Four More Years!

Carrera said:

What I do find strange, though, is the fact modern day Britain declined so much after the war. Britain's economy and military capacity used to be greater than the whole of Europe put together, whereas today it would have a hard time matching France and depends almost entirely on the U.S. for defence.

Some folks say that the decline started with the Boer War which I think is a fair assessment. WWI = major beating, WWII = major beating, to cap it all we gave up our remaining major colonies after WWII, and with that a substantial amount of economic power. Oh, and lest we forget : American help didn't come for free in WWII, Lend-Lease, not Give-and-Give-Again. We are still paying that, in some respects Germany got a better deal than the UK. 🙂

darkboong said:

Some folks say that the decline started with the Boer War which I think is a fair assessment. WWI = major beating, WWII = major beating, to cap it all we gave up our remaining major colonies after WWII, and with that a substantial amount of economic power. Oh, and lest we forget : American help didn't come for free in WWII, Lend-Lease, not Give-and-Give-Again. We are still paying that, in some respects Germany got a better deal than the UK. 🙂

Might want to review that lend-lease history again.

davidbod said:

I think this speaks for itself:

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening%20Standard

What's your point ? Mass graves with children shot in the head by US snipers already exist in Fallujah. If you mean America's occupation of Iraq is somehow justified by the crimes of Saddam then you have to explain to how replacing one bunch of unaccountable psychos with another bunch of unaccountable psychos helps the kids of Iraq.

davidbod said:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6235402/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3026821.stm

Appalling. Even worse that the US occupation has claimed even more civillian lives.

davidbod said:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

Galloway was actually cleared of that in a Libel hearing against the Labour Party. Tony Blair and his cronies led the smear campaign. Pretty sure Galloway had [censored] all to do with the Security Council too. Let's not forget that while the American politicians and media are only too happy to smear any nation who doesn't bend to their will, they don't seem to be too keen on investigating or discussing American involvement in the Oil for Food programme. Let's make this clear : The US was certainly feeding at the same trough.

Mind you, I don't expect high standards of journalism from an "Op-Ed" piece appearing a publication that has since apologised for their lapse in journalistic standards.

davidbod said:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

... Which is a joke given the lack of evidence for Al Queda's existance before the name was coined by a professional con-artist who was paid to give evidence in a US courtroom ...

To be honest the only ones with anything to gain by the UN corruption charges are the bunch who resented the sanctions and who rode roughshod over international law on a bunch of pretexts that turned out to be outright lies. Don't forget that Cheney complained bitterly about the Iraq sanctions while working for Haliburton, oh and Halliburton actively traded with Saddam under the Oil for Food Programme...

darkboong said:

Galloway was actually cleared of that in a Libel hearing against the Labour Party. Tony Blair and his cronies led the smear campaign. Pretty sure Galloway had [censored] all to do with the Security Council too. Let's not forget that while the American politicians and media are only too happy to smear any nation who doesn't bend to their will, they don't seem to be too keen on investigating or discussing American involvement in the Oil for Food programme. Let's make this clear : The US was certainly feeding at the same trough.

Mind you, I don't expect high standards of journalism from an "Op-Ed" piece appearing a publication that has since apologised for their lapse in journalistic standards.

... Which is a joke given the lack of evidence for Al Queda's existance before the name was coined by a professional con-artist who was paid to give evidence in a US courtroom ...

To be honest the only ones with anything to gain by the UN corruption charges are the bunch who resented the sanctions and who rode roughshod over international law on a bunch of pretexts that turned out to be outright lies. Don't forget that Cheney complained bitterly about the Iraq sanctions while working for Haliburton, oh and Halliburton actively traded with Saddam under the Oil for Food Programme...

The "evidence" against Galloway was laughable.

The Telegraph in Britain "discovered" a communication said to show that Galloway got a pay off from the Iraqi's.
The document was found on top of a pile of rubble in a destroyed building.
No other documents were found in that destroyed building - apart from this one piece of paper allegedly showing a money transaction.

Galloway sued the Christian Science Monitor for publishing lies and he has a case pending against the Telegraph due to be heard in the high court for
Libel.

darkboong said:

Some folks say that the decline started with the Boer War which I think is a fair assessment. WWI = major beating, WWII = major beating, to cap it all we gave up our remaining major colonies after WWII, and with that a substantial amount of economic power. Oh, and lest we forget : American help didn't come for free in WWII, Lend-Lease, not Give-and-Give-Again. We are still paying that, in some respects Germany got a better deal than the UK. 🙂

Ok since your lend lease history is f'd up, I'll educate you. Lend lease ended on August 21, 1945. All was settled up within 15 years. That was in 1960 for you Darkboong. The USSR settled in 1972.

Carrera said:

Britain's economy and military capacity used to be greater than the whole of Europe put together, whereas today it would have a hard time matching France and depends almost entirely on the U.S. for defence.

I cannot see many scenario's, if any, whereby, in modern times, Britain would be invaded.(apoligize for all of the comma's) As for WWII Their people held out valiantly during the Luftwaffe air raids. Churchill rallied the people @ him w/: ".... You ask, What is our policy? I will say; It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
-- Winston Churchill

Bikerman2004 said:

Ok since your lend lease history is f'd up, I'll educate you. Lend lease ended on August 21, 1945. All was settled up within 15 years. That was in 1960 for you Darkboong. The USSR settled in 1972.

That's what I thought too. Apparently I was wrong. 😉

More stuff for Europe to ignore:

http://www.iht.com/articles/541766.html

Bikerman2004 said:

Please tell me when did the Allies start winning the war? Poland, France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria had all surrendered. Britain was getting pounded by the Luftwaffe and the Russians were taking a beating on the eastern front. Where are those victories that turned the war around in 1941?

The Russians were only getting pounded there as they were too concerned about China invading through Siberia. Once they established that was not going to happen, they moved their Siberian troups to defent against the Germans, this was a highly effective move

davidbod said:

More stuff for Europe to ignore:

http://www.iht.com/articles/541766.html

The source of the allegations has a vested interest in smearing opponents to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Furthermore the source of the allegations is part of an organisation that has consistently made unwarranted attacks on the UN during the past 4 years. It is also worth noting that Haliburton's involvement in the Oil for Food Programme (under [censored] Cheney) has barely been mentioned.

To put it bluntly the people making those allegations are heavily biased. The allegations should be assessed with all of that in mind. At best it's a smoke screen for the US establishment's activities, at worst it's just another crude (but clearly a very effective) attempt to demonise Europeans.

Europe hasn't ignored the allegations either, although I imagine it might seem that way given the relentless repetition and extreme bias in the US mass-media coverage.

darkboong said:

The source of the allegations has a vested interest in smearing opponents to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Furthermore the source of the allegations is part of an organisation that has consistently made unwarranted attacks on the UN during the past 4 years. It is also worth noting that Haliburton's involvement in the Oil for Food Programme (under [censored] Cheney) has barely been mentioned.

To put it bluntly the people making those allegations are heavily biased. The allegations should be assessed with all of that in mind. At best it's a smoke screen for the US establishment's activities, at worst it's just another crude (but clearly a very effective) attempt to demonise Europeans.

Europe hasn't ignored the allegations either, although I imagine it might seem that way given the relentless repetition and extreme bias in the US mass-media coverage.

Take everything you just said, flip the argument, replace USA with Europe and vice versa and replace Haliburton with the French, Russian or Chinese companies which profited under the OFF program and what do you have.

Think about it.

davidbod said:

Take everything you just said, flip the argument, replace USA with Europe and vice versa and replace Haliburton with the French, Russian or Chinese companies which profited under the OFF program and what do you have.

Think about it.

I have thought about that, a lot. That is why I try to read around topics rather than simply buy the Mass Media line (US or European).

However, you missed the point of my post...

I am not disputing that folks were on the take. I am drawing attention to the fact that the US establishment has dirty hands too.

Ssushi said:

The Russians were only getting pounded there as they were too concerned about China invading through Siberia. Once they established that was not going to happen, they moved their Siberian troups to defent against the Germans, this was a highly effective move

Yes the Chinese who were being beaten by the Japanese! Maybe you meant the Japanese? Wait couldn't be them. The Japs and Soviets had signed a neutrality pact in April 1941. 2 months before [censored] invaded. The Russians got pounded because Stalin refused to believe the British intelligience that was telling him of a major troop buildup on his borders. It also didn't help when Stalin, ever the paranoid tyrant, purged his officers in 1940. The Russians got pounded because they were outmanned and outgunned. They started winning in 1943 because the Germans were overextended.

check this out

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

lumpy said:

check this out

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

Good one. Coincidence?

lumpy said:

check this out

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

Well, well, well !

That's a big co-incidental, isn't it ?
Thanks for this graphic - it's very interesting.

Bush sure ain't no Abraham Lincoln, though.

lumpy said:

check this out

selekta.commap.jpgOpen ↗

Using a electronic music site for politics?

Missouri - fought for the Union
W. Virginia - fought for the Union
Kentucky - fought for the Union
Maryland - fought for the Union

Interesting they try to turn the election into a racial statement. The map doesn't explain why Nevada, Idaho, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Kansas(free state), Iowa(free state), New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Indiana(free state), Ohio(free state), Nebraska, Oklahoma(not a state until 1907) went for Bush.

Only half-right. It's true Stalin weakened Russia considerably by purging his top military commanders. It's also true he refused to believe [censored] would have invaded the USSR. And, yes, it's true the Russians were totally caught by surprise and lost masses of territory due to the speed of [censored]'s attack. It's said that Stalin inititally went into a depression, hid himself away and refused to take any kind of lead to recuperate the situation.
However, Stalin made a big comeback. He acquired a solid grasp of military matters and the Russian people rallied round the war effort. Factories began to churn out tanks and missiles on a massive scale and the Red Army proved it had been hugely underestimated, both in terms of sheer size and resiliance.
As the war reached it's conclusion, it was Russia that outgunned Germany, as well as the whole of Europe. It was Russia that finally took Berlin - the German military centre, surrounded the bunkers and destroyed [censored]'s elite army.
And I should repeat that [censored] himself stated he believed it was Russia that had proven to be his downfall in the end. He denounced his idea that the Slavs were an inferior race and even derided his own German troops for not showing the same kind of steadfastness.
At the close of the war, Stalin had the world's biggest army and even during the Regan years, Russia still outgunned the U.S.A. with regard to conventional weapons such as tanks and field munitions. Regan himself acknowledged the U.S. wouldn't have been able to match the USSR in any conventional war - which is why he emphasised nuclear weapons instead and the concept of assured, mutual self-destruction.

Bikerman2004 said:

Yes the Chinese who were being beaten by the Japanese! Maybe you meant the Japanese? Wait couldn't be them. The Japs and Soviets had signed a neutrality pact in April 1941. 2 months before [censored] invaded. The Russians got pounded because Stalin refused to believe the British intelligience that was telling him of a major troop buildup on his borders. It also didn't help when Stalin, ever the paranoid tyrant, purged his officers in 1940. The Russians got pounded because they were outmanned and outgunned. They started winning in 1943 because the Germans were overextended.

Carrera said:

However, Stalin made a big comeback. He acquired a solid grasp of military matters and the Russian people rallied round the war effort. Factories began to churn out tanks and missiles on a massive scale and the Red Army proved it had been hugely underestimated, both in terms of sheer size and resiliance.

Stalin had a grasp of military matters? Try telling that to the millions of Russians who died in Stalingrad. He ordered the city held at all costs just because of its name. It had no strategic value.
[censored] never believed the Slavs were better. In fact the Germans wanted peace on the western front because they still thought they could beat the Russians. [censored] didn't underestimate anyone. He took bold gambles that didn't payoff. He allowed Germany to get into a situation that was fatal. A two front war.

lumpy said:

check this out

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

I agree, coincidence 😕 I think not !!!