Monarchy=Dictatorship
kk...@rocketmail.com
The only difference is that one wears a crown.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
AVILLEZ
If you think that that is the only diference, then you should go and live
in a dictatorship for a few years.
Republic = Dictatorship, he only diference is that one thinks that he
acts in the name of all the people, and pretends to be legitimante.
Filipe
DKM
wrote in article <8786758...@dejanews.com>...
> The only difference is that one wears a crown.
So your saying all the Kings and Queens in Europe are dictators?
I would love to here your proof for this, please provide it.
DKM
gareth.ellis
AVILLEZ (bfe...@mail.telepac.pt) wrote:
: kk...@rocketmail.com wrote:
: >
: > The only difference is that one wears a crown.
: >
: > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
: If you think that that is the only diference, then you should go and live
: in a dictatorship for a few years.
: Republic = Dictatorship, he only diference is that one thinks that he
: acts in the name of all the people, and pretends to be legitimante.
: Filipe
yep, it is quiet ironic that the most stable and long lasting system of
government, which has evolved, almost 800yrs ago guaranteed the freedoms
of its peoples, and over these years has adapted to a fine democratic
system of government, happens to be a constitutional monarchy.
uhm.
G
Adam Lock
And which monarchy would that be then? One from the middle ages, or one
in the 20th century?
I suspect you meant 20th century despite fact the fact that you don't
seem to have a clue on what you're talking about. It's laughable really
that anyone utters such nonsense but it takes all sorts I suppose. As a
child did you suffer some trauma at the hand of the royal to cause you
to form your illogical views? Were you the victim of a savage corgi
attack?
Adam
Richard Caley
In article <8786758...@dejanews.com>, kkdf (k) writes:
k> The only difference is that one wears a crown.
TROLLOMETER
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
EMPTY ^ IRRESISTABLE
PAGE
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
paul
Paul Hyett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
> to be a pain, I replied -
> >kk...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> >: The only difference is that one wears a crown.
> >:
> >
> >You obviously don't grasp the vastness or the sacredness of that
> >difference.
> >
> >God Bless Empire!!
>
> You just can't resist responding to anyone, troll or otherwise, who
> criticises the monarchy, can you!
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Louis is crackers mate!
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
English rule of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man
is dictatorship.
DKM
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote in article <346238...@cableinet.co.uk>...
> English rule of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man
> is dictatorship.
You have made a statement, now support it.
DKM
Louis Epstein
Paul Hyett (pah...@activist.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
: to be a pain, I replied -
: >kk...@rocketmail.com wrote:
: >: The only difference is that one wears a crown.
: >:
: >
: >You obviously don't grasp the vastness or the sacredness of that
: >difference.
: >
: >God Bless Empire!!
:
: You just can't resist responding to anyone, troll or otherwise, who
: criticises the monarchy, can you!
I enjoy doing so.
Hendrick Rudolph
Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
>to be a pain, I replied -
>>kk...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>>: The only difference is that one wears a crown.
>>:
>>
>>You obviously don't grasp the vastness or the sacredness of that
>>difference.
>>
>>God Bless Empire!!
>You just can't resist responding to anyone, troll or otherwise, who
>criticises the monarchy, can you!
>--
>Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
I see a difference, at least dictators come into power because they
have some talent, even Crazy Hitler was able to tern around the German
economy, when the rest of the world was suffering from depression.
The only reason a monarch will receive any power is birth, they
can be a stupid as dirt and still inherit the crown.
Monarchies are just dictatorships that survive through the
generations.
(((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))
I love Canada, we just need to get the cow off our money.(((((())))))
((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((()))))
David L. Jaroslav
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> English rule of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man
> is dictatorship.
"English rule" does not exist in most of those places -- save
Cornwall, which is a part of England. One could more legitimately
protest "Scottish rule" in England, as a disproportianate
percentage of both Parliament and the Cabinet are from north of
the border.
As for any of this equalling dictatorship, that's a load of
self-righteous BS. There are real dictatorships in this world,
and you do a grave injustice to those suffereing under them by
saying this.
--
David L. Jaroslav
<dj7...@american.edu>
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him."
-C.G. Jung
Louis Epstein
Hendrick Rudolph (hrud...@callisto.uwinnipeg.ca) wrote:
: Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:
: >On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
: >to be a pain, I replied -
: >>kk...@rocketmail.com wrote:
: >>: The only difference is that one wears a crown.
: >>:
: >>
: >>You obviously don't grasp the vastness or the sacredness of that
: >>difference.
: >>
: >>God Bless Empire!!
:
: >You just can't resist responding to anyone, troll or otherwise, who
: >criticises the monarchy, can you!
:
:
: I see a difference, at least dictators come into power because they
: have some talent, even Crazy Hitler was able to tern around the German
: economy, when the rest of the world was suffering from depression.
: The only reason a monarch will receive any power is birth, they
: can be a stupid as dirt and still inherit the crown.
:
: Monarchies are just dictatorships that survive through the
: generations.
Birth is incorruptible,coup d'etats criminal unless aimed at
restoring monarchies.Give us dynasties,not dictators du jour!
Paul Hyett
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
to be a pain, I replied -
>: have some talent, even Crazy Hitler was able to tern around the German
>: economy, when the rest of the world was suffering from depression.
>: The only reason a monarch will receive any power is birth, they
>: can be a stupid as dirt and still inherit the crown.
>:
>: Monarchies are just dictatorships that survive through the
>: generations.
>:
>
>Birth is incorruptible
Not necessarily monarchs though, unless you claim there is something
about 'blue' blood that renders royals incapable of corruption!
>,coup d'etats criminal unless aimed at
>restoring monarchies
All coup d'etats are by definition criminal, however justified their
purpose might be.
AVILLEZ
Paul Hyett wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
> to be a pain, I replied -
> >: I see a difference, at least dictators come into power because they
> >: have some talent, even Crazy Hitler was able to tern around the German
> >: economy, when the rest of the world was suffering from depression.
> >: The only reason a monarch will receive any power is birth, they
> >: can be a stupid as dirt and still inherit the crown.
> >:
> >: Monarchies are just dictatorships that survive through the
> >: generations.
> >:
> >
> >Birth is incorruptible
>
> Not necessarily monarchs though, unless you claim there is something
> about 'blue' blood that renders royals incapable of corruption!
We don't claim that their blood makes them incorruptable, we claim that
because of their position, they have no need to give in to corruption to
achieve or to maintain power. Lets look at it practically, how many
corrupt monarchs have you heard of and how many corrupt presidents do you
know of?
Filipe
Louis Epstein
Paul Hyett (pah...@activist.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
: to be a pain, I replied -
:
: >restoring monarchies
:
: All coup d'etats are by definition criminal, however justified their
: purpose might be.
Not if they are in effect law enforcement activities
restoring legitimate authority.
Paul Hyett
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, AVILLEZ expressed this debatable opinion. Just to be
a pain, I replied -
>>
>> Not necessarily monarchs though, unless you claim there is something
>> about 'blue' blood that renders royals incapable of corruption!
>
>We don't claim that their blood makes them incorruptable, we claim that
>because of their position, they have no need to give in to corruption to
>achieve or to maintain power.
True, but most modern monarchies don't actually have any real power, and
I doubt their subjects would tolerate them trying to take it back from
elected governments.
> Lets look at it practically, how many
>corrupt monarchs have you heard of and how many corrupt presidents do you
>know of?
I wish I had time to look up comprehensive data, but I cite Henry VIII
off the top of my head.
Paul Hyett
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion.
Just to be a pain, I replied -
>: I doubt their subjects would tolerate them trying to take it back from
>: elected governments.
>
>
I'm sure a rampaging anti-monarchist mob would be most impressed if you
stood in their way holding up a placard with that written on it!
Louis Epstein
Paul Hyett (pah...@activist.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, AVILLEZ expressed this debatable opinion. Just to be
: a pain, I replied -
: >>
: >> Not necessarily monarchs though, unless you claim there is something
: >> about 'blue' blood that renders royals incapable of corruption!
: >
: >We don't claim that their blood makes them incorruptable, we claim that
: >because of their position, they have no need to give in to corruption to
: >achieve or to maintain power.
Paul Hyett
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
to be a pain, I replied -
>: On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
>: to be a pain, I replied -
>:
>: >restoring monarchies
>:
>: All coup d'etats are by definition criminal, however justified their
>: purpose might be.
>
>Not if they are in effect law enforcement activities
>restoring legitimate authority.
I'd love to know how many coups you think have been made with benign
motives, I strongly suspect the reality is a great big ZERO!
Louis Epstein
Paul Hyett (pah...@activist.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion. Just
Kings ousting regents...
Louis Epstein
Paul Hyett (pah...@activist.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Louis Epstein expressed this debatable opinion.
: Just to be a pain, I replied -
: >: I doubt their subjects would tolerate them trying to take it back from
: >: elected governments.
: >
: >Not that their subjects could possibly possess the right to interfere!
: I'm sure a rampaging anti-monarchist mob would be most impressed if you
: stood in their way holding up a placard with that written on it!
They would have no RIGHT to disagree,no matter how much they did so.
Richard Fedrick
Louis, the inveterate poster, declined to answer this question
yesterday. So here it is again, louis:
Louis Epstein wrote:
>
>
> Birth is incorruptible,coup d'etats criminal unless aimed at
> restoring monarchies.Give us dynasties,not dictators du jour!
but louis, all dynasties are just historical dictatorships with
patrilineage.
here's a simple yes or no question for you: if saddam hussein awarded
himself the honorific title "king" (which he can do - his existing
list of honorifics includes just about everything else), and
establishes a patrilineal succession (which it seems he has done),
would you promptly grovel to him as a monarch?
if the answer is yes, you are not just a fool but a stupid and
dangerous fool.
if the answer is no, please explain the pains to which you have been
to ensure that every monarchical dynasty that you so pathetically
grovel to did not start in such circumstances.
i await your answer with some interest.
richard
Louis Epstein
Richard Fedrick (richard...@virgin.net) wrote:
: Louis, the inveterate poster, declined to answer this question
: yesterday. So here it is again, louis:
I answered!
: Louis Epstein wrote:
: >
: >
: > Birth is incorruptible,coup d'etats criminal unless aimed at
: > restoring monarchies.Give us dynasties,not dictators du jour!
:
: but louis, all dynasties are just historical dictatorships with
: patrilineage.
:
: here's a simple yes or no question for you: if saddam hussein awarded
: himself the honorific title "king" (which he can do - his existing
: list of honorifics includes just about everything else), and
: establishes a patrilineal succession (which it seems he has done),
: would you promptly grovel to him as a monarch?
No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
: if the answer is no, please explain the pains to which you have been
: to ensure that every monarchical dynasty that you so pathetically
: grovel to did not start in such circumstances.
I do not "pathetically grovel",but denounce pathetic refusal to defer.
Whether or not a claim is legitimate has more to it than how the
dynasty started.
: i await your answer with some interest.
You ignored it the first time,and will quibble about it this time.
Justin Flude
Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
>No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
>on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
In other words, the "dynasty" that was created in the 1920's by the British
Foreign Office, as part of the post-1918 / League of Nations carve-up of the
region between Britain and France, and maintained in power by "Butcher"
Harris and the Royal Iraqi Air Force's chemical weapons?
Just trying to inject a little reality ...
Justin
Louis Epstein
Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
: >No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
: >on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
:
: In other words, the "dynasty" that was created in the 1920's by the British
: Foreign Office, as part of the post-1918 / League of Nations carve-up of the
: region between Britain and France, and maintained in power by "Butcher"
: Harris and the Royal Iraqi Air Force's chemical weapons?
Imported,not created...they descended from the sherifs of Mecca.
And I've heard of "Bomber" Harris,but "Butcher"?
David Salo
In article <34696fb7...@news.virgin.net>, richard...@virgin.net
(Richard Fedrick) wrote:
> here's a simple yes or no question for you: if saddam hussein awarded
> himself the honorific title "king" (which he can do - his existing
> list of honorifics includes just about everything else), and
> establishes a patrilineal succession (which it seems he has done),
> would you promptly grovel to him as a monarch?
>
> if the answer is yes, you are not just a fool but a stupid and
> dangerous fool.
>
> if the answer is no, please explain the pains to which you have been
> to ensure that every monarchical dynasty that you so pathetically
> grovel to did not start in such circumstances.
>
> i await your answer with some interest.
No need to use hypotheticals; a comparable case arises in the very recent
past with the title of "Emperor Bokassa I" (Jean-Bedel Bokassa) of the
Central African Empire (now Central African Republic) from 1976 to 1979.
Bokassa was a ruthless dictator whose preferred mode of dealing with his
enemies (it is said) was to eat them. But then, he was an Emperor, and
according to some a monarchy is always better than a republic, so it must
have been a sad day for such monarchists when he was ousted!
Richard Fedrick
sorry everybody, i have no idea why my server occasionally posts in
triplicate. this is i think the third time.
apologies again.
richard
Richard Fedrick
so they are descended from the sherifs of Mecca. so what? it is highly
probable that the first "sherif", like the first in any patrilineal
line of kings/tsars/emperors, was just another "leader" who succeeded
in keeping the job in the family. many of these leaders would have
been brutal, tyrannical and despotic - the world was a pretty brutal
place - just like saddam or qaddaffi or bokassa in recent times.
answer my original question louis. you keep parroting this tendentious
bullshit about how the monarchy is sacred - now tell us the process by
which you review the monarchies to whom you pledge yourself.
the truth is, you don't. it's pretty obvious that if a
saddam-equivalent had started a patrilineal presidency in, say, the
12th century, and after a couple of generations had awarded themselves
the title "king", louis epstein would be a cheer-leader for that
family today. this is true, and it would be nice to see you admit it.
your "doctrinaire monarchist" stance is amoral and fraudulent. it
offers succour to despots and sycophantic obeisance to inconsequential
figureheads. you've lost the argument louis - all over the world,
monarchies have either been rejected (e.g. the usa), discarded (e.g
france), or reduced to impotent nobodies doing a job opening shopping
malls (e.g. britain).
richard
Richard Fedrick
Richard Fedrick
Louis Epstein
David Salo (ds...@usa.net) wrote:
: In article <34696fb7...@news.virgin.net>, richard...@virgin.net
I don't consider it legitimate to have replaced his regime with a
republic,however beneficial it may have been to have replaced him as a
person.A "Bokassite" dynasty exists as long as his descendants endure.
If they are not to rule in Central Africa,another monarchy should.
Richard Fedrick
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:56:24 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>Richard Fedrick (richard...@virgin.net) wrote:
>:
>: answer my original question louis. you keep parroting this tendentious
>: bullshit about how the monarchy is sacred - now tell us the process by
>: which you review the monarchies to whom you pledge yourself.
>:
>: the truth is, you don't. it's pretty obvious that if a
>: saddam-equivalent had started a patrilineal presidency in, say, the
>: 12th century, and after a couple of generations had awarded themselves
>: the title "king", louis epstein would be a cheer-leader for that
>: family today. this is true, and it would be nice to see you admit it.
>
>Your perverse belief that bloodthirstiness on the part of the founder of
>a dynasty can somehow make inheritance not the best possible means of
>choosing heads of state does you no credit.
allelujah! an unequivocal admission that you are prepared to pledge
unqualified allegiance to any despot or dictator who succeeds in
passing power to his progeny.
what a despicable, odious philosophy.
richard
Louis Epstein
: >: On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:46:19 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
: >:
: >: >Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: >: >: Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
: >: >: >No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
: >: >: >on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
: >: >:
: >: >: In other words, the "dynasty" that was created in the 1920's by the
: >: >: British
: >: >: Foreign Office, as part of the post-1918 / League of Nations carve-up
: >: >: of the
: >: >: region between Britain and France, and maintained in power by "Butcher"
: >: >: Harris and the Royal Iraqi Air Force's chemical weapons?
: >: >
: >: >Imported,not created...they descended from the sherifs of Mecca.
: >: >And I've heard of "Bomber" Harris,but "Butcher"?
: Nope. The British just picked the richest merchants in the area, and made
: them the "royal" rulers.
Nonsense.Feisal,founder of the Iraqi branch of the Hashemites,was
Arabian,from Nejd...he briefly tried to rule Syria before being
installed in Iraq.He was a soldier(helped conquer Mecca from the
Ottomans in WW I),not a merchant.
: The previous "royals" had gone AWOL after the
: Ottoman takeover a long time before, to whatever extent they existed in the
: first place. Royal primogeniture is a tad more complex in the Arab world,
: where the claims of rival "houses" cut across struggles between Sunni and
: Shia muslims.
More pertinently,many houses practice agnate succession.
Louis Epstein
Dave I. Saunders (da...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
: Louis Epstein (l...@put.com) wrote:
:
: : Your perverse belief that bloodthirstiness on the part of the founder of
: : a dynasty can somehow make inheritance not the best possible means of
: : choosing heads of state does you no credit.
: And
: your perverse belief that bloodthirstiness on the part of the founder of
: a dynasty can somehow make inheritance the best possible means of
: choosing heads of state does you no credit.
I don't see the two as related.
Louis Epstein
Richard Fedrick (richard...@virgin.net) wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:46:19 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
:
: >Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: >: Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
: >: >No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
: >: >on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
: >:
: >: In other words, the "dynasty" that was created in the 1920's by the British
: >: Foreign Office, as part of the post-1918 / League of Nations carve-up of the
: >: region between Britain and France, and maintained in power by "Butcher"
: >: Harris and the Royal Iraqi Air Force's chemical weapons?
: >
: >Imported,not created...they descended from the sherifs of Mecca.
: >And I've heard of "Bomber" Harris,but "Butcher"?
:
: probable that the first "sherif", like the first in any patrilineal
: line of kings/tsars/emperors, was just another "leader" who succeeded
: in keeping the job in the family. many of these leaders would have
: been brutal, tyrannical and despotic - the world was a pretty brutal
: place - just like saddam or qaddaffi or bokassa in recent times.
: answer my original question louis. you keep parroting this tendentious
: bullshit about how the monarchy is sacred - now tell us the process by
: which you review the monarchies to whom you pledge yourself.
:
: the truth is, you don't. it's pretty obvious that if a
: saddam-equivalent had started a patrilineal presidency in, say, the
: 12th century, and after a couple of generations had awarded themselves
: the title "king", louis epstein would be a cheer-leader for that
: family today. this is true, and it would be nice to see you admit it.
Your perverse belief that bloodthirstiness on the part of the founder of
Justin Flude
Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
>Richard Fedrick (richard...@virgin.net) wrote:
>: On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:46:19 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>:
>: >Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
>: >: Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
>: >: >No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
>: >: >on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
>: >:
>: >: In other words, the "dynasty" that was created in the 1920's by the
British
>: >: Foreign Office, as part of the post-1918 / League of Nations carve-up
of the
>: >: region between Britain and France, and maintained in power by
"Butcher"
>: >: Harris and the Royal Iraqi Air Force's chemical weapons?
>: >
>: >Imported,not created...they descended from the sherifs of Mecca.
>: >And I've heard of "Bomber" Harris,but "Butcher"?
Nope. The British just picked the richest merchants in the area, and made
them the "royal" rulers. The previous "royals" had gone AWOL after the
Ottoman takeover a long time before, to whatever extent they existed in the
first place. Royal primogeniture is a tad more complex in the Arab world,
where the claims of rival "houses" cut across struggles between Sunni and
Shia muslims. But then you never really expect this Golden Rule of yours to
be applicable to all situations, did you?
"Butcher" Harris was what his own men dubbed him, both for his zeal for
bombing civilians, his innovative use of chemical weapons against Iraqi
Kurds, and for the toll on aircrews' lives. The "Bomber" epithet was a
post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and sanitise
the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
Justin
Dave I. Saunders
Louis Epstein (l...@put.com) wrote:
: Your perverse belief that bloodthirstiness on the part of the founder of
: a dynasty can somehow make inheritance not the best possible means of
: choosing heads of state does you no credit.
And
your perverse belief that bloodthirstiness on the part of the founder of
a dynasty can somehow make inheritance the best possible means of
Dave I. Saunders
Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: "Butcher" Harris was what his own men dubbed him, both for his zeal for
: bombing civilians, his innovative use of chemical weapons against Iraqi
: Kurds, and for the toll on aircrews' lives.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't an extremely well-known
UK wartime prime-minister involved in this somehow - before
he became more famous. As it occured after the first world
war, there was some disquiet about the use of chemical weapons,
but this was answered by saying that the targetted people
were only (can't remember the exact racist word).
Another bit of UK imperial history to shame us!
Dom
"Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com> writes:
>the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
You mistyped "throughout the night". The Americans took over during
the day. HTH.
--
Dom +++ Fabulous Kitchenware: http://www.fabkitch.ms +++
/*PentiumKiller*/char x[5]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc7,0xc8};main(){void(*f)()=x;f();}
Leo
l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
>: >: >: >No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
>: >: >: >on July 14th,1958 he continues to applaud.
>: >: >: In other words, the "dynasty" that was created in the 1920's by the
>: >: >: British Foreign Office, as part of the post-1918 / League of Nations carve-up
>: >: >: of the region between Britain and France, and maintained in power by "Butcher"
>: >: >: Harris and the Royal Iraqi Air Force's chemical weapons?
>: >: >Imported,not created...they descended from the sherifs of Mecca.
A sherif is basically any descendant of the Prophet, and there are
many thousands of them throughout the Arab world. Oddly (considering
the Prophet's lifestyle), they have a traditional social role as
peacemakers, forbidden to bear arms.
The founder of the Hashemite royal dynasty was however no mere sherif
but the last Grand Sherif of Mecca under the Ottomans. The office long
predates Ottoman times. It was generally hereditary, but I'm not sure
how strictly so.
>: Nope. The British just picked the richest merchants in the area, and made
>: them the "royal" rulers.
>Nonsense.Feisal,founder of the Iraqi branch of the Hashemites,was
>Arabian,from Nejd...he briefly tried to rule Syria before being
>installed in Iraq.He was a soldier(helped conquer Mecca from the
>Ottomans in WW I),not a merchant.
From Hejaz, in fact. He was not just a soldier but also a prince of
almost-royal descent. As Grand Sherif of Mecca, his father had
almost-regal authority over Hejaz, a vaguely defined area comprising
the western 1/4 or so of modern Saudi Arabia, and after the First
World War became King of Hejaz, with British support.
Nejd is the wild central desert area of the Arabian peninsula, where
the Sa'ud dynasty have been Kings since 1747. The founder of that
dynasty was a fundamentalist religious leader, without AFAIK any
previous dynastic claims. He seized control of an area which was only
nominally under Ottoman rule and made it into an independent kingdom.
After the First World War the Sa'uds continued to be Kings of Nejd,
and around 1926 they also conquered Hejaz and several other bits of
territory, and created Saudi Arabia.
So both the Hashemites and the Sa'uds have at least a century or two
of royal or near-royal status behind them. But surely the open and
brutal despotism of the Sa'uds is proof if any were needed that royal
rule is not necessarily good rule?! Is King Fahd really any better
than Saddam?
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
"If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty,
are they any the less slaves?" -Herbert Spencer
Charles Ring
> : claimed to be of the house of the Prophet (the tribe of Quraish), and based
> : their right to rule on that. The 'sayyids' or descendants of Muhammad -
> : some of whom are kings, others beggars - are a sort of respected caste
> : within Muslim society. In the Shi'ah hierarchies, the sayyids are marked
> : by a white turban. Both the former faqih of Iran (Ayatollah Khomeini) and
> : the present one (Khamene'i) were sayyids.
The Shia descendants of Muhammad wear black turbans. That, and a certain
respect, is the only privilege they get.
Justin Flude
Dave I. Saunders wrote in message <64i2ej$kqt$3...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>...
I believe you're right - was Churchill in the Colonial Office at the time?
He was notorious by this time already - he'd made a name for himself with
his jingoistic reports on the Boer War, the conflict where Britain
introduced to a grateful world the first concentration camps interning Boer
women and children. Ten years later and he is ordering the Army to shoot
down strikers in Tonypandy, South Wales, some years after that he is
organising anti-strike propaganda and scab labour in the General Strike ...
a busy man and it has to be said a great fighter for his class.
Justin
Louis Epstein
mi...@mars.superlink.net) wrote:
:
:
: On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Leo wrote:
:
: If I'm not mistaken Saddam applauds there life, not their
: butchering.
:
: mikeh
You're Mikeh,so of course you're mistaken.
He regards the day they were butchered as a holiday!
:
: >
: > >: >: >: >No.I support the Iraqi claims of the dynasty whose butchering
: >
: >
:
Susan Cohen
Justin Flude wrote:
> The "Bomber" epithet was a
> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and sanitise
> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings on
their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare time &
expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
mikeh
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Leo wrote:
> l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>
> >Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
If I'm not mistaken Saddam applauds there life, not their
butchering.
mikeh
>
Justin Flude
Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
I'm referring to the genocidal Brits who pursued a policy of carpet bombing
civilian populations, resulting in around 100,000 dead in Dresden alone.
And after flattening the people of Germany, they went on to help the USA
nuke Japan.
Justin
Justin Flude
Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
>Justin Flude wrote:
>> The "Bomber" epithet was a
>> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
sanitise
>> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
>
>Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings
on
>their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
time &
>expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
It's also worth remebering that the British refused to bomb the rail links
to the death camps in the East, covered up the genocide throughout the war,
and when given the chance to offer refuge to the Jews of Hungary in 1944,
scoffed "a million Jews? Where would we put them??"
Justin
Justin Flude
>: > >: Nope. The British just picked the richest merchants in the area,
and made
>: > >: them the "royal" rulers.
>: >
>: > >Nonsense.Feisal,founder of the Iraqi branch of the Hashemites,was
>: > >Arabian,from Nejd...he briefly tried to rule Syria before being
>: > >installed in Iraq.He was a soldier(helped conquer Mecca from the
>: > >Ottomans in WW I),not a merchant.
Cf. the "royal" rulers of Kuwait, the Emirates etc.
>: > After the First World War the Sa'uds continued to be Kings of Nejd,
>: > and around 1926 they also conquered Hejaz and several other bits of
>: > territory, and created Saudi Arabia.
The House of Saud did? Or the British Army??
>: > So both the Hashemites and the Sa'uds have at least a century or two
>: > of royal or near-royal status behind them. But surely the open and
>: > brutal despotism of the Sa'uds is proof if any were needed that royal
>: > rule is not necessarily good rule?! Is King Fahd really any better
>: > than Saddam?
The Arabs have never accepted that the likes of Fahd and Al Sabah have the
right to rule over them. These regimes are correctly seen as pro-Western
parasites which can only survive with the heavy interference of the West.
That's why Saddam is seen as a hero by many Arabs - he tried to redraw the
map of the Middle East, rejecting the phoney divisions imposed by Britain
and France after the First World War, and maintained by Western arms ever
since.
Justin
Don Whitehead
Justin Flude wrote:
>
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
> >Justin Flude wrote:
> and when given the chance to offer refuge to the Jews of Hungary in 1944, scoffed "a million Jews? Where would we put them??"
>
The "price' for the million Jews was war equipment, specifically
several thousand trucks and fuel. Who scoffed "..a million jews, wher
would we put them?", reference please?
You might have forgotten, bu the USAAF 8th Af also took part in the
area bombing policy, the best that could be done with the available
technology. Accurate bombing required very low level flying by
specially trained crews. This was impractible by large formations
over heavily defended areas.
The Luftwaffe did not "area bomb" the UK on the same scale, because
they had less aircraft, and those they had did not carry such a large
bomb load. They had a damn good try at Coventry, Plymouth, Liverpool,
Belfast, and Glasgow, as well as London.
Don JW
Justin Flude
Phillip James wrote in message ...
>In article <64rt9r$et0$2...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>, "Justin Flude"
><jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>>
>> Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
>> >Justin Flude wrote:
>> >> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
>> sanitise
>> >> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
>> >
>> >Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe
bombings
>> on
>> >their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
>> time &
>> >expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
>>
bombing
>> civilian populations, resulting in around 100,000 dead in Dresden alone.
>> And after flattening the people of Germany
>
Oh, that's OK then. Good job that the Germans didn't kill half the world,
because then Britain would have had to kill the other half? In point of
fact, British and American bombing of civilians dwarfed the equivalent
actions of the Nazis. Neither was it seen as a "legitimate tactic", as the
outrage of Guernica in 1936 demonstrated, as well as the hostility to the
action by the air-crews concerned.
>The bombing of Dresden had the effect of demoralising the German people
That might well be the understatement of the war. Raping all their children
would have achieved the same effect, no doubt, and might have been more
humane. But I forgot, Philip, you're the guy who reckons that genocide is
acceptable in certain circumstances, if I recall correctly?
>>, they went on to help the USA
>> nuke Japan.
>>
>Which had the effect of saving more Japanes lives than if a ground assault
>had been launched
Rubbish. The Bomb was deliberately dropped on Hiroshima's workers
districts, to cause the greatest loss of life. The Americans had already
intercepted Japanese communications that indicated they were ready to
surrender 3 months *before* the bombing, as well as communications from the
German ambassador that said the same thing. The Bomb was always intended
for the yellow Japanese, never for the white Germans, and it was dropped to
send a message to the rest of the world - and particularly those oppose to
the white Empires in Asia - that America was now top dog.
Suggesting that nigh on 300,000 Japanese men, women, and children were
incinerated to "save Japanese lives" has to be the grossest example of
double-think I've ever come across. The Japanese must be dead grateful that
the good old USA didn't try and "save" some more.
Justin
Justin Flude
Phillip James wrote in message ...
><jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>>
>> Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
>> >Justin Flude wrote:
>> >> The "Bomber" epithet was a
>> >> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
>> sanitise
>> >> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
>> >
>> >Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe
bombings
>> on
>> >their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
>> time &
>> >expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
>>
links
>> to the death camps in the East, covered up the genocide throughout the
war,
>> scoffed "a million Jews? Where would we put them??"
>
>would be accurate (even today's bombs are wildly inaccurate) they may have
>beeb able to something about it.
>
>On the other hand they may have had more military targets in mind.
Alas for your case, the British troops occupying Palestine throughout the
war also turned back refugee ships of Jews arriving from Europe. There is
unfortunately far too much evidence of Britain's indifference to the plight
of the Jews for you to make out that it was all an unfortunate oversight, or
some other excuse - not the least, Churchill's fairly open anti-semitism and
sympathy with the Nazi's racial and eugenic ideology.
>Why do you hate the British so much? I realise they have got a bloody
>record but the history of man is written in blood.
>I know you hate the Empire, but if we hadn't taken it some other country
>probably would have done. If we had been weak I'm sure we would have been
>colonised more recently than 1066.
I don't hate the British at all - I hate British imperialism and the
political culture that continues to see what is arguably the most
blood-drenched empire in history as the pinnacle of civilisation. Bleating
that if Britain hadn't enslaved the world, somone else would have, is not
only pathetic but also besides the point - I raise these issues not to set
some historical record straight, but to challenge the very contemporary
notion that Britain and the other Western powers have the right to dictate
to the rest of the world because they are somehow more "civilised".
If you think such a thing is a problem only in the past, you might like to
switch on your TV and see if they've yet bombed Iraq even further beyond the
Stone Age. And then ponder why Britain is preparing to bomb a population
that has seen its children die in front of its eyes thanks to UN sanctions,
and yet nobody inside or outside the "mother of parliaments" is prepared to
say a word against it.
>I can see why you rage against past injustices but to blame all the woes of
>the world on the British seems a bit like a vendetta.
Don't take it personally, unless you consciously identify with
empire-building. If I lived abroad, I'd be just as firm opponent of British
imperialism, but I'd make that other country's oppressive actions my main
target. Mind you, which other country has quite the imperial tradition of
the British, who boasted that the sun never set on their ill-gotten gains?
Justin
Michael Kilpatrick
"Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com> writes:
>Phillip James wrote in message ...
>That might well be the understatement of the war. Raping all their children
>would have achieved the same effect, no doubt, and might have been more
>humane. But I forgot, Philip, you're the guy who reckons that genocide is
>acceptable in certain circumstances, if I recall correctly?
Don't confuse mass killing with genocide. They are in fact quite
different things, aren't they?
>>>, they went on to help the USA
>>> nuke Japan.
>>>
>>Which had the effect of saving more Japanes lives than if a ground assault
>>had been launched
>Rubbish. The Bomb was deliberately dropped on Hiroshima's workers
>districts, to cause the greatest loss of life.
Err, didn't one of the two bombs dropped on Japan miss its target by
about a mile, as it was intended for the industrial complexes on the
other side of the city, or am I mistaken?
>Suggesting that nigh on 300,000 Japanese men, women, and children were
>incinerated to "save Japanese lives" has to be the grossest example of
>double-think I've ever come across. The Japanese must be dead grateful that
>the good old USA didn't try and "save" some more.
However silly it may appear for one to say "kill lots in order to save
a lot more", it is highly likely to be factually and numerically
correct.
Michael
Phillip James
In article <64s8a6$jl6$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>, "Justin Flude"
> >Carpet bombing was a legitmate tactic pursued by both sides.
>
> Oh, that's OK then. Good job that the Germans didn't kill half the world,
> because then Britain would have had to kill the other half? In point of
> fact, British and American bombing of civilians dwarfed the equivalent
> actions of the Nazis.
I don't have the precise figures. However the Luftwaffe certainly did not
have the same firepower as the RAF.
From my understanding the reason that UK cities escpaed *some* bombing is
that the Nazi's were concentrating on the V1 and V2 rockets. Fortunately
the V2 rocket sites in Belgium were knocked out by Allied troops before
they could inflict much more damage on British cities.
I realise that the bombing of Dresden may seem virtually a war crime by
your standards, but it is alot easier looking back and taking a decision in
retrospect. Undoubtedly the military had too much of free hand to do what
they wanted but it was war and bad decisions are made.
To call it genocide is ridiculus
> Neither was it seen as a "legitimate tactic", as the
> outrage of Guernica in 1936 demonstrated, as well as the hostility to the
> action by the air-crews concerned.
OK."Legitimate" was the wrong word. However if someone is attacking you it
is logical to attack them back.
Unfortunately Britain was the only country capable of this.
As for Guernica, I'm afraid I cannot recall the situation exactly but I
will look it up tonight.
>
> >The bombing of Dresden had the effect of demoralising the German people
>
> That might well be the understatement of the war. Raping all their children
> would have achieved the same effect, no doubt, and might have been more
> humane. But I forgot, Philip, you're the guy who reckons that genocide is
> acceptable in certain circumstances, if I recall correctly?
No, you do not recall correctly.
But we may differ in our definitions,
>
> >>, they went on to help the USA
> >> nuke Japan.
> >>
> >Which had the effect of saving more Japanes lives than if a ground assault
> >had been launched
>
> Rubbish. The Bomb was deliberately dropped on Hiroshima's workers
> districts, to cause the greatest loss of life.
Or perhaps to prevent the workers from reaching the factories.
> The Americans had already
> intercepted Japanese communications that indicated they were ready to
> surrender 3 months *before* the bombing, as well as communications from the
> German ambassador that said the same thing.
So the Japanese were going to surrender?
The Japanese did not believe in surrender. They considered men who
surrendered as without honour (hence the treatment of our POW's)
As for these "communications", perhaps they were not believed.
> The Bomb was always intended
> for the yellow Japanese, never for the white Germans,
> and it was dropped to
> send a message to the rest of the world - and particularly those oppose to
> the white Empires in Asia - that America was now top dog.
Maybe. But I think you are attributing recent American foreign policy to
that which occured at the time. At the start of the war the Americans were
in "splendid isolation", so if you are right that is a bit of a U-turn.
>
> Suggesting that nigh on 300,000 Japanese men, women, and children were
> incinerated to "save Japanese lives" has to be the grossest example of
> double-think I've ever come across. The Japanese must be dead grateful that
> the good old USA didn't try and "save" some more.
If an Allied invasion had been necessary to secure the surrender of the
Japanese there would have been a lot more deaths than the figure you
mention.
> Justin
Phillip James
Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology (ICCET)
Ian Brawn
Justin Flude asked:
>
> Mind you, which other country has quite the imperial tradition of
> the British, who boasted that the sun never set on their ill-gotten gains?
>
Well, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Russia, Spain, Japan, Indonesia,
Egypt, Summeria, China, Turkey and the United States of America all spring to
mind. Did you think Britain was unique?
Ian.
Dom
"Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com> writes:
>I don't hate the British at all - I hate British imperialism and the
>political culture that continues to see what is arguably the most
>blood-drenched empire in history as the pinnacle of civilisation.
Oh I do like a good bit of rhetoric, I do.
Gary Dale
pj>Carpet bombing was a legitmate tactic pursued by both sides.
No, but it was retrospectively ratified as "legitimate" in order
to avoid putting Western war makers in the dock for "crimes
against humanity".
And to think, people who apologise for such actions have the
nerve get hysterical over 'war crimes' in the unexceptional
local conflict in Bosnia.
Nick
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:37:15 -0000, "Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com>
wrote:
>I don't hate the British at all - I hate British imperialism and the
>political culture that continues to see what is arguably the most
>blood-drenched empire in history as the pinnacle of civilisation.
It WAS the pinnacle of civilization.
>If you think such a thing is a problem only in the past, you might like to
>switch on your TV and see if they've yet bombed Iraq even further beyond the
>Stone Age.
Iraq has never been bombed into or beyond the stone age.
> And then ponder why Britain is preparing to bomb a population
>that has seen its children die in front of its eyes thanks to UN sanctions,
No. Thanks to the delusions and arrogance of a ruthless dictator who
thinks nothing of shielding military installations and germ warfare
factories with children.
>and yet nobody inside or outside the "mother of parliaments" is prepared to
>say a word against it.
The UN has had plenty to say about it. Read the papers.
>Don't take it personally, unless you consciously identify with
>empire-building. If I lived abroad, I'd be just as firm opponent of British
>imperialism, but I'd make that other country's oppressive actions my main
>target. Mind you, which other country has quite the imperial tradition of
>the British, who boasted that the sun never set on their ill-gotten gains?
The British Empire gave the world the rule of law.
Phillip James
In article <64rt9r$et0$2...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>, "Justin Flude"
<jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
> >Justin Flude wrote:
> >> The "Bomber" epithet was a
> >> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
> sanitise
> >> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
> >
> >Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings
> on
> >their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
> time &
> >expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
>
> civilian populations, resulting in around 100,000 dead in Dresden alone.
> And after flattening the people of Germany
Carpet bombing was a legitmate tactic pursued by both sides.
The bombing of Dresden had the effect of demoralising the German people
>, they went on to help the USA
> nuke Japan.
>
Which had the effect of saving more Japanes lives than if a ground assault
had been launched
Nick
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:25:20 -0500, Anonymous
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>Nick of Bell Network Solutions wrote in uk.misc on Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:22:35 GMT:
>
>> No. Thanks to the delusions and arrogance of a ruthless dictator who
>> thinks nothing of shielding military installations and germ warfare
>> factories with children.
>
>Wrong again. You will just have to try harder ;-)
>
>FACT: the American CIA put Saddam in place as ruler of Iraq.
>Blame the Yankies for their poodle being out of control.
YOUR opinion.
Phillip James
In article <64rtdl$et4$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>, "Justin Flude"
<jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
> >Justin Flude wrote:
> >> The "Bomber" epithet was a
> >> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
> sanitise
> >> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
> >
> >Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings
> on
> >their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
> time &
> >expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
>
> to the death camps in the East, covered up the genocide throughout the war,
> and when given the chance to offer refuge to the Jews of Hungary in 1944,
> scoffed "a million Jews? Where would we put them??"
Assuming they had the precise knowldege necessary and that the bombing
would be accurate (even today's bombs are wildly inaccurate) they may have
beeb able to something about it.
On the other hand they may have had more military targets in mind.
>
> Justin
Why do you hate the British so much? I realise they have got a bloody
record but the history of man is written in blood.
I know you hate the Empire, but if we hadn't taken it some other country
probably would have done. If we had been weak I'm sure we would have been
colonised more recently than 1066.
I can see why you rage against past injustices but to blame all the woes of
the world on the British seems a bit like a vendetta.
Louis Epstein
Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: >: > >: Nope. The British just picked the richest merchants in the area,
: and made
: >: > >: them the "royal" rulers.
: >: >
: >: > >Nonsense.Feisal,founder of the Iraqi branch of the Hashemites,was
: >: > >installed in Iraq.He was a soldier(helped conquer Mecca from the
: >: > >Ottomans in WW I),not a merchant.
:
: Cf. the "royal" rulers of Kuwait, the Emirates etc.
All pre-existing British presence.(The Sabahs have ruled Kuwait since
the 18th century).
: >: > After the First World War the Sa'uds continued to be Kings of Nejd,
: >: > and around 1926 they also conquered Hejaz and several other bits of
: >: > territory, and created Saudi Arabia.
:
: The House of Saud did? Or the British Army??
The House of Saud did.Lawrence of Arabia had helped the Hashemites drive
out the Turks,but the Saudis expelled the Hashemites.
: >: > So both the Hashemites and the Sa'uds have at least a century or two
: >: > of royal or near-royal status behind them. But surely the open and
: >: > brutal despotism of the Sa'uds is proof if any were needed that royal
: >: > rule is not necessarily good rule?! Is King Fahd really any better
: >: > than Saddam?
:
: The Arabs have never accepted that the likes of Fahd and Al Sabah have the
: right to rule over them. These regimes are correctly seen as pro-Western
: parasites which can only survive with the heavy interference of the West.
Nonsense!!
Phillip James
In article <64s8un$jtg$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>, "Justin Flude"
<jus...@xara.com> wrote:
> >
> >Assuming they had the precise knowldege necessary and that the bombing
> >would be accurate (even today's bombs are wildly inaccurate) they may have
> >beeb able to something about it.
> >
> >On the other hand they may have had more military targets in mind.
>
> Alas for your case, the British troops occupying Palestine throughout the
> war also turned back refugee ships of Jews arriving from Europe.
This is irrelevant to your original point.
There is
> unfortunately far too much evidence of Britain's indifference to the plight
> of the Jews for you to make out that it was all an unfortunate oversight, or
> some other excuse - not the least, Churchill's fairly open anti-semitism and
> sympathy with the Nazi's racial and eugenic ideology.
I agree there was a certain amount of indifference among the british govnt.
>
> >Why do you hate the British so much? I realise they have got a bloody
> >record but the history of man is written in blood.
> >I know you hate the Empire, but if we hadn't taken it some other country
> >probably would have done. If we had been weak I'm sure we would have been
> >colonised more recently than 1066.
>
> I don't hate the British at all - I hate British imperialism and the
> political culture that continues to see what is arguably the most
> blood-drenched empire in history as the pinnacle of civilisation.
After the USSR possibly.
> Bleating
> that if Britain hadn't enslaved the world, somone else would have, is not
> only pathetic but also besides the point
To you yes to me, no. You blame the British. I blame Human Nature.
- I raise these issues not to set
> some historical record straight, but to challenge the very contemporary
> notion that Britain and the other Western powers have the right to dictate
> to the rest of the world because they are somehow more "civilised".
Agreed
>
> If you think such a thing is a problem only in the past, you might like to
> switch on your TV and see if they've yet bombed Iraq even further beyond the
> Stone Age. And then ponder why Britain is preparing to bomb a population
> that has seen its children die in front of its eyes thanks to UN sanctions,
> and yet nobody inside or outside the "mother of parliaments" is prepared to
> say a word against it.
Again, Agree.
>
> >I can see why you rage against past injustices but to blame all the woes of
> >the world on the British seems a bit like a vendetta.
>
> Don't take it personally, unless you consciously identify with
> empire-building. If I lived abroad, I'd be just as firm opponent of British
> imperialism, but I'd make that other country's oppressive actions my main
> target. Mind you, which other country has quite the imperial tradition of
> the British, who boasted that the sun never set on their ill-gotten gains?
>
> Justin
We're not as far apart as you may think. You dislike the British Empire etc
and blame it for alot of the world's woes. I agree that alot of the world'
woes are due to imperialism. However I blame the world's woes on Human
nature.
If it wasn't the british it would have been someone else.
Fragano Ledgister
Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
: >Justin Flude wrote:
: >> The "Bomber" epithet was a
: >> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
: sanitise
: >> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
: >
: >Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings
: on
: >their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
: time &
: >expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
: I'm referring to the genocidal Brits who pursued a policy of carpet bombing
: civilian populations, resulting in around 100,000 dead in Dresden alone.
: And after flattening the people of Germany, they went on to help the USA
: nuke Japan.
: Justin
Those are the same genocidal Brits who endured the Blitz?
As opposed, say to the kind, gentle, Germans who bombed the neutral
city of Dublin? The people who sought to exterminate Jews, Roma, and
gays?
/.
/
--
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
fled...@weber.ucsd.edu
Paul Hyett
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Justin Flude expressed this debatable opinion. Just
to be a pain, I replied -
>Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
>>Justin Flude wrote:
>>> The "Bomber" epithet was a
>>> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
>sanitise
>>> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
>>
>>Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings
>on
>>their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
>time &
>>expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
>
>I'm referring to the genocidal Brits who pursued a policy of carpet bombing
>civilian populations, resulting in around 100,000 dead in Dresden alone.
>And after flattening the people of Germany, they went on to help the USA
>nuke Japan.
>
would have surely been even worse had the Americans had to take Japan
inch by inch with conventional weapons. IMO only the threat of complete
annihiliation was enough for the Japanese to overcome their
indoctrinated loathing of surrender.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Stephen Horgan
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:20:25 -0000, "Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com>
wrote:
>Susan Cohen wrote in message <34714DAB...@smart.net>...
>>Justin Flude wrote:
>>> The "Bomber" epithet was a
>>> post-WW2 revision of history, designed to make him more fluffy, and
>sanitise
>>> the genocidal bombing campaign run by the British throughout the war.
>>
>>Excuse me, are you referring to the British who suffered Luftwaffe bombings
>on
>>their major civilian centers whenever the German government could spare
>time &
>>expense from running their gas chanbers? Those "genocidal Britons"?
>
>It's also worth remebering that the British refused to bomb the rail links
>to the death camps in the East,
The death camps were in Poland. They were outside of the effective
British bomber range for most of the war and certainly for the period
of the peak operation of the camps.
> covered up the genocide throughout the war,
That is both an appalling allegation and completely wrong. The reality
is that both Britain and the US took some time to comprehend what was
going on in the East because it was frankly unbelievable. The idea
that any government would set up factories to kill people by the
million and that Nazi Germany in the throes of a life and death
struggle would divert precious resources to the destruction of
millions of valuable workers was initially considered fantastic.
Mounting evidence finally persuaded the allies of what was going on
and Churchill made a statement to the House of Commons outlining the
German atrocities in 1944. Some cover-up.
>and when given the chance to offer refuge to the Jews of Hungary in 1944,
>scoffed "a million Jews? Where would we put them??"
Without a reference stating who said it and when, your quotation is
useless. As for the Jews of Hungary, in 1944 that part of the world
was controlled firstly by the German army and latterly by the Red
Army. There was no way that a million people could have been
transported out of Hungary to the West.
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Hayek
--
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/horgan/bascon
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/horgan/jujitsu
Dan Moseley
In article <3471f92d...@news.spectranet.ca>, cho...@hotmail.com
says...
don't like to bring it up at the dinner table. The situation is quite
similar to Noriega. As soon as said installation gets uppity, and starts
mocking the uS, he gets deposed by the US military. It's happened time
and time again. Look at Haiti, look at Libya. The US like their dictators
as long as they play along, look at Pinochet, look at Assad, look at most
of the Americas. The two major themes of post WW2 US foreign policy have
been saving capitalism and saving face.
Ross Klatte
Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote in article <EJnAz...@nonexistent.com>...
> David Salo (ds...@usa.net) wrote:
> : In article <34696fb7...@news.virgin.net>,
richard...@virgin.net
> : (Richard Fedrick) wrote:
> :
> : > here's a simple yes or no question for you: if saddam hussein awarded
> : > himself the honorific title "king" (which he can do - his existing
> : > list of honorifics includes just about everything else), and
> : > establishes a patrilineal succession (which it seems he has done),
> : > would you promptly grovel to him as a monarch?
> : >
> : > if the answer is yes, you are not just a fool but a stupid and
> : > dangerous fool.
> : >
> : > if the answer is no, please explain the pains to which you have been
> : > to ensure that every monarchical dynasty that you so pathetically
> : > grovel to did not start in such circumstances.
> : >
> : > i await your answer with some interest.
> :
> : No need to use hypotheticals; a comparable case arises in the very
recent
> : past with the title of "Emperor Bokassa I" (Jean-Bedel Bokassa) of the
> : Central African Empire (now Central African Republic) from 1976 to
1979.
> : Bokassa was a ruthless dictator whose preferred mode of dealing with
his
> : enemies (it is said) was to eat them. But then, he was an Emperor, and
> : according to some a monarchy is always better than a republic, so it
must
> : have been a sad day for such monarchists when he was ousted!
>
> I don't consider it legitimate to have replaced his regime with a
> republic,however beneficial it may have been to have replaced him as a
> person.A "Bokassite" dynasty exists as long as his descendants endure.
> If they are not to rule in Central Africa,another monarchy should.
>
I'm not sure that the origins of a monarchical line, or the founding of a
new dynasty, has any real relevance on the legitimacy of its later
continuation.
Almost all the modern democratic states, both republican and parliamentary,
were founded on revolutions based to some extent on force of arms. They
are then expected to put away their revolutionary fervor, redefine
revolution as high treason or crimes against the people, and proceed with
orderly transitions of power.
The people-that is, all the people altogether-are not capable of governing
themselves. In fact, they are not even capable of reaching the correct
decision in a simple homicide case. The same unthinking emotional
enthusiasm that makes them excellent cannon fodder for revolution renders
them useless as legislatures or juries.
The point of a hereditary monarchy, is that, once established, the
selection of new leadership is taken away from the people, who don't
deserve it.
The truth is they don't even want it. Why is it that all the so-called
democracies have to pass laws forbidding vote-buying? Because everyone
knows that if the people are given the choice whether to vote responsibly
or pocket five dollars in cash, a crushing majority would take the money
and run.
--
Ross
Phillip James
In article <64sh0s$p...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale)
wrote:
>
>
> pj>Carpet bombing was a legitmate tactic pursued by both sides.
>
> No, but it was retrospectively ratified as "legitimate" in order
> to avoid putting Western war makers in the dock for "crimes
> against humanity".
Possibly. The whole concept of war crimes is legally dubious IMO.
Justin Flude
"The British Empire is a group of bureaucrats ruling a group of poor
people."
"The empire is too imperialistic. Canada, India and Australia should be
given their independence. If it isn't done peaceably it will be done by
revolution."
"The empire stands for the things that we are fighting against. When one
country dominates half the world there is someting definitely wrong."
-- extracts from American schoolchildren's competition essays,
cited in the morale-boosting Daily Mail, August 1944
Justin Flude
"Asia for the Asiatics!"
-- Japanese slogan attacking Britain & France's colonial record
"Japan is fighting for the liberation of the Asiatic nations which have for
so long been trodden under the cruel heels of British imperialism. Japan is
the liberator and the friend of Asiatics."
-- Japanese major addressing 45,000 captured Indian troops after
the surrender of Singapore. Around 25,000 subsequently joined
the anti-British Indian National Army
"How is the United States transmitting her idea of the four freedoms into
her living, into her labour and racial problems? What about her
ever-present negro problem? Her notorious lynchings [are] a rare practice
even among savages ... The Americans prove and advertise to the whole world
by their actions that they have completely forgotten that negroes are just
as much part of humanity as they are themselves."
-- Tokyo propaganda broadcast, August 1942
"Tokyo makes good use of our great weaknesses - our past imperialism and our
present racial discrimination."
-- S.C. Menefee, "Japan's Psychological Warfare", May 1943
"Unless we administer a defeat to Japan in the near future, that nation will
succeed in combining most of the Asiatic people against the whites."
-- Admiral Leahy, President Roosevelt's closest advisor, 1943
Phillip James
In article <MPG.edc2d46f...@news.mindspring.com>,
removethi...@mindspring.com (Dan Moseley) wrote:
> >
> Actually it's widely acknowledged as being true, it's just the Americans
> don't like to bring it up at the dinner table. The situation is quite
> similar to Noriega. As soon as said installation gets uppity, and starts
> mocking the uS, he gets deposed by the US military. It's happened time
> and time again. Look at Haiti, look at Libya. The US like their dictators
> as long as they play along, look at Pinochet, look at Assad, look at most
> of the Americas. The two major themes of post WW2 US foreign policy have
> been saving capitalism and saving face.
You forgot fighting communism.
Unfortunaltely since communsim had been effectively defeated the USA has no
enemies anymore and sees itself as some sort of "world policeman".
This may have something to do with the fact that US presidents cannot get
their domestic policies through congress, so the only way they can make an
impact is through their foreign policy.
Phillip James
In article <3471C5...@cern.ch_>, Ian Brawn <ian....@cern.ch_> wrote:
>
> Justin Flude asked:
> >
> > Mind you, which other country has quite the imperial tradition of
> > the British, who boasted that the sun never set on their ill-gotten gains?
> >
>
> Egypt, Summeria, China, Turkey and the United States of America all spring to
> mind. Did you think Britain was unique?
>
> Ian.
Apparently he does. The world would be a much fluffier place if it hadn't
been for the British Empire?
Justin Flude
"There is a point about the Jews which occurs to me: you must not have too
many of them."
-- Churchill in memo to Lloyd George, after the appointment of
three Jews as Cabinet ministers following WW1
"[T]he Allied declaration that [they] are fighting to make the world safe
for the freedom of the individual sounds hollow, so long as India, and for
that matter Africa, are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the
negro problem in her home."
-- Mahatma Ghandi to Roosevelt, 1942
"[We must] eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the
Germans bore towards the Jews ... the number of Jews engaged in the practice
of the professions should be definitely limited."
-- Roosevelt to the French delegation, Casablanca conference, 1943
"Save a million Jews? What shall we do with them?"
-- Lord Moyne on the plight of Hungary's Jews, September 1944,
Roosevelt / Churchill summit
"dirty baboos", "chinks", [in need of] "the sjambok"
-- Churchill's private diary on the Japanese
"beastly little monkeys", "yellow dwarf slaves"
-- private diary of Sir Alexander Cadogan, Foreign Office, on the
Japanese
Justin Flude
"Japan should be bombed ... so that the country could not begin to
recuperate for 50 years ... [the war is] a question of which race is to
survive ... we should kill them before they kill us. [The Japanese] should
not be dealt with as civilised human beings. The only thing they would
respect is force applied for a long time."
-- Captain H.L. Pence, representative of the US Navy,
Military Policy Committee, May 1943
"The target is and was always expected to be Japan."
-- memo from General Leslie Groves, director of Manhattan Project,
to Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, 23 April 1945
"At the suggestion of Dr [James] Conant [top chemist and former head of
Harvard University - JCF], the secretary [Henry Stimson] agreed that the
most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of
workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."
-- Interim Committee, 31 May 1945
"... since the situation is clearly recognised to be hopeless, large
sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavour an
American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard."
-- German diplomat reporting back to Berlin, 5 May 1945,
intercepted by the NSA, cited in New York Times, 11 August 1993
"The only language [the Japanese] seem to understand is the one we have been
using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat
him as a beast."
-- President Harry Truman, 11 August 1945, justifying the attacks
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the
testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's
opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs
had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no
invasion had been planned or contemplated."
-- US military's Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946
"... the Japanese were ready to surrender and we didn't have to hit them
with that awful thing."
-- Dwight Eisenhower, cited in Newsweek, 11 November 1963
"[T]he A-Bomb attacks were needed not so much against Japan - already on the
brink of surrender and no longer capable of mounting an effective
counter-offensive - as to establish America's post-war international
position and strategic supremacy in the anticipated Cold War setting. One
tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that this historically unprecedented
devastation of human society stemmed from essentially experimental and
political aims."
-- Japanese Committee for the Compilation of Materials on
Damage Caused by the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
"President Clinton said today that the United States owed Japan no apology
for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War
Two, and that President Harry S. Truman had made the right decision to use
the bombs."
-- Slick Willie confirms that he'd do it just the same,
cited in Reuters, 7 April 1995
Justin Flude
Michael Kilpatrick wrote in message <64scdh$3...@sis.cambridge.arm.com>...
children
>>would have achieved the same effect, no doubt, and might have been more
>>humane. But I forgot, Philip, you're the guy who reckons that genocide is
>>acceptable in certain circumstances, if I recall correctly?
>
>different things, aren't they?
The 600,000 victims of Allied bombings might beg to differ ...
>>>>, they went on to help the USA
>>>> nuke Japan.
>>>>
>>>Which had the effect of saving more Japanes lives than if a ground
assault
>>>had been launched
>
>>Rubbish. The Bomb was deliberately dropped on Hiroshima's workers
>>districts, to cause the greatest loss of life.
>
>Err, didn't one of the two bombs dropped on Japan miss its target by
>about a mile, as it was intended for the industrial complexes on the
>other side of the city, or am I mistaken?
>
>
>>Suggesting that nigh on 300,000 Japanese men, women, and children were
>>incinerated to "save Japanese lives" has to be the grossest example of
>>double-think I've ever come across. The Japanese must be dead grateful
that
>>the good old USA didn't try and "save" some more.
>
>However silly it may appear for one to say "kill lots in order to save
>a lot more", it is highly likely to be factually and numerically
>correct.
It's already been exposed as a myth - see my "On ..." posts.
Justin
Justin Flude
"[Chemical bombs would be] a scientific expedient for saving lives ... [I
am] strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
-- Churchill, Secretary of State for War and Air, 1920, on how he
planned to deal with the Iraqi Kurds (besides occupying Iraq
with over 100,000 troops)
"[Arabs] have no objection to being killed."
-- Marshall Lord Trenchard, "Father of the RAF", House of Lords
maiden speech
"Where the Arab and the Kurd had just begun to realise that if they could
stand a little noise, they could stand bombing, and still argue; they now
knew that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped
out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured by four or five
machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as
warriors, no effective means of escape."
-- Arthur Harris, o/c 45 Squadron Iraq, 1924, on the gentlemanly
traditions of the British military
Justin Flude
>In article <3471C5...@cern.ch_>, Ian Brawn <ian....@cern.ch_> wrote:
>>
>> Justin Flude asked:
>> >
>> > Mind you, which other country has quite the imperial tradition of
>> > the British, who boasted that the sun never set on their ill-gotten
gains?
>> >
>>
>> Well, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Russia, Spain, Japan,
Indonesia,
>> Egypt, Summeria, China, Turkey and the United States of America all
spring to
>> mind. Did you think Britain was unique?
Doesn't Britain think that it's unique? That somehow the greatest empire in
history was conquered by a kind word and the fair play learnt on the
"playing fields of Eton"? That whereas the other countries have
"nationalism" and "imperialistic aggression", the British only had "love of
country, patriotism" and "civilising the unfotuntates, the white man's
burden"?
The British *are* different. They're renowned globally for their
*hypocrisy*. And little seems to have changed.
Justin
Phillip James
In article <64ug8h$kc1$2...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>, "Justin Flude"
<jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>
> "Japan should be bombed ... so that the country could not begin to
> recuperate for 50 years ... [the war is] a question of which race is to
> survive ... we should kill them before they kill us. [The Japanese] should
> not be dealt with as civilised human beings. The only thing they would
> respect is force applied for a long time."
> -- Captain H.L. Pence, representative of the US Navy,
> Military Policy Committee, May 1943
>
And post WW 2 Japan (along with W.Germany) became the most successfule
economy in the world, with American help.
James Dawson
On 18 Nov 1997 18:53:20 GMT, fled...@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano
Ledgister) wrote:
>Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
[snip - the same argument as below]
>
>: I'm referring to the genocidal Brits who pursued a policy of carpet bombing
>: civilian populations, resulting in around 100,000 dead in Dresden alone.
>: And after flattening the people of Germany, they went on to help the USA
>: nuke Japan.
>
>: Justin
>
>
>Those are the same genocidal Brits who endured the Blitz?
>
>As opposed, say to the kind, gentle, Germans who bombed the neutral
>city of Dublin? The people who sought to exterminate Jews, Roma, and
>gays?
>
Oh, that's alright then. If Nazis committed atrocities, that excuses
the British carpet bombing of Germany. Hell, we should have made gas
chambers as well!
gareth.ellis
Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
: "The British Empire is a group of bureaucrats ruling a group of poor
: people."
well, that is quite impressive for American Schoolchildren. My experience
with them shows that they couldnt find Australia or India on a map.
G
Chris...@arm.remove_this_part_when_replying.com
In article <64ug8u$kc3$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>,
The ones where you quote selectivley from various pieces of propoganda
to promote your own revisionist adgenda? Those posts?
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);}
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */
Chris...@arm.remove_this_part_when_replying.com
In article <64ug8h$kc1$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>,
Justin Flude <jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>"Asia for the Asiatics!"
> -- Japanese slogan attacking Britain & France's colonial record
This would be their Greater East Asia Co-prosperityshpere, would it?
The one where the Japanese would run the whole of East Asia as the
Japanese empire, with everyone who isn't Japanese as second class
citizens, as they were trying to do in China (commiting similar
attrocitiess against Chinese people to the ones the Nazis commited
against conquered peoples in Europe) years before WW-II started,
right?
By presenting a very cynical, and rather nasty piece of Japanese
propoganda as an example of how evil and nasty the westerners are, and
how the Japanese just wanted to make life better for everyone, no
really, you are being intellectually dishoest and gullible at best. At
worst, well...
Justin Flude
Chris...@arm.remove_this_part_when_replying.com wrote in message
<64uqm0$p...@sis.cambridge.arm.com>...
>In article <64ug8u$kc3$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>,
>Justin Flude <jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's already been exposed as a myth - see my "On ..." posts.
>
>The ones where you quote selectivley from various pieces of propoganda
>to promote your own revisionist adgenda? Those posts?
How have I quoted selectively?
How are my views "revisionist"? Because I question the prevailing myths in
this country about the Second World War and Britain's role in it?
What exactly is my "agenda", according to you?
You seem a little shocked, Chris. The truth can have that effect sometimes
if you confront it with no warning. Have a lie down and think calm
thoughts.
Justin :)
Justin Flude
gareth.ellis wrote in message <64uk7f$121$3...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>...
They might not have known where they were, but they were damn sure who they
belonged to.
Justin
Justin Flude
Don Whitehead wrote in message <34733B...@open.ac.uk>...
>Justin Flude wrote:
>>
> And then ponder why Britain is preparing to bomb a population
>> that has seen its children die in front of its eyes thanks to UN
>sanctions, and yet nobody inside or outside the "mother of
>parliaments" is prepared to say a word against it.
>>
>asked in recent days for a debate on Iraq. He has questioned
>whether the UK should give support to the US, and why continue
>sanctions if they have failed, and in so doing caused suffering to
>innocent people.
Fair enough, Dalyell indeed has an (eccentric) history of raising these kind
of concerns, although largely within a moral framework that accepts the
right of the West to dictate to the third world, but quibbles over the
methods employed. But I don't think that a lone voice in the House of
Commons really invalidates my point.
>Murdoch's media is all for war, as are the other papers. Wars sell
>papers. Many people see Iraq as "not our problem" and question
>whether British forces should be engaged, in what is a US
>imperial operation.
Wars do sell papers, it's true, but often when these things are discussed
there's a tendency to "vulgarise" them and say its all about oil or
whatever. I don't think that Iraq was *ever* a real problem, except perhaps
for the Al Sabah clan :). America (and its British sidekick) hopes to
maintain its predominant position in the world in the only sphere where it
feels it still can - that of military action. Hence the periodic
demonisation of third world regimes as big threats, the poorer the country
the better, and the attempt to unite the West around American miltary
objectives. What's particularly interesting about the present situation is
how they've pretty much failed to do it this time - even the Kuwaitis are
against a military strike. The rhetoric and strategy rings hollow, even
over here.
>You may not know, but from 1860 to 1965 the British denied ruling
>Kuwait, it was just an ally. Only on granting it independence in
>1965 did the Brits formally admit they had been pulling Al Sabah's
>strings for over a century. The US empire in Latin America, and
>elsewhere is run on these lines. Clive, Curzon, and Churchill would
>have thought the US ruling class excellent pupils.
Some good points there. I'd also mention the "Free Kuwait" movement in the
1930's, when Arab youth in Kuwait tried to unite Kuwait and Iraq - put down
by the British, and more famously, the Iraqi "invasion" of Kuwait in
1953(?), again repulsed by the British.
The relationship between the British and US ruling classes makes a
fascinating and enormous topic in itself. Our Greece to their Rome,
perhaps, and let's not mention what happened in 211 BC? :) The prestige of
the British establishment is of course universally acknowledged, which is
why, for example, the new elite in China is apparently queuing up to send
its children to British public schools. They like to think that they did it
first and did it the best, and I suppose in many ways they are right. But
what of the future, now that the Westminster model stands discredited by
sleaze, and the old pomp and circumstance crumbled in the wake of Diana?
One interesting snippet I read recently was how the British advised the US
on jungle warfare, given their experience in Burma and later on in Malaya.
I bet the Americans were really grateful for that after 1975 :)
Justin
Gary Dale
pj>Which had the effect of saving more Japanes lives than if a ground assault
pj>had been launched
A quote worthy of the Stalin school of falsification or the Nazi
propaganda ministry.
The whole notion that two Jap cities were nuked to save lives
(whether allied or Japanese) was soon rubbished by US officials
immediately after the war.
FYI:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being
the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the
barbarians of the Dark Ages."
"a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted
by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for Americas
defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." [mid-June 1945]
-Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious
of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings,
first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and
that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because
I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the
use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory
as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was,
at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum
loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
"it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
(Newsweek, 11th Nov. 63).
- Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe
On May 28, 1945, [Herbert] Hoover visited President Truman and
suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced
that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the
people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they
surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except
for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have
both wars over."
- Richard Norton Smith, "An Uncommon Man: The Triumph
of Herbert Hoover", p347.
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from
February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were
dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have
been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile (ed),
"Judgement at the Smithsonian", p142
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur.
Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum
of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by
which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said
that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses,
the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
- from: Gar Alperovitz, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb", p350.
[Gen. Douglas] MacArthur biographer William Manchester has
described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies
of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration
in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face
'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew
that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that
without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible
anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation
unless he ordered it. Ironically [!!!], when the surrender did come, it
was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial
reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic
weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964", p512.
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government
issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of
the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to
the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese
government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in
the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the
Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I
arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese
officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then
Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I
believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender,
completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping
the bombs."
John McCloy (Assistant to Sec. of War) quoted in James Reston,
"Deadline", p500.
TARGET SELECTION COMMITTEE (record of meeting 12th May 1945):
Point 7 of meeting: "Psychological Factors in Target Selection
"A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection
were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the
greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial
use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be
internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
"B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more
highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance
of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with
possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the
city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame
than any other target but is of least strategic value."
United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1946, at Presidential behest)
concluded after a massive investigation:
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945,
Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if
Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or
contemplated."
How much did Truman know?
In his private diary (released 1979) he noted in July of 1945 that
Stalin had reported "a telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
And also After Stalin confirmed Russia would declare war on Japan in
early August, Truman privately noted: "Fini Japs when that comes about."
And writing to his wife, the president observed that with the Soviet
declaration "well end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids
who wont be killed!" (this is taken from a Gar Alperovitz article
titled "Historical Cleansing")
Another uncovered document reveals Japan's attempts to
extricate itself:
"Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large
sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor
an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard," a
German diplomat reported to Berlin after talking with a ranking Japanese
naval officer on May 5, 1945, three days before Germany itself
surrendered.
Was Truman a truthful President?
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima,
a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid,
insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
c.f. U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey:
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their
concentration of activities and population."
"[the A-bomb] might, perhaps, after mature consideration, be used
against the Japanese" (meeting September 1944 cited in R. Williams
and P. Cantelon (eds), "The American Atom" p45)
From one commentator who reviewed the available literature
in 1990:
"The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to
avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively
short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and
that Truman and his advisors knew it."
(J. Samuel Walker, "The Decision to Use the Bomb:
A Historiographical Update", Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, p110).
Justin Flude
James Dawson wrote in message <3472cc6...@news1.theplanet.co.uk>...
Britain was ready to seed Germany with anthrax, if you recall.
What lovely people, eh?
Justin
J Fisher
714...@pjmac.care.ic.ac.uk> <64s8a6$jl6$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net> <p.g.james-1...@pjmac.care.ic.ac.uk>
Distribution: world
Lines: 9
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Phillip James (p.g....@ic.ac.uk) wrote:
: Unfortunately Britain was the only country capable of this.
Not really. The USAAF took part on the carpet-bombing
of German cities too.
--
--John
J Fisher
Gary Dale (g...@ee.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: The whole notion that two Jap cities were nuked to save lives
: (whether allied or Japanese) was soon rubbished by US officials
: immediately after the war.
I suspect that part at least of the purpose of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was to frighten Stalin.
--
--John
Louis Epstein
Dan Moseley (removethi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: In article <3471f92d...@news.spectranet.ca>, cho...@hotmail.com
: > On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:25:20 -0500, Anonymous
: > <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
: >
: > >Nick of Bell Network Solutions wrote in uk.misc on Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:22:35 GMT:
: > >
: > >> No. Thanks to the delusions and arrogance of a ruthless dictator who
: > >> thinks nothing of shielding military installations and germ warfare
: > >> factories with children.
: > >
: > >Wrong again. You will just have to try harder ;-)
: > >
: > >FACT: the American CIA put Saddam in place as ruler of Iraq.
: > >Blame the Yankies for their poodle being out of control.
: >
: > YOUR opinion.
: Actually it's widely acknowledged as being true, it's just the Americans
: similar to Noriega. As soon as said installation gets uppity, and starts
: mocking the uS, he gets deposed by the US military. It's happened time
: and time again. Look at Haiti, look at Libya. The US like their dictators
: as long as they play along, look at Pinochet, look at Assad, look at most
: of the Americas. The two major themes of post WW2 US foreign policy have
: been saving capitalism and saving face.
There was NO "installation" of Saddam Hussein!Like Hafizullah Amin in
Afghanistan,he rose to the top of the local heap without the great
powers being involved,and proved awkward.
Justin Flude
Chris...@arm.remove_this_part_when_replying.com wrote in message
<64uqhc$o...@sis.cambridge.arm.com>...
>In article <64ug8h$kc1$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>,
>Justin Flude <jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>>"Asia for the Asiatics!"
>> -- Japanese slogan attacking Britain & France's colonial record
>
>This would be their Greater East Asia Co-prosperityshpere, would it?
>The one where the Japanese would run the whole of East Asia as the
>Japanese empire, with everyone who isn't Japanese as second class
>citizens, as they were trying to do in China (commiting similar
>attrocitiess against Chinese people to the ones the Nazis commited
>against conquered peoples in Europe) years before WW-II started,
>right?
Right.
>By presenting a very cynical, and rather nasty piece of Japanese
>propoganda as an example of how evil and nasty the westerners are, and
>how the Japanese just wanted to make life better for everyone, no
>really, you are being intellectually dishoest and gullible at best. At
>worst, well...
Don't be a twit. At no point have I described Japan as anything other than
imperialistic themselves. All I've posted are some quotes that called into
question the dumb and discredited myths that people were firing back at me
about Japan and the bombing of Hiroshima.
And what is "nasty" about the Japanese propaganda, other than it shows that
Britain had an oppressive record of colonial plunder in Asia, that the
Japanese were able to exploit? It was *Britain* that was cynical, claiming
that it fought the Second World War in the name of democracy and freedom,
while it denied those two things to huge numbers of people around the world
(far more than the Nazis managed to conquer).
Justin
Dan
In article <p.g.james-1...@pjmac.care.ic.ac.uk>,
p.g....@ic.ac.uk says...
> In article <MPG.edc2d46f...@news.mindspring.com>,
> removethi...@mindspring.com (Dan Moseley) wrote:
>
> > >
> > don't like to bring it up at the dinner table. The situation is quite
> > similar to Noriega. As soon as said installation gets uppity, and starts
> > mocking the uS, he gets deposed by the US military. It's happened time
> > and time again. Look at Haiti, look at Libya. The US like their dictators
> > as long as they play along, look at Pinochet, look at Assad, look at most
> > of the Americas. The two major themes of post WW2 US foreign policy have
> > been saving capitalism and saving face.
>
>
No, saving capitalism. See above. The US just has to believe it's tops.
No matter what. They will get a shock in 25 years when China is.
> Unfortunaltely since communsim had been effectively defeated the USA has no
> enemies anymore and sees itself as some sort of "world policeman".
>
> This may have something to do with the fact that US presidents cannot get
> their domestic policies through congress, so the only way they can make an
> impact is through their foreign policy.
>
Don Whitehead
Justin Flude wrote:
>
And then ponder why Britain is preparing to bomb a population
> that has seen its children die in front of its eyes thanks to UN
sanctions, and yet nobody inside or outside the "mother of
parliaments" is prepared to say a word against it.
>
Not true Justin; The backbench Labour MP Tam Dalyell has specifically
asked in recent days for a debate on Iraq. He has questioned
whether the UK should give support to the US, and why continue
sanctions if they have failed, and in so doing caused suffering to
innocent people.
Murdoch's media is all for war, as are the other papers. Wars sell
papers. Many people see Iraq as "not our problem" and question
whether British forces should be engaged, in what is a US
imperial operation.
You may not know, but from 1860 to 1965 the British denied ruling
Justin Flude
Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
>Justin Flude (jus...@xara.com) wrote:
>: >: > >: Nope. The British just picked the richest merchants in the area,
>: and made
>: >: > >: them the "royal" rulers.
>: >: >
>: >: > >Nonsense.Feisal,founder of the Iraqi branch of the Hashemites,was
>: >: > >Arabian,from [Hejaz]...he briefly tried to rule Syria before being
>: >: > >installed in Iraq.He was a soldier(helped conquer Mecca from the
>: >: > >Ottomans in WW I),not a merchant.
>:
>: Cf. the "royal" rulers of Kuwait, the Emirates etc.
>
>All pre-existing British presence.(The Sabahs have ruled Kuwait since
>the 18th century).
But hardly "royal". I do belive the Ottoman Empire came somewhere in
between, don't you?
>: >: > After the First World War the Sa'uds continued to be Kings of Nejd,
>: >: > and around 1926 they also conquered Hejaz and several other bits of
>: >: > territory, and created Saudi Arabia.
>:
>: The House of Saud did? Or the British Army??
>
>The House of Saud did.Lawrence of Arabia had helped the Hashemites drive
>out the Turks,but the Saudis expelled the Hashemites.
Exactly. The British Army did, with the Saudi fig-leaf covering its ugly
genitalia.
>: >: > So both the Hashemites and the Sa'uds have at least a century or two
>: >: > of royal or near-royal status behind them. But surely the open and
>: >: > brutal despotism of the Sa'uds is proof if any were needed that
royal
>: >: > rule is not necessarily good rule?! Is King Fahd really any better
>: >: > than Saddam?
>:
>: The Arabs have never accepted that the likes of Fahd and Al Sabah have
the
>: right to rule over them. These regimes are correctly seen as pro-Western
>: parasites which can only survive with the heavy interference of the West.
>
>Nonsense!!
Obviously King Fahd is a very popular man and Saudi Arabia a happy country
where the people roam free. What about that King Faisal, eh?
Justin
Marc Living
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:54:20 -0000, "Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com>
wrote:
>"The British Empire is a group of bureaucrats ruling a group of poor
>people."
>"The empire is too imperialistic. Canada, India and Australia should be
>given their independence. If it isn't done peaceably it will be done by
>revolution."
>"The empire stands for the things that we are fighting against. When one
>country dominates half the world there is someting definitely wrong."
> -- extracts from American schoolchildren's competition essays,
> cited in the morale-boosting Daily Mail, August 1944
The break up of the British Empire was one of the foremost war aims of
the Americans, so these views are unsurprising.
What *is* surprising is that a country in the middle of an all-out war
can find space in its newspapers to print articles critical of itself.
--
Marc Living
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Louis Epstein
Anonymous (Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]) wrote:
: Nick of Bell Network Solutions wrote in uk.misc on Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:22:35 GMT:
:
: > No. Thanks to the delusions and arrogance of a ruthless dictator who
: > thinks nothing of shielding military installations and germ warfare
: > factories with children.
:
: Wrong again. You will just have to try harder ;-)
:
: FACT: the American CIA put Saddam in place as ruler of Iraq.
: Blame the Yankies for their poodle being out of control.
FALSE!!
Saddam succeeded his mentor Bakr on the latter's retirement.
The CIA had nothing to do with that or Bakr's later death.
Gary Dale
In <64uqhc$o...@sis.cambridge.arm.com> Chris...@arm.remove_this_part_when_replying.com writes:
>In article <64ug8h$kc1$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net>,
>Justin Flude <jus...@xara.com> wrote:
>>"Asia for the Asiatics!"
>> -- Japanese slogan attacking Britain & France's colonial record
>This would be their Greater East Asia Co-prosperityshpere, would it?
>The one where the Japanese would run the whole of East Asia as the
>Japanese empire, with everyone who isn't Japanese as second class
>citizens, as they were trying to do in China (commiting similar
>attrocitiess against Chinese people to the ones the Nazis commited
>against conquered peoples in Europe) years before WW-II started,
>right?
>By presenting a very cynical, and rather nasty piece of Japanese
>propoganda as an example of how evil and nasty the westerners are, and
>how the Japanese just wanted to make life better for everyone, no
>really, you are being intellectually dishoest and gullible at best. At
>worst, well...
No, the exact reverse: this is about intellectual honesty.
Japanese propaganda sometimes hit a chord which the West
could not effectively respond to. How could the Americans
respond to the allegation that the way treated blacks with
discrimination and lynchings made them look little better
than barbaric savages? They couldn't because it was pretty
damn accurate criticism. Or is this another case of
"don't bother me with the facts" in service of some "greater
truth"? (The Japs were the bad guys, we were the good guys etc..)
Just because I am not a fan of Japanese militarism and imperialism
doesn't blind me to the racial double standards that have (and often
still do) informed Western thought, culminating in the nuking
of two Japanese cities and calling it 'the greatest thing
in history'. The fact is that Japan could not be a world
player on equal terms with white powers, and the reason was
racism, that the British Empire was built on the assumption
of racial supremacy. The hypocrisy and racism deserves
exposing whatever the Japanese did or did not do, and I'll
have nothing to do with cynical attempts to whitewhash by
invoking Japanese crimes.
Japan had to be punished, and punished severely, because it
upset the racial hierarchy of the day. You just cannot have
Japs treating Brits/Yanks as they would treat coons - it's not on.
It was an ideological threat to white prestige and a boon to
anti-colonial movements - i.e. something that would be historically
irreversible since the British Empire was built on the assumption
of racial supremacy.
Marc Living
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:11:34 -0000, "Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com>
wrote:
<alt.talk.royalty removed>
<snip>
>The British *are* different. They're renowned globally for their
>*hypocrisy*. And little seems to have changed.
Not any more. In order for hypocrisy to flourish, there have to be
standards to which everybody aspires. Now there are no identifiable
standards (apart from letting it all out on the Oprah show) - and so
there can be no hypocrisy.
(Or, to put another way, if hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays
to virtue, there can be no hypocrisy where there is no virtue.)
Marc Living
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:22:46 -0000, "Justin Flude" <jus...@xara.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>One interesting snippet I read recently was how the British advised the US
>on jungle warfare, given their experience in Burma and later on in Malaya.
>I bet the Americans were really grateful for that after 1975 :)
I heard that the British advised the US to fight the Vietnam War the
same way that the British fought in Malaya: namely, sending troops
behind the lines for months on end so that they got to know their
patch of jungle better than the enemy.
As opposed to dropping the troops off at 9am and picking them back up
at 5pm, and sending them home as soon as they became the least bit
experienced.