Give it a rest. Bush may be a moron, but diliberate genocide and incompotence are two different things entirely. Having the Gaurdian as a source for a negative against Bush is pretty silly. They are unreliable at best and when it comes to an axe they have to grind you can forget about good journalism.
As for Iraq, if Sunni and Shia were indeed the same before the war, Iraq was the only place in the world this has ever happened. I call shenanigans. That's crap. The only thing they had in common was trying not to be killed by Saddam and his security services. Saddam is gone now so, of course their differences now overcome what they once had in common.
As for the Iraq front in the War on Terror, I was against it before I was even more against it. I never liked it and never will. My brother is there, and I hope he can accomplish something while he is there, but Iraq is not the terrorist haven/creator that the world should really worry about and America could do much better with the 10 million dollars an hour they spend there.
Originally posted by MerkStop making sense .. remember, you're in the RHP Debate Forum.
Give it a rest. Bush may be a moron, but diliberate genocide and incompotence are two different things entirely. Having the Gaurdian as a source for a negative against Bush is pretty silly. They are unreliable at best and when it comes to an axe they have to grind you can forget about good journalism.
As for Iraq, if Sunni and Shia were indeed the same befor ...[text shortened]... ry about and America could do much better with the 10 million dollars an hour they spend there.
In the future please follow form and insult somebody like everybody else does.
rant! screech!, but please .. stop making sense.
It only confuses people here.
Originally posted by MerkWill the National Archives and Library of Congress from the USA be a better source for you or still not good enough?
Having the Gaurdian as a source for a negative against Bush is pretty silly. They are unreliable at best and when it comes to an axe they have to grind you can forget about good journalism.
The Library of Congress doesn't mean much more to me than my local library does. The National Archives would be prefered. Please quote from the Archives.
Make no mistake, I am no big fan of Bush. However, I will say this for him. To avoid being intellectually dishonest one must consider his absolutely undisputeable support for Isreal when deciding if he is a Nazi or not. It would be difficult to reconcile that fact with him being a Nazi without engaging in conspiracy theory. Not that I don't like a good conspiracy now and then.
Also, I would caution against making too much of any connection to any group. As is the case of many if not most leaders of Government or business, he has ties to many diverse organizations. Most of which have no real influence.
Originally posted by MerkI aint saying that Prescott Bush was a nazi or anti-jew. He only cared about making money, he would have sold his mother if he had too.
The Library of Congress doesn't mean much more to me than my local library does. The National Archives would be prefered. Please quote from the Archives.
Make no mistake, I am no big fan of Bush. However, I will say this for him. To avoid being intellectually dishonest one must consider his absolutely undisputeable support for Isreal when deciding if he is a ...[text shortened]... or business, he has ties to many diverse organizations. Most of which have no real influence.
That's what helped the Nazi to do their nasty jobs and that's what kept the US media quiet about it too. Same thing with Rockfeller.
Bush and Rockfeller family made their fortune with the nazi, no doubt about that, but there no proof that it had any ideological implication.
Not like Disney, I mean 😀
What helped Hitler far more than any business venture was European ignorance of the danger rising just across the Rhine.
The CIA repeatedly warned of Hitlers danger and were ignored. The fire could have been extinguished before it began had they been willing. Churchill was, but at the time he was just a voice that was ridiculed for its ignorance.
Surely you must remeber from your history class the part when Chamberlain came back with a monster smile on his face waving that meaningless piece of paper and saying "Peace in our time!"
History now factually remembers that Hitler is solely responsible for these atrocities and that Europe could have done something about it, but chose to avoid a potential problem.
How can one possibly justify giving away Poland in the name of peace?
Originally posted by MerkYes. At the time Hitler chanced his arm and marched into the Rhineland his army numbered about 100,000 men whilst the French could have mustered a million. Even his generals were against the move but he gambled on the sheer cowardice of the 'allies', and won.
What helped Hitler far more than any business venture was European ignorance of the danger rising just across the Rhine.
The CIA repeatedly warned of Hitlers danger and were ignored. The fire could have been extinguished before it began had they been willing. Churchill was, but at the time he was just a voice that was ridiculed for its ignorance.
Surely yo ...[text shortened]... d a potential problem.
How can one possibly justify giving away Poland in the name of peace?
Originally posted by JeeYou are wrong: Politically I am Libertarian, so no fan of bush.
BUSH-NAZI LINK CONFIRMED is the first line on the first page of the first link. Maybe you should turn off your "Bush is great" filter first.
I am right: Many of the links have absolutely no bearing on this thread.
Recomendation: When posting a link try to give some summation of what you hope us to find there...and be honest...or you end up like looking like the little boy who cried wolf one too many times.
Originally posted by MerkAu contraire, Jerk - the Guardian is one of the most objective newspapers in the world.
Give it a rest. Bush may be a moron, but diliberate genocide and incompotence are two different things entirely. Having the Gaurdian as a source for a negative against Bush is pretty silly. They are unreliable at best and when it comes to an axe they have to grind you can forget about good journalism.
As for Iraq, if Sunni and Shia were indeed the same befor ry about and America could do much better with the 10 million dollars an hour they spend there.
Particularly interesting from the piece on Bush's Granddaddy:
"The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.
Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".
Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."
Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.
In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.
The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.
The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."
The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.
Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."
"
Howard,
Please refrain the personal attacks on the basis of us not seeing eye to eye. It's petty.
It's absurd to blame President Bush for the actions of his Grandfather. By attempting to hold him "Personally" accountable that is exactly what this Attorny would be doing. You cannot hold someone accountable, unless they are to blame.
Are the plaintiffs also filing against the other WWII allies or just America?
And lets not forget what a massive undertaking it was just to get equipment to England. The manpower and equipment required to go behind enemy lines and stop the prison camps would have been impossible to free up without sacrificing the front.
This lawsuit, or any like it is absurd. That is why it will go nowhere. It's mighty nice of them to take the U.S. to court for not saving enough lives.
There are plenty of reason to not like President Bush. The actions of his Grandfather is hardly one of them.
There are many people alive today whos' Grandfathers were members of the Klan. That does not mean their Grandsons have done anything wrong.