Civil Unrest in France, What Gives?



davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
wolfix said:
The Pacific Theater and the European war were 2 seperate wars that rarely overlapped, except in the timeline of history.... They just occurred at the same time.
I know in my area of the country , where it is predominatly German, there was a resistence to the war. Of course, knowledge of the concentration camps was known only by a few. And the main thrust of the European "conflict" [ I hate that word when speaking of war] was on Russian soil in the beginning.
I do find it ironic though. Up until that time, America was considered to have an isolationist mindset, and it get criticised. Today it takes on a global outlook, and it gets criticised.. By the way, Kennedy was the one who promoted the 'Global Police" mentality that occurs in America today. And he is the idol of the liberals.
And oil was "exploited" by the British with American investment. The oil industry was never a nationality thing. Oil companies have always been countries of their own. BP had a lot to do with the involvemnt of America in Viet-Nam. If the Viet-nam situation is looked at before troops were actually sent to Nam, it was BP that had men running all over the country. I am familiar with a man that told his family 5 years before American involvment that BP wanted American troops sent to Nam..... This man was company man for BP.
The world needs to wake up. The oil interests have no boundries. They may be more of your actual government then the elected officials.
I have made a statement for years. I argued with a political science instructor of mine back in the 70's..... I made the statement that a politicians popularity is based on the price of gas at the pump. Gas drops, his popularity goes up. The professor 25 years later admitted he followed this thought and I am not far off. Bush's popularity dropped when gas hit record highs. Bush's popularity has nothing to do with Iraq. If gas continues to drop like it has recently ..His popularity will start to rise.
Friends...... Oil is god.
Good points. Who was it that said "...avoid foreign entanglements." :confused: Oh yes, it was General/President Washington. Now our country is loathed in Europe because we do get involved. Legitimizes the saying-"damned if you do & damned if you don't." I was initially for the toppling of S. Hussein but only reversed when it was learned that the administration tried to tie the invasion to some ephemeral link between SH & Al-qaieda which, by the way seems to defies logic/rationality as Iraq was secular & AQ is overtly religious. Also, as we all know, post-war plans were/seem to be inadequately planned.
On another note, I saw a full-page advert for BP in our Washington Post newspaper ystrdy. Cost's a pretty penny to do that & what is w/ thier new logo made w/ the color green :confused: Makes me wonder. In addition, who drew all of those arbitrary lines all over the globe designating national borders w/o regard to ethnic/religious tensions :confused: I think it was a country that starts w/ the letter's: "Bri..." :rolleyes: Don't get me wrong, Britain has given the world alot but has also done things which make us American's look like genius' :D
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
Colorado Ryder said:
This is false. ******'s attention was upon Austria and Czechoslovakia before the war actually began. Poland was the initial main thrust in 1939. Remember the Soviets signed a non-agression pact with ****** and agreed to divide Poland. The Nazi's then invaded Norway and Western Europe in 1940. And the Soviets invaded Finland. The Nazi's didn't actually turn their attention to Russia till Mid 1941.
But the talking heads in our government in the late 30's were concerned with Russia. They knew where all this was headed. America was not all that concerned with Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovaki. The threat of Russia was what concerned America.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
davidmc said:
Good points. Who was it that said "...avoid foreign entanglements." :confused: Oh yes, it was General/President Washington. Now our country is loathed in Europe because we do get involved. Legitimizes the saying-"damned if you do & damned if you don't."

Trees still fall in forests even when you're not there to witness them dmc.

The majority opposition for the invasions existed in this country and the rest of Europe long before any of post-invasion revelations came about. There was a moral backlash against the concept of invading countries to make a political & commercial point, and as I recall America was none too shy about calling us names over that stance.

davidmc said:
Don't get me wrong, Britain has given the world alot but has also done things which make us American's look like genius' :D

The US would look clever it had achieved the same trick without the same mistakes. In practice it has failed to achieve the same trick and it has made the same ****-ups anyway. The British Empire was founded and largely executed in a wrong headed fashion regardless. The motives are always the same, greed and hubris. The net result is always the same : massacre, injustice, and pillage.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
darkboong said:
The majority opposition for the invasions existed in this country and the rest of Europe long before any of post-invasion revelations came about. There was a moral backlash against the concept of invading countries to make a political & commercial point, and as I recall America was none too shy about calling us names over that stance.
Invading country's for countless UN Sec. Concil Violations is justified. Was it ever determined how many Iraqi youth perished due to the 13 yr embargo all the while SH dining on scampi :confused: Granted it was only costing the american/european tax-payers $2 billion u.s./yr.; a small price compared to the current $2 billion u.s./month. At 1st I thought it was the best course until it was determined that the price tag would be in the 100's 0f billions. If democracy is achieved, parlimentary or otherwise could it be said to be a "net gain" for the region in light of further military expenditures in the future due to inaction :confused: Ideally, it might have been a better idea to partition Iraq into three seperate entities from its inception. Nigeria suffers from this arbitrary national boundary drawn out w/o consideration of tibal/religious differences. Iraq may very well devolve as the former Yugoslavia did.

The US would look clever it had achieved the same trick without the same mistakes. In practice it has failed to achieve the same trick and it has made the same ****-ups anyway. The British Empire was founded and largely executed in a wrong headed fashion regardless. The motives are always the same, greed and hubris. The net result is always the same : massacre, injustice, and pillage.
mercantilsm is a dynamic process forever needing new markets to, how shall i say, exploit. Trade is not all bad. England, Spain,Portugal, & the Dutch benfitted immensely.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
davidmc said:
Invading country's for countless UN Sec. Concil Violations is justified.

By that Logic Israel would be a smoking crater right now.

As it turns out it appears that Iraq actually complied with the UN's rulings as far as was humanly possible.

davidmc said:
Was it ever determined how many Iraqi youth perished due to the 13 yr embargo all the while SH dining on scampi

"Mad" Albright denied any such deaths then said they would be morally justified. The nature of the embargo was thoroughly wrong, I, and many others, said so at the time. There are people from a charity being taken to court who are possibly facing lengthy custodial sentences for shipping Asprin and out of date medical journals to Iraqi doctors. That is 110% wrong-headed.

I've noticed that the people laying the smack down in Iraq don't like doctors much, and they *really* hate independent journalists. Go figure what they're up to. I imagine the doctors are not top keen on them either for that matter, did you check out the post-mortem documents of detainees that died in colaition custody ? The ALCU published them last month.

davidmc said:
:confused: Granted it was only costing the american/european tax-payers $2 billion u.s./yr.;

Funny how that price inches up over time. All those flights buzzing the various bases well inland of the no-fly zones must have pushed the cost up somewhat. The attacks which were designed to provoke a response must have cost a fair bit too.

davidmc said:
mercantilsm is a dynamic process forever needing new markets to, how shall i say, exploit. Trade is not all bad. England, Spain,Portugal, & the Dutch benfitted immensely.

No ****. The balance needs redressing.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
wolfix said:
But the talking heads in our government in the late 30's were concerned with Russia. They knew where all this was headed. America was not all that concerned with Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovaki. The threat of Russia was what concerned America.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that russia was a threat ,militarily, to the us ,in the 1930's.BTW,I have difficulty understanding how you can say that in your first sentence that the "talking heads" in your government weren't concerned with russia and in your third sentence you say that "russia was what concerned america most".Can you explain that,or will you just go away and sulk?
american involvement in europe in WW2 was entirely about protecting american investments and advancing the interests of american corporations and nothing else.american involvment in the pacific in WW2 was about fighting japan for the china market and control of the flow of oil from the dutch east indies and nothing else.If you think that america entered those wars ,or any of the 100+ wars that america has been involved in(is this a record?), for any other reason than the naked greed of the corporations which have controlled your country since your founding fathers committed treason against the established government,is to deny the facts of history.
Which of course ,your country has been doing since its inception.
It's hard to accept that you are part of the most violent,greedy and undemocratic tribes that has ever existed,but that's the kind of people you are.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
stevebaby said:
... reason than the naked greed of the corporations which have controlled your country since your founding fathers committed treason against the established government,is to deny the facts of history.
Which of course ,your country has been doing since its inception.
It's hard to accept that you are part of the most violent,greedy and undemocratic tribes that has ever existed,but that's the kind of people you are.
How very kind of you. No need to "sugar-coat" your language :rolleyes: Incidentally, which institution of higher-learning did you procure your degree in American History from or are you being facetious :confused:
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
stevebaby said:
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that russia was a threat ,militarily, to the us ,in the 1930's.BTW,I have difficulty understanding how you can say that in your first sentence that the "talking heads" in your government weren't concerned with russia and in your third sentence you say that "russia was what concerned america most".Can you explain that,or will you just go away and sulk?
american involvement in europe in WW2 was entirely about protecting american investments and advancing the interests of american corporations and nothing else.american involvment in the pacific in WW2 was about fighting japan for the china market and control of the flow of oil from the dutch east indies and nothing else.If you think that america entered those wars ,or any of the 100+ wars that america has been involved in(is this a record?), for any other reason than the naked greed of the corporations which have controlled your country since your founding fathers committed treason against the established government,is to deny the facts of history.
Which of course ,your country has been doing since its inception.
It's hard to accept that you are part of the most violent,greedy and undemocratic tribes that has ever existed,but that's the kind of people you are.

I think both sentences stated America was concerned with Russia. I don't think I implied militarily. It was the ideology of thhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbolsheviks.htme Russians [Bolsheviks-Socialism] that bothered America.

The Pacific Theater war became possible because of the aggressive tactics of Japan..... The Japanese were trying to become a military power. They were engaged with China years before. It was not just oil that Japan wanted , but iorn too .....
And you say America's reasoning was greed.... Explain the reason that any country enters a war.
 

ptlwp

New Member
Oct 6, 2005
544
0
0
wolfix said:
I think both sentences stated America was concerned with Russia. I don't think I implied militarily. It was the ideology of the Russians [Bolsheviks-Socialism] that bothered America.

The Pacific Theater war became possible because of the aggressive tactics of Japan..... The Japanese were trying to become a military power. They were engaged with China years before. It was not just oil that Japan wanted , but iorn too .....
And you say America's reasoning was greed.... Explain the reason that any country enters a war.
If America didn't come to the aid Europe and Asia, I can assure you that you'd (anyone who would have survived), would be eating a lot of bratwurst or sushi!!!!

How can you tell who is in the French Army? They are the ones who are standing with hands up!!!

eh, rather like that one....
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Russia was a threat, I think, under Stalin. Stalin didn't rule out the notion Russia could win a nuclear war but he died before that risk might have become greater.
Recently, detailed plans for a Soviet invasion of Europe have surfaced and I think Russia was always prepared to move into west Berlin.
But people have massively misunderstood the Gorbachev era and the actual end of the Cold War. Russia didn't lose the Cold War at all. Economic stagnation at the time of Gorbachev wasn't so critical as people believe and the only real crisis came about in the Yeltsin era.
I was in Russia myself during both these periods - especially during the food shortages in 1991.
What really happened is that Russians had been getting fed up with communism for years - even back at the time of Chernenko. Young people in Russia wanted to get rich and own property or travel abroad. Communism just died out like Catholicism in France and Spain.
I do think it's a pity, though, that Gorbachev failed to modify communism so it could run alongside capitalism a bit like in China today. In communist Russia, there was a superb health and welfare system, full employment, virtually no crime and brilliant sports facilities. People lived simply but they were content with a better education than in the west.


wolfix said:
I think both sentences stated America was concerned with Russia. I don't think I implied militarily. It was the ideology of thhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbolsheviks.htme Russians [Bolsheviks-Socialism] that bothered America.

The Pacific Theater war became possible because of the aggressive tactics of Japan..... The Japanese were trying to become a military power. They were engaged with China years before. It was not just oil that Japan wanted , but iorn too .....
And you say America's reasoning was greed.... Explain the reason that any country enters a war.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
ptlwp said:
If America didn't come to the aid Europe and Asia, I can assure you that you'd (anyone who would have survived), would be eating a lot of bratwurst or sushi!!!!

The Russians would still have flattened the 3rd Reich without anyone's help. They may well have had a crack at the Japanese too.

ptlwp said:
How can you tell who is in the French Army? They are the ones who are standing with hands up!!!

eh, rather like that one....

Maybe you should try going hand to hand with the French without the benefit of tanks and air support. See how far you get. My guess is that you will be feeding the fishes before you even set foot on the turf. The French were caught out by **** poor planning. I very much doubt that the US would have stood up to a Blitzkrieg at that time any better than the French did.

Have you noticed how much better the Germans were at holding ground that they had blitzed compared to the contemporary US military ?
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
stevebaby said:
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that russia was a threat ,militarily, to the us ,in the 1930's.BTW,I have difficulty understanding how you can say that in your first sentence that the "talking heads" in your government weren't concerned with russia and in your third sentence you say that "russia was what concerned america most".Can you explain that,or will you just go away and sulk?
american involvement in europe in WW2 was entirely about protecting american investments and advancing the interests of american corporations and nothing else.american involvment in the pacific in WW2 was about fighting japan for the china market and control of the flow of oil from the dutch east indies and nothing else.If you think that america entered those wars ,or any of the 100+ wars that america has been involved in(is this a record?), for any other reason than the naked greed of the corporations which have controlled your country since your founding fathers committed treason against the established government,is to deny the facts of history.
Which of course ,your country has been doing since its inception.
It's hard to accept that you are part of the most violent,greedy and undemocratic tribes that has ever existed,but that's the kind of people you are.
Canada declared war a year before America was dragged into WW2. It took aggressive acts from others before America became involved.
The people that control the capitol in every country are the ones with the power. That is not news.
100 + wars?? Give me 20.....
Yes, we are those kind of people. Yet , our borders are being run over by people trying to get in, not out.
And we get to vote and go to forums such as this with out fear of anyone.
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
Carrera said:
I do think it's a pity, though, that Gorbachev failed to modify communism so it could run alongside capitalism a bit like in China today. In communist Russia, there was a superb health and welfare system, full employment, virtually no crime and brilliant sports facilities. People lived simply but they were content with a better education than in the west.
To desire a system anything like China's is not wanting the best for the people. The human rights people will tell you that.
The basic ideology of socialism/communism conflicts heavily with capitolism....
Russia's sports programs were legalized slavery. There is thought out there that Russia would have to return every medal they ever won if they didn't cheat.
The people had to be content. Otherwise they faced Siberia of the KBG.. Forced contentment is not a good place to be.

It is impossible for communism and capitolism to run side by side. It goes against the makeup of man. In capitolism, every man has a shot. In communism, only the few have a chance at a good life.
In America there is a myth going on about our medical health system. They say we need a national health care system. There already is. If you are poor, there are safety nets in place that would make the middle class green with envy. The poor in America have faster and more efficeint health care then the Canadian's do with their 'Free" health care. Of course it is not free..... They just pay taxes so high out of their income. They "pre-pay" a larger ratio of income then Americans do..... Someone needs to explain the concept of the "free system' to me.
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
darkboong said:
The Russians would still have flattened the 3rd Reich without anyone's help. They may well have had a crack at the Japanese too.
If Germany did not have it's war machine divided on the fronts, Germany would have rolled thru Russia like a plate of sausage and noodles....
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
wolfix said:
If Germany did not have it's war machine divided on the fronts, Germany would have rolled thru Russia like a plate of sausage and noodles....

They tried. They got frozen, they got massacred. Napoleon made the same mistake. The Russians made that mistake too against Finland, despite the fact Finland had bugger all in the way of Army, Airforce and Anti-Tank weapons.

The war machine was not really divided on two fronts in Europe per se. ****** gave up any notion of invading the UK after 1940, the kicker was he had to hold all that ground he claimed. Holding ground soaks up men, as you can see in Iraq right now - where the US is doing a pretty ****-poor job quite frankly. The best they can come up with is saturation bombing civillians, which is precisely how they killed a large proportion of the *minimum* 3 million Vietnamese dead. How quickly we forget, eh ?
 

ptlwp

New Member
Oct 6, 2005
544
0
0
darkboong said:
They tried. They got frozen, they got massacred. Napoleon made the same mistake. The Russians made that mistake too against Finland, despite the fact Finland had bugger all in the way of Army, Airforce and Anti-Tank weapons.

The war machine was not really divided on two fronts in Europe per se. ****** gave up any notion of invading the UK after 1940, the kicker was he had to hold all that ground he claimed. Holding ground soaks up men, as you can see in Iraq right now - where the US is doing a pretty ****-poor job quite frankly. The best they can come up with is saturation bombing civillians, which is precisely how they killed a large proportion of the *minimum* 3 million Vietnamese dead. How quickly we forget, eh ?
I didn't vote for Eisenhower (too young), nor Kennedy, too young, and I didn't vote for either of the Bushes. If everyone else in this country runs scared "domino theory", "its them or us" "axis of evil", what can I say? That half the people in this country are a**h****.....and that about says it.

After all Republicans have lots of friends in the industrial war machine complex to have any need to NOT start a war, now do they?
 

Billsworld

New Member
Sep 6, 2005
804
0
0
Carrera said:
Russia was a threat, I think, under Stalin. Stalin didn't rule out the notion Russia could win a nuclear war but he died before that risk might have become greater.
Recently, detailed plans for a Soviet invasion of Europe have surfaced and I think Russia was always prepared to move into west Berlin.
But people have massively misunderstood the Gorbachev era and the actual end of the Cold War. Russia didn't lose the Cold War at all. Economic stagnation at the time of Gorbachev wasn't so critical as people believe and the only real crisis came about in the Yeltsin era.
I was in Russia myself during both these periods - especially during the food shortages in 1991.
What really happened is that Russians had been getting fed up with communism for years - even back at the time of Chernenko. Young people in Russia wanted to get rich and own property or travel abroad. Communism just died out like Catholicism in France and Spain.
I do think it's a pity, though, that Gorbachev failed to modify communism so it could run alongside capitalism a bit like in China today. In communist Russia, there was a superb health and welfare system, full employment, virtually no crime and brilliant sports facilities. People lived simply but they were content with a better education than in the west.
Communism next to capitalism???.......China???.......YIKES!!!:eek:
 

Billsworld

New Member
Sep 6, 2005
804
0
0
wolfix said:
Canada declared war a year before America was dragged into WW2. It took aggressive acts from others before America became involved.
The people that control the capitol in every country are the ones with the power. That is not news.
100 + wars?? Give me 20.....
Yes, we are those kind of people. Yet , our borders are being run over by people trying to get in, not out.
And we get to vote and go to forums such as this with out fear of anyone.
A good question to ask might be , was ****** building that war machine in secret?. Did the idea that the nut might use it cross anyones mind ? I recall he did quite a bit of sabre rattling
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
wolfix said:
In America there is a myth going on about our medical health system. They say we need a national health care system. There already is. If you are poor, there are safety nets in place that would make the middle class green with envy.

The basic statistics give the lie to that. Infant mortality is *far* higher than Cuba's, for example. Cuba to all intents and purposes is a third world country. This contrasts with the fact that Americans spend more per head on Healthcare than *any* other nation on earth, regardless of how they pay for it (Tax + Private). Yes, that's right, even more than Canada and the UK...

wolfix said:
The poor in America have faster and more efficeint health care then the Canadian's do with their 'Free" health care. Of course it is not free..... They just pay taxes so high out of their income.

The usual term used term is "Free at the point of delivery".

wolfix said:
They "pre-pay" a larger ratio of income then Americans do..... Someone needs to explain the concept of the "free system' to me.

See "Free at the point of delivery".

Free at the point of delivery systems have consistantly delivered lower adult mortality rates, lower infant mortality rates and faster emergency treatment than the pay system (the US is no exception). You would know this of course having had a father who was a doctor and spent time working in the US, Canada and was the Vice Chairman of the BMA. He also spent several years researching into the impact of the UK's "Trust" style system, which broadly speaking he liked the idea of the marketplace *in principle*, but he couldn't see it actually serving patients better.

In practice it appears that he has been proven correct. News just in that hospitals are actually witholding treatment to patients in order to balance the books. This is a false economy, the earlier you treat the cheaper it is. That is where market values *don't* actually work because the people making the budget decisions are unqualified to make accurate costings. The lack of accurate costings kills capitalism stone dead. Another part of balancing the books involves witholding expensive treatments from patients - even if they do have a high success rate (the latter is important, it means the patient won't be coming back - they can be adding to the GDP rather than burning it).

Strangely enough Private Treatment is significantly more dangerous than Public Healthcare - quite the reverse of what many people believe. Public healthcare - in general - delivers better results more economically to a wider number of people. That isn't socialist dogma, it is hard fact. I would be interested to hear what improvements you would make to either system in order to maximise the GDP yield.