Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Well, I DO hope, this will happen here as well.
(And if that really should be true, lots of historians will look stupid, history books will have to re-written as well as some of my university works :wink: )

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I do recall seeing a show on the history channel that said the same thing.
There were approx 1000 allied casualties after the war due to diehard SS units that refused to surrender and died fighting.
I will see if I can find a link to it.

Now, that is even surprising [for me, at least], and although I've quite a collection of books the post war period, this isn't mentioned anywhere.
Thanks, MM!

I learn a lot here on A2K!

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
McTag wrote:

It is worth reflecting that The British in general, and the Scots in particular, have been a light to the world since at least the 17th Century.

You're welcome.

:wink:

Well I agree that the Scittish version of the 18th century Enlightenment was far superior to the Continental one. Apart from that, your "light of the world" must encompass quite a lot, ranging from enforced colonialism and repression of subject peoples, to the Seven Year's War, the Crimean War, the Opium War , the Boer War, the folly of WWI, and more. Quite a lot there for your :wink: to cover. In view of all of this, I am surprised that you are so critical of the United States.

A jaundiced overview, seen through a green-tinged lens. What area of the world has not been improved by our influence? Our biggest venture, USA, is flourishing still, and many lesser ones besides. You are perhaps not unfamiliar with the recent writings of Prof Niall Ferguson. Plenty information there.
And, I do not recognise the "critical of the United States" label you seek to attach to me. "Critical of some of its foreign policy excesses since Grenada" you might more fairly say.
:wink:
Peace on earth, goodwill to men.

"What area of the world has not been improved by our influence"

Egypt, Iraq. Palestine, Yemen, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Burma, Malasia, China, Ireland. Others will no doubt come to mind later. You really can't claim credit for the United States. It was the creation of Englishmen, not acting on behalf of their government, but rather seeking to escape its intolerance. It was never really yours to command.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

McTag wrote:
"Sowell fans enjoy"

What does that mean?

Apart from the fact that this is an anodyne and imo rather asinine article, what enjoyment will reading it bring?

Just a quick question McT - why should the Sowell op-ed Fox offered be considered any more or less anodyne and assinine, and/or more or less worth reading and enjoying than the op-ed you reference Here?

Than the one you ignored, you mean?

Sowell's article is designed to lull public opinion and is based on the false premise of Little America against Big Terrorism. Very skewed and very dishonest. Tries to draw parallels with "wars" which were real wars. More dishonesty.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
McTag wrote:

It is worth reflecting that The British in general, and the Scots in particular, have been a light to the world since at least the 17th Century.

You're welcome.

:wink:

Well I agree that the Scittish version of the 18th century Enlightenment was far superior to the Continental one. Apart from that, your "light of the world" must encompass quite a lot, ranging from enforced colonialism and repression of subject peoples, to the Seven Year's War, the Crimean War, the Opium War , the Boer War, the folly of WWI, and more. Quite a lot there for your :wink: to cover. In view of all of this, I am surprised that you are so critical of the United States.

A jaundiced overview, seen through a green-tinged lens. What area of the world has not been improved by our influence? Our biggest venture, USA, is flourishing still, and many lesser ones besides. You are perhaps not unfamiliar with the recent writings of Prof Niall Ferguson. Plenty information there.
And, I do not recognise the "critical of the United States" label you seek to attach to me. "Critical of some of its foreign policy excesses since Grenada" you might more fairly say.
:wink:
Peace on earth, goodwill to men.

"What area of the world has not been improved by our influence"

Egypt, Iraq. Palestine, Yemen, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Burma, Malasia, China, Ireland. Others will no doubt come to mind later. You really can't claim credit for the United States. It was the creation of Englishmen, not acting on behalf of their government, but rather seeking to escape its intolerance. It was never really yours to command.

Command phooey, I said influence. And I disagree with your examples too.
Iraq, I'll give you that one. You are trying to help there at the present time, I know, in your own sweet way.

0 Replies

McT, the core of the problem is that some cling to the outmoded notion that a war must be what wars have been. Assymetric warfare is come of age, and is the paradigm of the present. I submit as well that your assertion I ignored the article you referenced was at once presumptuous and erroneous. I submit yet further the article you referenced falls to the same faults you find with the Sowell article, only from the reverse point of view.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

McT, the core of the problem is that some cling to the outmoded notion that a war must be what wars have been. Assymetric warfare is come of age, and is the paradigm of the present. I submit as well that your assertion I ignored the article you referenced was at once presumptuous and erroneous. I submit yet further the article you referenced falls to the same faults you find with the Sowell article, only from the reverse point of view.

Reverse point of view you might well say, there seems little common ground here. Sowells piece was a disgraceful litany of misleading warmongering propaganda, and the Independent leader described what a moral morass adherence to such beliefs has brought us into; the lowest point of western civilisation, no less.

0 Replies

No, he doesn't mysteryman. Because he can't rebut facts!

0 Replies

NRO has their 2006 predictions up. Some are pretty funny (check out Jonah Goldberg's at their website.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chelsea Clinton gets engaged.
Howard Dean gets enraged.
Cindy Sheehan fades.
Osama bin Laden resurfaces ?- and then is captured.
Valerie Plame poses in Playboy. Husband continues to complain others outed her.
Four more states protect traditional marriage.
Three high-ranking officials in the Bush administration (White House or Cabinet) resign for non-controversial reasons.
Two Democrats not named Hillary actively campaign for POTUS 2008.
Tom Kean Jr. becomes the first Republican to win statewide office in New Jersey since 1997, and the first conservative in decades.
Ed Cox reenters the race for U.S. Senate in New York.
Kay Bailey Hutchison does not say no when asked if she may run for POTUS.
One of the Simpson sisters, Olsen twins, or Hilton sisters has a baby.
Michael Moore has a cow.
Google and Apple laugh all the way to the bank.
Real-estate prices remain steady. Gauchos, leg warmers, olive leisure suits, shag haircuts, and shag rugs do not make a comeback.
Newt Gingrich does.

-Kellyanne Conway

0 Replies

Ms. Conway's list mentions nothing about indictments of congressional Republicans. Strange. I think she needs to check herself in for a psychic tune-up...

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

[..., and the Independent leader described what a moral morass adherence to such beliefs has brought us into; the lowest point of western civilisation, no less.

Do you really believe this is the "lowest point of Western Civilization"? How does it compare with (say) the Seven Year's War, famine and forced "transportation" of whole populations from Ireland to brutal prisons in Norfolk Island (Van Daimen' s Land), the mindless slaughter of WWI, the divide and conquer colonial policies that have left a legacy of hatred and conflict throughout South Asia from Pakistan to Burma?

I really don't mind the criticism, or even reject the presence of some validity in it. However the cynical forgetfulness, the hypocrisy, and the lack of any historical context that accompany it, all make it quite absurd.

0 Replies

Absurd to suggest there was no conflict in Pakistan or Burma before colonisation.
Colonisation was possible there and elsewhere precisely because of local enmities.
I refer to the "moral leader" (soi-disant) of the western world descending into lawlessness and immorality- and seeking to justify it with lies.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Absurd to suggest there was no conflict in Pakistan or Burma before colonisation.

Or no bloodshed in Iraq for that matter. As it happens, I agree with you that Iraq was the wrong war to fight and that Bush used outstanding dishonesty to get America into it. But that was not the contention georgeob1 responded to. He responded to the one about Iraq being the lowest point of western civilization. That was overbroad, and George refuted it with adequate counter-examples.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Absurd to suggest there was no conflict in Pakistan or Burma before colonisation.
Colonisation was possible there and elsewhere precisely because of local enmities.
I refer to the "moral leader" (soi-disant) of the western world descending into lawlessness and immorality- and seeking to justify it with lies.

But I didn't suggest there was no prior conflict, only that Britain exploited it (as you say) to divide and rule, thus leaving a far more intense legacy of conflict in their wake. In this, the other examples I noted, and many others, my point stands.

I will grant you that there is a certain moralistic strain in American politics that has been in constant internal conflict with a far more realistic (and dominant) one. The post WWI struggle between a very naive, authoritarian, and moralistic Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. Senate is an illustrative case. A similar thing happened after WWII with a certain excess enthusiasm for world government. The ensuing Cold War quickly gave the lie to those hopes, and I doubt that many take all that very seriously now. (Except perhaps some Europeans too caught up in the enthusiasms of a growing EU, but not yet made to face its many contradictions.)

0 Replies

This is worthy of further examination. Individual low point have existed before, granted, but what is happening now in America is systematic, cynical, and comes from the top- while the leaders claim some sort of moral high ground. I'm not sure even Hitler ever did that- he worked from a "manifest destiny" standpoint.

0 Replies

I don't deny the systematic, from the top and, to a degree, even the cynical accusations you are making. However I believe your comparative references are grossly lacking in historical perspective.

Perhaps you should read more deeply about just the 19th century history of the British Empire. Consider the prosperous complacency and convictions of moral superiority of the ruling classes alongside the wretched conditions of the poor and the far worse exploitation (economic and political) of Ireland, India and a hundred other places. I don't believe that - in our worst moments - we have even approached that degree of cynical, self-serving hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

[ ...George refuted it with adequate counter-examples.

"ADEQUATE"???? You call them "adequate !!

I'll confess that there's something about McTag that excites the combative spirit in me. I think it's that air of Scottish complacency and certainty. Probably too late to convince him of it, but I am ordinarily the soul of moderation and considerate kindness.

0 Replies

State of Fear

The above link is to a Michael Crichton lecture in Washington, D.C. last month where he discusses the background to his new book, State of Fear, and how it applies to just about everything. It's long, but really great reading.

He closes with:

"Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods?

No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It's nothing new, it's right on schedule.

At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.

Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world.

It's time we knew it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I am ordinarily the soul of moderation and considerate kindness.

Sometimes mostly, that's correct .... Laughing

0 Replies

Just Wonders- That is a very good book. I was fascinated by Crichton's references( with appropriate diagrams to the United States Historical Climatology Network charts which show the most clear examples of the Heat Island Effect. Crichton's characters ask how it could be, for example, that surface temperature measurements of New York City show that THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED BY TWO FULL DEGREES FAHRENHEIT since 1930 while the temperature in Syracuse, New York, a city in the same state has seen its AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FALL BY TWO FULL DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.

As you may be aware, Just Wonders, Crichton's characters explain the anomaly by citing the heat island effect. Large cities create some of their own heat.

Everyone interested in question about "global warming" should read-"State Of Fear" by Crichton.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know