mantra endlessly recited by AIPAC and the Kool Aid drinkers. However, the facts of our international relations over the past 40 years do not support this proposition.

Israel is certainly helpful when we are fighting her diplomatic and sometimes military battles for her, and dutifully vetoing repeated Security Council resolutions condemning her. However, we and the world pay a fairly high price for all that - a price that is not included in the calculation to which you refer.

A more accurate statement might be that Israel is occasionally helpful in solving a few of the many problems we wouldn't have if we were not her unquestioning patron and occasional stooge. Beyond that it is all take and no give on the part of Israel.


By the way - what LOANS ???? We GIVE Israel billions in terms of grants and credits every year.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 06:50 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

You say I don't have my facts straight, but then you confirm my conclusion to a large extent. Hitler, I think, had every intent on taking Britain by ground invasion after he pounded them into submission in short order with the Luftwaffe, but surprising, the Brits dug in and although riddled, they were not beaten, and they kept turning out more aircraft at an unexpected rate. The main problem was having enough pilots, but in the end, they did enough damage to survive that Hitler decided to turn his attention elsewhere after he decided it would not be a cakewalk in the park. I believe alot of the credit goes to Winston Churchill, not much doubt, and if the U.S. had stepped further up to the plate sooner, it would not have been so severe of a test for them.
A rather rambling way to say that you now agree with me, but OK by me.

okie wrote:

Sheesh, FDR had to be drug kicking and screaming into the war, Steve, but thankfully we helped save Europe.

You use the word, "conspiring" , FDR with Churchill, criminy George, they were our allies! I think "communicating with" would be a much better choice of words than "conspiring." Sure, FDR saw the troubles ahead, and war was raging while we sat here, and only a sane president would begin to take the proper preparations, so I do not see this as evidence he was chomping at the bit to go to war. I think there was some thought that we might eventually be attacked here, explaining some of the preparation. From what I have read, I do not believe he was anxious for it at all, but finally there was no alternative. If he had been anxious, he had ample chance to do it sooner. You point out public opinion, fine, but I think it was partly his opinion as well. If he was here, we could ask him, but otherwise we can only look at his actions, and they don't seem to support the idea that he was in a rush to go to war.
I think you need to refresh yourself on the details of the history of the period: you are dead wrong on most of the key points here.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE WAR IN GAZA
  3. » Page 48
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 04:38:35