Go back

"you're either with us or you're with the __...

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Merk
Scipio, are you a bit of WWII buff?
Not really but I've read quite a bit about it and am particularly interested in the careers of the top generals on both sides.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Iraq should not have been invaded. It was thought to be suitable middle ground to get hands on/control of terrorist activities. America's stuck in it's own wrongs, while Iraq dies.........

That's the basics of my belief now-a-days.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Merk
What helped Hitler far more than any business venture was European ignorance of the danger rising just across the Rhine.
Charles Chaplin "The Dictator" was release in 1939.

So you're saying that europe didnt know about the danger and an artist that was in the USA made a crystal clear film about what was happening!

Get real - the truth is sadder than that.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Merk
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 plainti ...[text shortened]... ers were members of the Klan. That does not mean their Grandsons have done anything wrong.
Nobody is blaming GWB for his grandad actions.

Grandad actions built the fortune of the Bush family, without that money, no election campaign money, no friendship nor business with the bin laden family.

Without grandad bush support to Hitler, no GWB today.
Simple and clear.

So the story with the so powerfull Nazis that ruled the world because they were so dangerous and the poor Jew who were the only victim of the bad Nazis is a complete lie and that is what you'll found in almost every school book. Thats what I call history revisionism.

US companies helped and finance the Nazi since 1926, then the Nazi got in trouble and short of cash, so the US sent their kids to die here and bombed mainly no-strategical part of europe. Then propose the Marshal plan to build it back and widely open the US exportation market there that europe finish paying back only about 7 years ago now (you don't even want to know the total amount of money that US made on that one).

Does this story sounds familiar to you?
Yep you got it right, thats the same thing they are doing in other places in the world, just some name have change, but the team Bush-Halliburton is still making lot of dirty money.

War is good for money.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Jee
Charles Chaplin "The Dictator" was release in 1939.

So you're saying that europe didnt know about the danger and an artist that was in the USA made a crystal clear film about what was happening!

Get real - the truth is sadder than that.
No. I'm saying that Europe underestimated the danger, or they just chose not not face it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Jee
Nobody is blaming GWB for his grandad actions.

Grandad actions built the fortune of the Bush family, without that money, no election campaign money, no friendship nor business with the bin laden family.

Without grandad bush support to Hitler, no GWB today.
Simple and clear.

So the story with the so powerfull Nazis that ruled the world because they wer ...[text shortened]... e, but the team Bush-Halliburton is still making lot of dirty money.

War is good for money.
War is better than good for money. War is GREAT for money and that doea lead to some actions that are shady at best.

The commonly held view about "W" here in the States is that his father had far more to do with Ws' success than his grandfather. It's intereseting to hear how people in other countries see it.

Also, I never intended to imply that the Jooos were Hitlers' only victims. I am not sure where I said that, but I am sorry.

As for non strategic bombings, my understanding is that it's a matter of how war was fought then compared to now. Stategy has changed dramatically.Now, we tend to target military and infrastructure. Then, not so much. In the American Civil War, Sherman burnt every building and every crop and killed every farm animal in every town he went in to. (Except Savannah) ("My gift to you President Lincoln"... "A town to beautiful to burn."😉 ( Something to that effect anyway) Even in Vietnam the U.S. did this kind of thing.

What is the EUropean view of why the U.S. entered WWII? Was it the money? Not trying to be a jack hole, I just have no idea what the European view is and would like too.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Merk
Stategy has changed dramatically.Now, we tend to target military and infrastructure.
you're taking the piss right?

you aint really believing that clean war Fox news propaganda?

Politics have learnt their lesson in Vietnam: hide the reality of war if you don't wanna loose the public opinion.