1
   

George Galloway blasts the Senate

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:31 am
George wrote

"...enabling Britain and France to put about 500,000 troops into the Middle East and Mesopotamia in their ill-conceived assault on the Ottoman Empire. "

George, you never miss an opportunity of having a pop at the Brits (and French) in Iraq. You give the impression that we attacked the Ottoman empire for no good reason, causing lasting chaos which it has come down to the Americans to put right.

Surely you knew the Ottomans were allies of the Central Powers in WW1?

Granted we were interested in what became of Iraq. As discussed many times the Royal Navy had a distinct advantage with oil fired boilers and steam turbines, but Britain had no oil. But we knew a place that did...Persia actually. And access was via Iraq.

Right from the start oil was the prime mover in our deliberations over Iraq. In WW2 we got involved again, this time in safeguarding the northern oil fields around Kirkuk.

This time around its no different. Except the lead player is America. We didnt invade Iraq and Afghanistan because we were concerned about democracy or personal freedoms. We invaded those countries to make sure we had control over and access to the energy resources of the region, by installing governments that did our bidding.

Unpalatable but true. You are too intelligent to believe otherwise.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 02:43 pm
Steve,

The historical record strongly suggests that the Ottomans were trying desperately to stay out of the developing conflict in 1914 and both the Allies and the Central powers were working very hard to get them in to it, but for different reasons. Wilhelmite Germany was quite involved in the training of the Ottoman military forces, but that was no surprise given the fifty or so years of French and British colonialism of former Ottoman territories in Egypt and North Africa and russian provocations in the Baltic region. Germany had done little of that,. perhaps only because they didn't have the ability to do so, but they were the natural ally of the Ottomans who feared all the Allied powers, and for very good reason. Despite this the Ottomans wanted no part in the coming war.

In August 1914 as the crisis that produced the war was developing the Germans had two cruisers the Gobelein (sp?) and I forget the name of the other ship, both in or near Turkish waters. Realizing they would never get them back in the face of Allied naval power in the Mediterranean, they abruptly gave them to the Ottomans, along with their well-trained German crews in an obvious attempt to force the issue and get the Turks into the war. At the same time the Allies were already cooking up their plans for an invasion on the Galipoli penninsula - they just didn't count on the effectiveness of the Ottoman resistance. The "Sick Man of Europe wasn't so much sick as a weary pawn in the rivalry of Russian, British, and French ambitions for empire.

It is true, as Steve says, that I often repeat this point. However, I do so not out of malice towards the British and the French, but rather to point out that it is very naive and shortsighted to simply characterize the present situation in the Mideast as the product of misguided American ambition. This mess has been cooking for a long time, and it is very hypocritical of Europeans to simply blame it all on us.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 02:58 pm
Two links, which might be of interest re Georege's last response:

Treaty of Alliance Between Germany and Turkey 2 August, 1914

The Pursuit of the Goeben and the Breslau
(One of the officers on the Breslau was Klaus Dönitz, btw.)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:38 pm
McTag wrote:
blatham wrote:
HofT wrote:
Excuse me - GeorgeOB's father, not grandfather, was meant in the above post.


It hardly matters. Drunken Irishmen all the way down to the turtle.


Not fair or balanced. Please withdraw. George is a sober and thoughtful poster. Often wrong, mind you. But one of your thinking Irish. (I know and am fond of some of the drinking Irish Very Happy )


Well thank you McTag (I think) for that (sort of) compliment. Laughing I want you to know that a couple of decades ago I was the arm wrestling champion of the Hog's Breath Tavern (Pub) in Carmel California - not entirely unfamiliar with the drinking (and fighting) Irish.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:06 pm
George - please don't mind Bernie (Blatham). He does have strong views on the Lusitania because prior to sinking that ship the same submarine (U-20 of the Kriegsmarine, home port Emden, Capt. Walther Schwieger commanding) shelled and sank the sailing ship "Earl of Latham" <G>
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:12 pm
" very hypocritical of Europeans to simply blame it all on us."

Well I dont. We're in this together. Allocating blame gets us nowhere, agreed.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:15 pm
It must be that. Bernie claims to be part Ukranian, but I think he is Anglo Saxon to the core - and the worst sort, from Canada, no less. There is however a trace of lyricism in his speech though. Where did that come from?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:16 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
" very hypocritical of Europeans to simply blame it all on us."

Well I dont. We're in this together. Allocating blame gets us nowhere, agreed.


Thank you Steve. We are indeed in it together.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
" very hypocritical of Europeans to simply blame it all on us."

Well I dont. We're in this together. Allocating blame gets us nowhere, agreed.


Thank you Steve. We are indeed in it together.


I don't agree at all. We are in this together, sure, and are stuck there for a while, but the mess we are in now is all Bush's doing, admittedly starting from a bad situation. We blundered into this current mess with our eyes wide open. It's no good blaming the French, the Brits 1920 version, or the Ottoman Turks.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:41 pm
fascinating websites thanks Walter
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:47 pm
McT

The point I have been trying to make is simply that Anglo American interests in the middle east have co incided for a long time.

This particular (debacle?) is driven by US power but we should all acknowledge our common interests.


oh dear that small word again









*i*
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 05:11 pm
HofT wrote:
George - please don't mind Bernie (Blatham). He does have strong views on the Lusitania because prior to sinking that ship the same submarine (U-20 of the Kriegsmarine, home port Emden, Capt. Walther Schwieger commanding) shelled and sank the sailing ship "Earl of Latham" <G>


That's the Herfordshire Lathams. No connection.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 05:17 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
It must be that. Bernie claims to be part Ukranian, but I think he is Anglo Saxon to the core - and the worst sort, from Canada, no less. There is however a trace of lyricism in his speech though. Where did that come from?


Try to keep track, george. My mother's family, notable for being particularly chubby yet nimble of foot, were mennonites of the gutteral language branches working as temps for Catherine the Pick Your Adjective.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 08:57 pm
LOL Bernie - relieved to hear you're not related to the Lathams that the ship sunk by Capt. Schwieger was named for. When you told me to meet you at Pier 54, former home of the Lusitania when docked in New York, I rather thought you planned to push me into the water due to my own family's background - just kidding!

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/men/photos/schweiger_walther.jpg

Seriously though - I agree with our gracious host Steve that we're all in this mess together; just consider the decoration Captain v. Schwieger is wearing, named "Pour le Mérite" (in his case with oak leaves), this being the highest decoration available to those armed forces and proving once and for all Germany had no animosity against France Smile
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:11 pm
http://www.pourlemerite.org/plmerite2small.gif

As and when Walter comes back - for me it's wake-up time again - he will explain about the Orden, and why the small v. precedes the captain's name sometimes (he didn't like to use it himself). He need not explain why he concurred with Lord Ellpus' absurd editing of posts purportedly quoted in their entirety - George Washington said that best in his letter to General Lafayette which I'm not going to look up right now.

Thanks again Steve for a wonderful thread Smile
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:03 am
HofT wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
HofT wrote:
Lord Ellpus - the aid sent to Stalin over the Pacific route dwarfs "lend-lease"; e.g. 9 out of 10 trucks in the Russian army were in fact ours and so was the gasoline powering them. That assistance would have stopped long before Russians got anywhere near the Atlantic.


_____________________________________________________________


In the interest of full disclosure I support GeorgeOB grandfather's vote against "lend-lease", first in the spirit of Washington, second because I think it was monstrous to tar the German Navy with the allegation that the Lusitania was a "passenger" ship - any ship carrying guns and ammunition to a war zone is by definition a warship.

Churchill was first lord of the Admiralty at the time, so he must have known the nature of her cargo; don't bother refuting this, btw, since the ship has been located in the Irish Sea and her contents inventoried Smile


Eh? Lusitania?....Are we discussing the same war?


Lord Ellpus - since you chose to delete the George Washington quote from my post it may not be evident to you that he fought in yet another war <G>

The George Washington segment was of an irrelevance to my point. It was therefore deleted in order TO highlight my point, and not have it lost in amongst swathes of a politicians opinions.

I was referring to the second World war....you made a historical error in your argument, by bouncing your argument back, using facts relating to the FIRST World war, and your opinions hinged on those facts.
Your error, not mine.
We all make mistakes....quite understandable. I didnt beat you up about it, merely pointed it out.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:18 am
Okay, okay:

After U20 was lost, Walther Schwieger was given command of the slightly larger U88 on April 7th, 1917 and on 30th July 1917, he was awarded Germany's highest decoration for gallantry; the "Pour Le Merite" medal, or "Blue Max" as it was more popularly known, in recognition of his having sunk a total of 190,000 tons of allied shipping.
He was the 8th U-boat commander to receive this covetted award.

Source

Established in 1667 by Margrave Frederick (later to become King Frederick I), the Orden Pour le Mérite was originally known as the Brandenburg Ordre de la Génerosité (Order of Generosity). Reorganized by Frederick II in 1740, it became the Orden Pour le Mérite (Order of Merit) and was awarded to military personnel and civilians. The Order was again reorganized in 1810 by Frederick William III who reserved it solely for individual military achievement on the battlefield against the enemy. After the Prussian army occupied Paris in 1814, a total of 1,662 Pour le Mérites were awarded. Of those, 1,470 Pour le Mérites were awarded to Russians. In 1842, Frederick William IV added a civil class for scholars, painters, sculptors, and musicians. Following the armistice of 1918, the Orden Pour le Mérite was never again awarded for military service.

During World War I, Prussia's highest military award, the Orden Pour le Mérite, was awarded to military personnnel for repeated and continual gallantry in action. Recipients were required to wear the medal whenever they were in uniform.

Of all officers in the German army and navy, the most frequent recipients of the Orden Pour le Mérite were junior officers in the German Air Force. During World War I, it was awarded to 81 German military aviators: 76 army aviators and 5 naval aviators. Of that total, 78 of the recipients were officers who held the rank of Captain or below.
Source

Quote:
Pour le Merit:
(English: Order for Merit) distinguished Prussian order established by Frederick II the Great in 1740, which had a military class and a class for scientific and artistic achievement. This order superseded the Ordre de la Générosité (French: "Order of Generosity") that was founded by Frederick I of Prussia in 1667.

Frederick William III made the order solely military in 1810, but in 1842 Frederick William IV created a civilian division for the arts and sciences. In this division were such prominent Germans as Savigny, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Schelling, Schlegel, Tieck, Meyerbeer, Grimm, and Humboldt. Foreign members included such luminaries as Count Borghese, Chateaubriand, Faraday, Herschel, Daguerre, Liszt, Rossini, and Carlyle. During the Franco-German War and World War I, the military division was the highest individual reward for gallantry in action. The order went into a period of stagnation after 1935 but was revived by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1952.

Currently the order is awarded to men and women who have made outstanding achievements in either the arts or the sciences. Membership is limited to 30 German citizens, of whom 10 must be in the philosophic-scientific field, 10 in the natural sciences, and 10 in the arts. Foreigners (not more than 30) may become supernumerary members. The order, which has only one class, is administered by a chancellor elected by the members. If a place becomes vacant, the members themselves elect a new member.

The badge is a gold medallion of the Prussian eagle surrounded by a blue-enameled scroll with the inscription Pour le Mérite (French: "For Merit"). An arrangement of F's and II's (for Frederick II) surrounds the eagle, and the scroll bears four crowns. The insignia are returned on the death of the holder.

source: Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service
26 May 2005 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9061104>.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:26 am
HofT wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
HofT.....My point, before it was deflected by you back thirty years to the first World War, was:-

If the Americans had voted against lendlease in the SECOND World War, chances are that America would :-

a) Not have chosen to enter the War when they did, as up until lendlease, America was NEUTRAL.
By entering into lendlease, America eliminated any semblance of neutrality, therefore set itself on the road to joining with Britain in the war.

b) Not have been able to successfully enter the war, even if it had changed from its neutral stance, because your "Land Base/foothold" (mainland Britain) would probably have been under German control, owing to the fact that Britain would not have had sufficient equipment or supplies to have defended itself properly.

Russia, no matter how much they did, or did not receive from America, would have eventually overwhelmed Germany, even if they sent their Soldiers in using pitchforks (and they would have done so, Russia was/is not averse to using their soldiers as cannon fodder) ...purely on numbers alone. The Russian Army (existing at that time, and new conscripts taken from their staggering number of young men) VASTLY outnumbered the Germans. Ask any historian.

My point was.....if that one vote, made with the heart instead of the head, made the difference between yes or no to lendlease, the world would probably be a totally different place today.
Georgie boy did NOT think with his head, when invading Iraq. He went with the heart. He went with the "popular" mood in the US at that time, which was to strike back after 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the perpetrators of 9/11, if he wanted to hit AQ, he should have hunted them down where they were based in either Saudi, Yemen or both.

100,000 people have died as a consequence of George acting with his heart, and Galloway had the gall to bring this out into the open.

Lusitania? I wont dispute anything with you on that one. Our two Countries leaders were up to underhand tricks even then.
But maybe that is for another thread.

Link for lendlease....
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html


____________________________________________________________

Again to Lord Ellpus - where exactly do you get your "facts"?

Lend-lease was irrelevant in the decision to enter WWII - Hitler declared war on US, leaving us no choice in the matter. The deception pursuant to the sinking of the Lusitania, however, was instrumental in dragging the US into WWI.

Kindly educate yourself before making additional comments of this nature.

....And kindly read things properly before appearing to make a fool of yourself!
Where do I get my facts? If you had read my previous post (indeed, it is included in the quote box you supplied, when you made the inferrence that I was poorly educated on the subject.....hint...it's at the bottom)
you will see that I supplied a link to....wait for it.....a U.S.History website.

I will supply it again, just in case it hasnt sunk in yet.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html
You will please note the second paragraph.....

"By retooling U.S. industrial output to the demands of war, Lend-Lease formally eliminated any semblance of neutrality. President Franklin D. Roosevelt summarized the Lend-Lease Act as "helping to put out the fire in your neighbor's house before your own house caught fire and burned down." In effect, it turned the U.S. into an "arsenal of democracy" following the eruption of hostilities."

Hitler declared war on the USA, after Pearl Harbour and AFTER the USA had effectively already entered the war, fighting the Japanese.

If you do not believe this Website, do some proper research of your own and get back to me if you find it to be wrong.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:39 am
HofT.......here is a website to make your research a little easier.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

Key dates, relevant to our "problem".

March 11, 1941 - President Roosevelt signs the Lend-Lease Act.

July 26, 1941 - Roosevelt freezes Japanese assets in United States and suspends relations.

Aug 1, 1941 - United States announces an oil embargo against aggressor states.

Aug 14, 1941 - Roosevelt and Churchill announce the Atlantic Charter.

Dec 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor.

Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions you have about WW2.

P.S. I do not wish to discuss anything related to WW1, as this is irrelevant to the point that I was making about Galloway, in the dim and distant past.

If you wish to discuss the Lusitania (which you seem to do) why not start a new thread somewhere?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 01:18 am
HofT wrote:
Thanks George! Noticed how any overlap between demonstrable facts and statements by some posters here appears wholly coincidental at times?!


HofT......you were wrong on your facts....why not just admit it?

Your tone towards me has been patronising bordering on nasty, sarcastic and insulting.

And all because YOU got your facts wrong re. Lusitania and World war 2, and do not seem to have the grace within you to admit it properly.
You will note, by checking back on my posts, that I had ample opportunity to come at you with insults and sarcasm regarding your "howling error". I refrained from doing so, unlike you in your following responses.
I merely pointed out your error, and your tone towards me changed from that point.

DEMONSTRABLE FACTS?....READ MY TWO MOST PREVIOUS POSTS.
Or was there some other snide agenda lurking behind that remark?
If so, have the COURAGE to declare your views to us , so that we may be enlightened, THAT IS IF YOU ARE HONOURABLE ENOUGH TO DO SO.

Do not deflect your inadequacies onto me.

I will no longer enter into any form of discussion with you, as I may in the future find myself saying something that I REALLY regret.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 11:19:58