Black teacher burns flag in Sacramento classroom
Meep
American flag for his sixth grade class
in Sacramento:
Meep
Here is the correct link to the flag burning
story:
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/sac/news/localnews/stories/newslocalnews972800
20010925-160905.html
"Meep" <me...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5iHt7.805$Ve4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
ok...@server.net
>
> Re: muslim teacher burns flag in classroom
>
> Here is the correct link to the flag burning
> story:
>
> http://www.thekcrachannel.com/sac/news/localnews/stories/newslocalnews972800
> 20010925-160905.html
When do you propose the bombing campaign should begin?
> >
In the wake of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation. For
some, it
did not matter who bears the brunt of an American attack:
"There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that
is
you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly
involved in this thing."
--former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger (CNN, 9/11/01)
"The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be
as
simple as it is swift-- kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes,
blow
them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or
countries
that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts."
--Steve Dunleavy (New York Post, 9/12/01)
"America roused to a righteous anger has always been a force for good.
States that have been supporting if not Osama bin Laden, people like him
need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever
it
takes, that is part of the solution."
--Rich Lowry, National Review editor, to Howard Kurtz (Washington Post,
9/13/01)
"TIME TO TAKE NAMES AND NUKE AFGHANISTAN."
--Caption to cartoon by Gary Brookins (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9/13/01)
"At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against
the
bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be
rightly
seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice
on
the part of the United States and the current administration."
--Former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow, "Time to
Use
the Nuclear Option" (Washington Times, 9/14/01)
Bill O'Reilly: "If the Taliban government of Afghanistan does not
cooperate,
then we will damage that government with air power, probably. All right?
We
will blast them, because..."
Sam Husseini, Institute for Public Accuracy: "Who will you kill in the
process?"
O'Reilly: "Doesn't make any difference."
--("The O'Reilly Factor," Fox News Channel, 9/13/01)
"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals
directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should
invade
their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We
weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top
officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's
war.
And this is war."
--Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (New York Daily News, 9/12/01)
"Real" Retribution
Many media commentators appeared to blame the attacks on what they saw
as
America's unwillingness to act aggressively in recent years.
As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 9/12/01)
wrote: "One of the reasons there are enough terrorists out there capable
and
deadly enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in
its
history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past
responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on
empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas."
The Washington Post's David Broder (9/13/01), considered a moderate,
issued
his own call for "new realism-- and steel-- in America's national
security
policy": "For far too long, we have been queasy about responding to
terrorism. Two decades ago, when those with real or imagined grievances
against the United States began picking off Americans overseas on
military
or diplomatic assignments or on business, singly or in groups, we
delivered
pinprick retaliations or none at all."
It's worth recalling the U.S. response to the bombing of a Berlin disco
in
April 1986, which resulted in the deaths of two U.S. service members:
The
U.S. immediately bombed Libya, which it blamed for the attack. According
to
Libya, 36 civilians were killed in the air assault, including the
year-old
daughter of Libyan leader Moamar Khadafy (Washington Post, 5/9/86). It
is
unlikely that Libyans considered this a "pinprick." Yet these deaths
apparently had little deterrence value: In December 1988, less than 20
months later, Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in an even
deadlier act of
terrorism the U.S. blames on Libyan agents.
More recently, in 1998, Bill Clinton sent 60 cruise missiles, some
equipped
with cluster bombs, against bin Laden's Afghan base, in what was
presented
as retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa. One missile
aimed at Afghan training camps landed hundreds of miles off course in
Pakistan, while a simultaneous attack in Sudan leveled one of the
country's
few pharmaceutical factories. Media cheered the attacks (In These Times,
9/6/98), though careful investigation into the case revealed no credible
evidence linking the plant to chemical weapons or Osama bin Laden, the
two
justifications offered for the attack (New York Times, 10/27/99, London
Observer, 8/23/98).
Despite the dubious record of retributory violence in insuring security,
many pundits insist that previous retaliation failed only because it was
not
severe enough. As the Chicago Tribune's John Kass declared (9/13/01),
"For
the past decade we've sat dumb and stupid as the U.S. military was
transformed from a killing machine into a playpen for sociologists and
political schemers." This "playpen" dropped 23,000 bombs on Yugoslavia
in
1999, killing between 500 and 1,500 civilians, and may have killed as
many
as 1,200 Iraqis in 1998's Desert Fox attack (Agence France Presse,
12/23/98).
The Wall Street Journal (9/13/01) urged the U.S. to "get serious" about
terrorism by, among other things, eliminating "the 1995 rule, imposed by
former CIA Director John Deutsch under political pressure, limiting whom
the
U.S. can recruit for counter-terrorism. For fear of hiring rogues, the
CIA
decided it would only hire Boy Scouts." One non-Boy Scout the CIA worked
with in the 1980s is none other than Osama bin Laden (MSNBC, 8/24/98;
The
Atlantic, 7-8/01)-- then considered a valuable asset in the fight
against
Communism, but now suspected of being the chief instigator of the World
Trade Center attacks.
Who's to Blame?
In crisis situations, particularly those involving terrorism, media
often
report unsubstantiated information about suspects or those claiming
responsibility-- an error that is especially dangerous in the midst of
calls
for military retaliation.
Early reports on the morning of the attack indicated that the Democratic
Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility on Abu
Dhabi Television. Most outlets were careful with the information, though
NBC's Tom Brokaw, while not confirming the story, added fuel to the
fire:
"This comes, ironically, on a day when the Israel Foreign Minister
Shimon
Peres is scheduled to meet with Yasser Arafat. Of course, we've had the
meeting in South Africa for the past several days in which the
Palestinians
were accusing the Israelis of racism"-- as if making such an accusation
were
tantamount to blowing up the World Trade Center.
Hours after a spokesperson for the Democratic Front for the Liberation
of
Palestine denied any responsibility for the attack, the Drudge Report
website still had the headline "Palestinian Group Says Responsible" at
the
top of the page.
Though the threat from a Palestinian group proved unsubstantiated, that
did
not stop media from making gross generalizations about Arabs and Islam
in
general. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wondered (9/13/01):
"Surely Islam, a grand religion that never perpetrated the sort of
Holocaust
against the Jews in its midst that Europe did, is being distorted when
it is
treated as a guidebook for suicide bombing. How is it that not a single
Muslim leader will say that?"
Of course, many Muslims would-- and did-- say just that. Political and
civil leaders throughout the Muslim world have condemned the attacks,
and
Muslim clerics throughout the Middle East have given sermons refuting
the
idea that targeting civilians is a tenet of Islam (BBC, 9/14/01;
Washington
Post 9/17/01).
Why They Hate Us
As the media investigation focused on Osama bin Laden, news outlets
still
provided little information about what fuels his fanaticism. Instead of
a
serious inquiry into anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East and
elsewhere,
many commentators media offered little more than self-congratulatory
rhetoric:
"[The World Trade Center and the Pentagon] have drawn, like gathered
lightning, the anger of the enemies of civilization. Those enemies are
always out there.... Americans are slow to anger but mighty when angry,
and
their proper anger now should be alloyed with pride. They are targets
because of their virtues--principally democracy, and loyalty to those
nations which, like Israel, are embattled salients of our virtues in a
still-dangerous world."
--George Will (Washington Post, 9/12/01)
"This nation symbolizes freedom, strength, tolerance, and democratic
principles dedicated to both liberty and peace. To the tyrants, the
despots,
the closed societies, there are no alterations to the policies, no
gestures
we can make, no words we can say that will convince those determined to
continue their hate."
--Charles G. Boyd (Washington Post, 9/12/01)
"Are Americans afraid to face the reality that there is a significant
portion of this world's population that hates America, hates what
freedom
represents, hates the fact that we fight for freedom worldwide, hates
our
prosperity, hates our way of life? Have we been unwilling to face that
very
difficult reality?"
--Sean Hannity (Fox News Channel, 9/13/01)
"Our principled defense of individual freedom and our reluctance to
intervene in the affairs of states harboring terrorists makes us an easy
target."
--Robert McFarlane (Washington Post, 9/13/01)
One exception was ABC's Jim Wooten (World News Tonight, 9/12/01), who
tried
to shed some light on what might motivate some anti-U.S. sentiment in
the
Middle East, reporting that "Arabs see the U.S. as an accomplice of
Israel,
a partner in what they believe is the ruthless repression of Palestinian
aspirations for land and independence." Wooten continued: "The most
provocative issues: Israel's control over Islamic holy sites in
Jerusalem;
the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia near some of Islam's
holiest
sites; and economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been seen to
deprive
children there of medicine and food."
Stories like Wooten's, which examine the U.S.'s highly contentious role
in
the Middle East and illuminate some of the forces that can give rise to
violent extremism, contribute far more to public security than do
pundits
calling for indiscriminate revenge.
----------
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fa...@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies
of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses,
to us
at: fa...@fair.org .
FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the
Fox
News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 7 pm
and
Sundays at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings.
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130
stations in
the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .
Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra!
For more information, go to:
http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.
FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its
New
York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see:
http://www.fair.org/internships.html
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by
sending a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to
LIST...@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU . Our subscriber list is kept
confidential.
You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with "SIGNOFF
FAIR-L" in the body to: LIST...@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU .
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fa...@fair.org
list administrators: FAIR-L-...@american.edu
John Savard
>When do you propose the bombing campaign should begin?
Who needs bombs? Presumably, the teacher's union will not be dumb
enough to kick up a fuss when he is dismissed.
They can always claim that setting a fire is a safety hazard, though,
if deferring to public sentiment is not allowed.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/maps/mapint.htm
Geoffrey Gies
John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:09:19 GMT, ok...@server.net wrote, in part:
>
>>When do you propose the bombing campaign should begin?
>
>Who needs bombs? Presumably, the teacher's union will not be dumb
>enough to kick up a fuss when he is dismissed.
>
state wholly constituent of spoiled brats REALLY reacts upon an attack
on its own shores (despite doing the same to others for DECADES) should
be a matter for historical record.
>They can always claim that setting a fire is a safety hazard, though,
>if deferring to public sentiment is not allowed.
>
And you can take the slow boat from whence your parents came if
you don't like it. Freedom, eh?
okask assembled the most compelling evidence I've
seen that "ethnic cleansing" might be behind the entire matter.
Mind you, that is one of your goals, nay?
Feh!
--
Mr. Giuliani urged for calm and called for a complete evacuation
of lower Manhattan. -Globe and Mail, Tuesday Sept. 11, 2001
John Connolly
Geoffrey Gies wrote:
--
Image Control ~ Remanufactured and Generic Toner Cartridges
Lasers/Fax/Copiers ~ Refill Kits for over 800 InkJets
1396 Kingston Rd. Toronto ON Canada M1N 1R3
(416) 694-7509 Fax 694-7929 ~ Member BBB & CIPRA
Canadian Imaging Products Remanufacturers Assn.
Free email help with toner problems ~ http://www.image-control.com
Humble Wisdom
"Geoffrey Gies" <geof...@iguana.reptiles.org> wrote in message
news:9p8f4u$1ujf$1...@news.tht.net...
> In article <3bb7a983...@news.powersurfr.com>,
> >Who needs bombs? Presumably, the teacher's union will not be dumb
> >enough to kick up a fuss when he is dismissed.
> >
> What a pity. Educating children about how a whore war mongering
> state wholly constituent of spoiled brats REALLY reacts upon an
attack
> on its own shores (despite doing the same to others for DECADES)
should
> be a matter for historical record.
Speaking about historical records. The historical record tends
to contradict everything you've said. In fact, the historical record
kind of suggests that you're mental midget with a hate on for the
U.S., probably because of some kind of dumbass ideological
opposition which is both poorly thought out and mindlessly
adhered to. Maybe you'd be better off going out into the street
and setting yourself on fire to protest American agression. I
know the human race would be.
Geoffrey Gies
Humble Wisdom <B9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Geoffrey Gies" <geof...@iguana.reptiles.org> wrote in message
>news:9p8f4u$1ujf$1...@news.tht.net...
>> In article <3bb7a983...@news.powersurfr.com>,
>> >Who needs bombs? Presumably, the teacher's union will not be dumb
>> >enough to kick up a fuss when he is dismissed.
>> >
>> What a pity. Educating children about how a whore war mongering
>> state wholly constituent of spoiled brats REALLY reacts upon an
>attack
>> on its own shores (despite doing the same to others for DECADES)
>should
>> be a matter for historical record.
>
>Speaking about historical records. The historical record tends
>to contradict everything you've said.
My, what big shutters you have!
>In fact, the historical record
>kind of suggests that you're mental midget with a hate on for the
>U.S., probably because of some kind of dumbass ideological
>opposition which is both poorly thought out and mindlessly
>adhered to.
My, what closed ears you have!
>Maybe you'd be better off going out into the street
>and setting yourself on fire to protest American agression. I
>know the human race would be.
>
My! What no teeth you have!
Look choirboy. You want to fight, go fight. The YouEss wants
cannonfodder. Little 'Murrican Johnnys and Debbies coming home in body
bags will piss off the voting public pronto.
Enlisting the aid of "furriners" for enemy target practice will
be politically favourable I'm sure.
nkennedy
cannonfodder. Little 'Murrican Johnnys and Debbies coming home in body
bags will piss off the voting public pronto.
Enlisting the aid of "furriners" for enemy target practice will
be politically favourable I'm sure."->Geoffrey Gies
This is what is so disgusting about so many of the right wing scum
in this group. They are so quick to "sacrifice" other Canadians in order
to lick "Uncle Sam"'s ass.
But the yellow bastards are all quite aware that they will not be
involved.
Neil K
Geoffrey Gies
by introducing references to colour. This is the M$ generation
afterall, and "yellow bastards" was a common term of endearment for the
VC.
Tony Blair may be afflicted with a preoccupation to commit
anilingus on Shrubya. But that's his thing. Sending the British of the
colonies (read esp. West Indians, Indians and Africans) for his
betterment (politically) is a mark of weakness.
Humble Wisdom
"Geoffrey Gies" <geof...@iguana.reptiles.org> wrote in message \
> Humble Wisdom <B9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Geoffrey Gies" <geof...@iguana.reptiles.org> wrote in message
> >to contradict everything you've said.
>
> My, what big shutters you have!
Ah, yeah. That's the same kind of argument the Holocaust
deniers make. "Oh you fool, you fool! You mustn't
believe what the Jewish Conspiracy has put into all the
media and history books! Just listen to me! For only
I know the truth!"
Not much difference between them and you, really.
You just hate different targets.
Geoffrey Gies
Humble Wisdom <B9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Geoffrey Gies" <geof...@iguana.reptiles.org> wrote in message \
>> Humble Wisdom <B9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"Geoffrey Gies" <geof...@iguana.reptiles.org> wrote in message
>> >Speaking about historical records. The historical record tends
>> >to contradict everything you've said.
>>
>> My, what big shutters you have!
>
>Ah, yeah. That's the same kind of argument the Holocaust
>deniers make. "Oh you fool, you fool! You mustn't
>believe what the Jewish Conspiracy has put into all the
>media and history books! Just listen to me! For only
>I know the truth!"
>
past. As for me, I've participated in my share of community projects.
Would you like references?
>Not much difference between them and you, really.
>You just hate different targets.
>
Monoculturalism and world domination by monocultures among them.
The uniform might suit you, but some are cut to other sizes. Tolerance
and acceptance seem much more lofty goals worth pursuing. Thai
restaurants by McBurger flippers are not made.
Anything else you would like Cinderella?
John Savard
(Geoffrey Gies) wrote, in part:
> Enlisting the aid of "furriners" for enemy target practice will
>be politically favourable I'm sure.
Many innocent people died in the Twin Towers. I hope you at least
agree with that.
The depravity of this act, against beloved members of families of
people living in a peace-loving nation - a nation that helped save
Britain and Canada from being overrun by the Nazis, a nation that bore
most of the cost, often thanklessly, of defending the world from the
brutal Russian Communist tyranny - ought to be enough to prove that
there is no merit whatever in the claims of the "Palestinians".
The United States will respond to this incident. It has been
responding with great restraint and forbearance.
Geoffrey Gies
John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:39:24 +0000 (UTC), geof...@iguana.reptiles.org
>(Geoffrey Gies) wrote, in part:
>
>> Enlisting the aid of "furriners" for enemy target practice will
>>be politically favourable I'm sure.
>
>Many innocent people died in the Twin Towers. I hope you at least
>agree with that.
>
And some real slimeballs too.
Haven't you read the list of tenants? Hasn't it occurred to you
as yet what those companies did?
>The depravity of this act, against beloved members of families of
>people living in a peace-loving nation - a nation that helped save
>Britain and Canada from being overrun by the Nazis, a nation that bore
>most of the cost, often thanklessly, of defending the world from the
>brutal Russian Communist tyranny - ought to be enough to prove that
>there is no merit whatever in the claims of the "Palestinians".
>
Cry me a river "Mr. let me dismiss any claim of native
civilisation prior to Columbus so we can deny them their due under
signed treaty". By the time the You Ess became involved in WWdeuce, the
battle of Britain was over, shipping lanes were once again secure and
the airwar had been taken back over the continent. Although Dieppe had
proven a no gain, it had proven a useful employment of otherwise awol,
crass and drunken Canajians as connon fodder might serve as a lesson for
surviving enlistees (not to mention they served as fine cannonfodder
again at Normandy).
Brutal Communist tyranny? Don't forget, the You Ess came very
close to suspending democracy during this period.
As for cost, the You Ess profitted very nicely as a result of
lend/lease, then as THE bully on the block as Britain backed away from
its "colonials" as they became increasingly incenced with paying
tributes back to the empire.
Now what the hell do Palestinians have to do with any of this?
Would you inferring the mighty You Ess might have targetted the wrong
party? Likewise, might it have been a Serbian plot to defer interest in
their former beloved leader?
Or, should you accept any number of parties might be behind the
events of Sept 11, why not the CIA? They had expressed consternation
with their allotment (despite having a monopoloy on importation of
Afghan poppie product). Or would you like to maintain they would never
resort to such tactics despite their previous similar involvement?
>The United States will respond to this incident. It has been
>responding with great restraint and forbearance.
>
By declaring war? On parties "unknown"? Damnit, the
probability of this being a home grown event orchestrated by the kluless
klod klique is just as strong. Haven't you been known to associate with
offshoots of the same in the past? National Front, wasn't it? Or was
it the Heritage Front?
As much as I cherish every moment without a new crater in this
world, I can see why others might push for pushing the panic button.
Deferring blame to the dead beats beating the bushes of ones backyard,
eh?
>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
>http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/maps/mapint.htm
John Savard
(Geoffrey Gies) wrote, in part:
>Haven't you been known to associate with
>offshoots of the same in the past? National Front, wasn't it? Or was
>it the Heritage Front?
No, but your strange notions about the CIA and so on might lead others
to ask you similar leading questions - with rather more justification.
But you may have arrived too late for the Cold War.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Russil Wvong
> By the time the You Ess became involved in WWdeuce, the
> battle of Britain was over, shipping lanes were once again secure and
> the airwar had been taken back over the continent.
So you're saying if the US hadn't entered World War II, the Nazis
would still have been defeated? I think you fail to realize how
perilous Britain's position was. They were the only remaining
power fighting Nazi Germany.
Here's Churchill's description of his feelings on learning that the
Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor:
At this very moment I knew that the United States was in the war,
up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!
Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible
episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion ... we had won the war.
England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations
and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in
what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this
moment care.... We should not be wiped out. Our history would
not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals.
... Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went
to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.
Quoted in "Churchill and Coalition Strategy", by Eliot A. Cohen, in
"Grand Strategies in War and Peace", ed. Paul Kennedy.
Anyone who thinks that the outcome of World War II was preordained --
that there's no way the Nazis could have succeeded in enslaving
Europe -- should read William Shirer's book "The Rise and Fall of
the Third Reich".
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Geoffrey Gies
Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>geof...@iguana.reptiles.org (Geoffrey Gies) wrote:
>> By the time the You Ess became involved in WWdeuce, the
>> battle of Britain was over, shipping lanes were once again secure and
>> the airwar had been taken back over the continent.
>
>So you're saying if the US hadn't entered World War II, the Nazis
>would still have been defeated? I think you fail to realize how
>perilous Britain's position was. They were the only remaining
>power fighting Nazi Germany.
>
So what do you think the Nazis were fighting on the eastern
front? Butterflies?
Fock man.
>Here's Churchill's description of his feelings on learning that the
>Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor:
>
> At this very moment I knew that the United States was in the war,
> up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!
> Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible
> episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion ... we had won the war.
> England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations
> and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in
> what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this
> moment care.... We should not be wiped out. Our history would
> not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals.
>
> ... Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went
> to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.
>
>Quoted in "Churchill and Coalition Strategy", by Eliot A. Cohen, in
>"Grand Strategies in War and Peace", ed. Paul Kennedy.
>
>Anyone who thinks that the outcome of World War II was preordained --
>that there's no way the Nazis could have succeeded in enslaving
>Europe -- should read William Shirer's book "The Rise and Fall of
>the Third Reich".
>
Well yes, of course. And possibly a few other tomes on the
matter from differing viewpoints would be in order. As ugly and
reprehensible as redirecting the Nazi onslaught from resources (Russian
gasfields) to population centres (Stalingrad), the Soviets did indeed
remove the sixth army as a fighting force. Accomplishing the same
without maintaining the security of Soviet gasfields would have been
quite another matter considering the fuel requirements of the Nazis in
maintaining long supply lines (this worked against the Nazis on all
fronts btw).
All of which was in place in my understanding by December 8,
1941 (Pearl Harbour) despite the wee matter the battle for Stalingrad
had barely begun.
The You Ess was well into lend/lease at this juncture and
profitting quite nicely. Russian forces were quite happy with P38s and
busily adapting them to duty as low level attack craft.
What all should be considering is the role of the bastard
Bildenbughuers in the ornate detail. That the "Fed" should be owned
offshore needs to be cause for pause of all Yawn-key-doo-dads.
Russil Wvong
> Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >So you're saying if the US hadn't entered World War II, the Nazis
> >would still have been defeated? I think you fail to realize how
> >perilous Britain's position was. They were the only remaining
> >power fighting Nazi Germany.
>
> Ummm ..
> So what do you think the Nazis were fighting on the eastern
> front? Butterflies?
> Fock man.
Oooooops. You're right, Hitler had already invaded the Soviet Union
by then.
I didn't make up the Churchill quote describing his relief on learning
that the US had entered the war, though.
> What all should be considering is the role of the bastard
> Bildenbughuers in the ornate detail. That the "Fed" should be owned
> offshore needs to be cause for pause of all Yawn-key-doo-dads.
Sorry, your convoluted prose style is too much for my puny brain.
What are you trying to say? "Bildenbughuers"?
Geoffrey Gies
Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>geof...@iguana.reptiles.org (Geoffrey Gies) wrote:
>> Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >So you're saying if the US hadn't entered World War II, the Nazis
>> >would still have been defeated? I think you fail to realize how
>> >perilous Britain's position was. They were the only remaining
>> >power fighting Nazi Germany.
>>
>> Ummm ..
>> So what do you think the Nazis were fighting on the eastern
>> front? Butterflies?
>> Fock man.
>
>Oooooops. You're right, Hitler had already invaded the Soviet Union
>by then.
>
about that time as well. Monty had routed the Italians, then gotten
himself in a game of hide 'n' seek with some guy named Rommel (or
something to that affect). If the Nazis couldn't get Soviet oil, they
needed Libyan to continue. They did not have the resources to maintain
a heavily mechanised military on synthetic fuel indefinitely.
>I didn't make up the Churchill quote describing his relief on learning
>that the US had entered the war, though.
>
Never meant to suggest you did. Your interpretation of it is
another matter however. There was some concern the United States might
enter the war on the side of the Fascists - the Nazi party was active in
the US at the time. The US had only recently (at the time) toyed with
suspending democracy and appointing a leader from the military.
>> What all should be considering is the role of the bastard
>> Bildenbughuers in the ornate detail. That the "Fed" should be owned
>> offshore needs to be cause for pause of all Yawn-key-doo-dads.
>
>Sorry, your convoluted prose style is too much for my puny brain.
>What are you trying to say? "Bildenbughuers"?
>
You might want to investigate who actually owns "the Fed", that
body responsible for printing and circulating US currency. Taft
maintained allowing its creation was his greatest political blunder.
The United States, a democracy with no control over its own currency.
Amazing.
Russil Wvong
> Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I didn't make up the Churchill quote describing his relief on learning
> >that the US had entered the war, though.
> >
> Never meant to suggest you did. Your interpretation of it is
> another matter however. There was some concern the United States might
> enter the war on the side of the Fascists - the Nazi party was active in
> the US at the time.
I think that's a stretch. From the quote, it's clear Churchill
believed that without US intervention, the UK was pretty close
to doomed. Nazi lack of oil supplies notwithstanding.
What sources are you using, by the way?
> You might want to investigate who actually owns "the Fed", that
> body responsible for printing and circulating US currency. Taft
> maintained allowing its creation was his greatest political blunder.
Sorry, you'll have to help me out again. You're talking about the
Federal Reserve (www.federalreserve.gov)? I couldn't find any
references to foreign ownership. Again, what sources are you using?
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, BC
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Geoffrey Gies
Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>geof...@iguana.reptiles.org (Geoffrey Gies) wrote:
>> Russil Wvong <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I didn't make up the Churchill quote describing his relief on learning
>> >that the US had entered the war, though.
>> >
>> Never meant to suggest you did. Your interpretation of it is
>> another matter however. There was some concern the United States might
>> enter the war on the side of the Fascists - the Nazi party was active in
>> the US at the time.
>
>I think that's a stretch. From the quote, it's clear Churchill
>believed that without US intervention, the UK was pretty close
>to doomed. Nazi lack of oil supplies notwithstanding.
>
for cannon fodder and natural resources. It's shipping, though hampered, was
certainly not effectively shut down like that of the Nazis. America was
already supplying vast quantities of manufactured goods to Britain.
>What sources are you using, by the way?
>
NPR and PBS. "The American Experience" covered some highlights
of the period including how close the US came to becoming a military
dictatorship and fascist sympathies within the US House and Senate
during that era. You should be able to get NPR via 970 on your am dial.
PBS is at www.pbs.org.
>> You might want to investigate who actually owns "the Fed", that
>> body responsible for printing and circulating US currency. Taft
>> maintained allowing its creation was his greatest political blunder.
>
>Sorry, you'll have to help me out again. You're talking about the
>Federal Reserve (www.federalreserve.gov)? I couldn't find any
>references to foreign ownership. Again, what sources are you using?
>
PBS ran a program Tuesday night on this specifically. If memory
serves, it was entitled "Who owns the Fed".