🚀 go-pugleaf

"Joseph Crowe" <jcrowe@io.com> wrote in message
news:3E01E356.E6A45194@io.com...
>
>
> Larry G wrote:
>

<snip>

> > It is my understanding that Wilson helped
> > broker
> > the peace with Germany, but Britain and France over-ruled his plan as
being
> > too lenient and not sufficiently punitive.  FDR was much more astute
than
> > that
> > moron Truman who followed him.  I get the impression that FDR appeased
> > Stalin only to maintain the alliance long enough to beat the Third
Reich.
>
>     That's not what I understand.  I really have no respect for
> anything that FDR did but his pro-socialist agenda is well
> documented.  From what I can tell, FDR actually admired Stalin.

FDR came from the patrician gentry which worshipped at the altar of
capitalism.
What you refer to as a "pro-socialist agenda" was basically an effort to
avert
a soviet-styled revolution here in the U.S. due to the social volitility
induced by
the Great Depression.  Communism can seem quite promising to the destitute
and unemployed, as well as those who may have had jobs, yet feared for their
family's future well being.  If anything, FDR was a pragmatic populist, not
a
closet commie.

A few months ago, PBS ran a series on the U.S. presidents, including FDR.
Much of my "opinion" about him comes from information presented then.




<snip>


> > It is generally to our economic advantage to defend America on somebody
> > else's soil.  If we wait to fight here at home, we have to absorb and
> > replace
> > all kinds of collateral damage.  The profiteering which goes on, war or
> > shine,
> > is both unfortunate and very corrupting.  But it isn't likely to go away
any
> > time soon.
>
>    You should read more history, Larry.  Fighting in other peoples'
> native lands is both overly expensive and longterm ineffective.

I've signed up for U.S. History II next semester.  I'm sure I'll be reading
much more about the issues you so cogently address.  ; - )




> > Don't forget, that England was still busy paying off a huge debt after
> > fighting Napolean for the better part of a decade.  To fully prosecute
> > a war with the U.S., in which the prospects for meaningful gain were
> > fairly dubious, would meant that it might wreck its own economy by not
> > retiring that war-debt when they could.
>
>    Which only reinforces my point, Larry.  And the economic load on
> England at the time pales by comparison to that which we face in the
> U.S. right now.  You do understand why the sun now has set on the
> British empire, right?  You know that old saw about those who do not
> learn from history repeating the same mistakes?  There's nothing special
> about the U.S. that exempts us from the same fate as Greece, Macedonia,
> Rome, Venice, Genoa, Spain and England.

Has anyone ever accused George W. (Bush) of having a particularly keen
sense of history?  Even his well esteemed advisors seem to commit glaring
sins of omission in not raising the historical precidents relevant to this
administration.




>
> > Major military powers tend to be behind the curve in development
> > of tactics, strategies and preparation.  In WWI, allied commanders
> > ordered their men to charge across open fields into the line of fire
> > of machine guns.  A similar situation occured in the American Civil
> > War, with troops being thrown foolishly against well armed, entrenched
> > soldiers on the opposing side.  And in WWII, Hitler's generals had
> > developed the blitzkreig as a way of overwhelming the soldiering of
> > WWI.  There are countless many other such examples.
>
>    Well, short of totally destroying entire countries, which will still
> bankrupt the U.S. economy, how do you propose to dominate the
> world when with every action, U.S. policy stokes the fires of hatred
> among people who will give up literally everything to seek revenge.
> U.S. policy created the beast and every single act just converts
> more people into fanatics.

You are preaching to the choir on this issue.



> By the way, taking out Hussein has
> nothing at all to do with the so-called WoT.  It does amount to a
> great red herring to try to divert attention from the fact that the
> WoT cannot be won and from the fact that U.S. dirty policies
> created these monsters in the first place.  Now Bush, knowing
> that these policies have failed in the past, wishes to try them
> again.....sheesh, and we are becoming a police state in the
> process.

Yep!  Can I interest you in a passport to Thailand, New Zealand or
an undisclosed Carribean country under an assumed name?


>
> > Pax Americana!  It will be a race between the empire builders and the
> > corrupting interests to see which can bring America to her knees first.
>
>    I think I might actually agree with you on this conclusion.  By the
way,
> there's an interesting perspective on what happens after the war and
> whether oil has anything to do with it at:
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north146.html
>
> One of the quotes appears below:
>
>
>      If the United States invades Iraq, it will win the war at
>      some price.  This nation's government will then be in charge
>      of establishing control over the sale of oil.  It will not do this
>      directly.  It will install a puppet regime.  The hatred of the
>      United States in Iraq is sufficient so that the United States
>      government will not be able to let democracy work without its
>      intervention.
>
> --
> Joseph Crowe
>   Heisenburg may have slept here.

Good points, well argued.

Cheers,
Larry G.