Well Mr Hill. That statement probably just closed the door on any chance you had of redeeming yourself. Why don’t you go find a new site to troll.
Jon, I think he was talking about the Iraqis, not American troops.
Steve Featherkile said:OMG, YES! I can see my error, I'll correct it now.
Jon, I think he was talking about the Iraqis, not American troops.
Jon Radder said:
Well Mr Hill. That statement probably just closed the door on any chance you had of redeeming yourself. Why don't you go find a new site to troll.
David Hill said:Jon,
We are getting closer to agreeing mike. The Iraqis could have taken care of the problem themselves, but didn't. Our troops could have been home long ago if they weren't so cowardly and lazy (per returning veterans I've spoken to).
It is a “Hill Classic”, in road running circles that is usually associated with a lot of huffing, puffing and heavy breathing. :lol: :lol:
PS Not that I, English isn’t my mother tongue, would want to tell Mr. Hill anything about syntax, grammar or for that matter spelling. It just wouldn’t behoove me, would it now? :lol: :lol:
What a childish response, HJ. Often when a child loses an argument they will resort to name calling. What do you want to be when you grow up Hans?
WHAT DO DEER THINK?
Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan, was being interviewed by a French journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting.
The journalist asked, 'What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, ‘Are you my friend?’ or is it ‘Are you the one who killed my brother?’
Nugent replied, ‘Deer aren’t capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French.’ (or maybe the Swiss) (I couldn’t resist.)
The interview ended.
David Hill wrote:
We are getting closer to agreeing mike. The Iraqis could have taken care of the problem themselves, but didn’t. Our troops could have been home long ago if they weren’t so cowardly and lazy (per returning veterans I’ve spoken to).
David,
The first action of the Bush-appointed administrator when he entered Bagdhad, was to dismiss the 30,000 strong Iraqi army, without even disarming them. This then resulted in a fully armed insurgent army, complete with access to stored weaponry, which were used against coalition forces.
In his brilliance, he also dismissed the Sunni strong Public Service, resulting in total chaos and complete breakdown of infrastructure. The detractors of Saddam Hussein were persecuted under his regime, but to openly come out and say that they were better off under him than a coalition lead occupation army, says a lot for the treatment these people received.
The Coalition forces that entered Bagdhad were so insignificant in numbers (around 6000 from memory), that the soldiers stood by while looters ransacked the city. It was only days later that a military decision was made to bring about control. Washington was too busy partying and immersed in their own self interest, estimating the anticipated oil revenues. The initial Bush conspired attack did not allow for sufficient troops to occupy the city and take control. Video images show troops standing idly by while locals ransack anything of value.
Quite likely it was the total lack of initial planning that caused the ensuing mayhem, in gaining control, rather than the supposedly, cowardly Iraqis, that prolonged the occupation. Once again right wing racist biasses emerge. Remember that for five years the Iraqis fought a bitter battle (with full American logistical support) against the Iranians in the 1980’s. Remember that it was an American leaflet drop, in southern Iraq, post Gulf War, that inspired a Shiite uprising against Saddam Hussein, resulting in several hundred thousands of fatalities and mass Shiite migration to Iran. George senior decided to back off providing support for that uprising. Saddam also drained the marshlands that provided their livelihood, resulting in a dissilusioned race of people. Any wonder that the 2003 invasion did not instil in the population any sense of future and respect.
If you want to start throwing crap then start close to home, say Washington D.C. In so far as taking control of the situation themselves, well, for those in power their was no 'situation'. The Sunnis held power, both in government and in the army. For the Shiites and the Kurds, well, they were not in any position to retaliate against Saddam. Before spruiking your allegiances, look at situations, not from your narrow perspective, but from those displaced by your negativity.HJ,
I knew that David still had a few encore performances in him. In one post he calls you childish for supposedly insulting him and the very next posting, he quotes a rock star (never heard of him) insulting the French and somehow makes a connection with the Swiss (his connection, not that of the person being interviewed), thus insulting you. Either, David is off his medication, or he is acting childishly by hurling insults. He wants it both ways, thus reminiscent of the global warming thread in which he was chief mudslinger, but also claimed that he was the one most harmed by the supposed insults. Why are supposed christians more militant than heathens?
David,
keep up the medication and spend more time in the hobby room using your skills, rather than your obvious lack reasoning ability.
Tim,
David just makes me smile. 
That’s all.
Deleted
David Hill said:David,
What a childish response, HJ. Often when a child loses an argument they will resort to name calling. What do you want to be when you grow up Hans?
I wanna be just like you, life would be soooooo much easier then. 
BTW on that economic problem, do I take it that it is all somebody else’s fault like for instance the Iraqis? And you take issue with a graph that shows the USA right off the page when it comes to military spending?
As I said, I wanna be just like you, life will be so simple then!
David Hill said:David, have you not heard of the Lend Lease Act? Loans secured under the act were required to be repaid. Are you so naive as to think that the United States funded the war effort with no expectation of return on its expenditure to other countries? America did not enter WW2 as a gesture of goodwill. It was concerned as to the impact the fall of the British Empire would have on the free world and more importantly, the negative impact on the United States, itself. Sort of a very selfish act one would think.
In the USA during WWII, War Bonds were sold, scrap metals were donated, rationing, etc. to help pay for the cost of war. I suppose we should have sent a bill to Europe, Asia and the South Pacific for our expenses and lives lost.......
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm
I particularly like the last two paragraphs which are an excerpt from British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, regarding the impact the Act had on loans to Britain and the repecussions regarding repayment of such loans.
Excerpt from the link provided above. Note the first and final sentences.
"(10) Harold Wilson, Memoirs: 1916-1964 (1986)
Lend-Lease also involved Britain’s surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of
the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different.
The Attlee Government had to face the consequences of this surrender of our technological patrimony, but there was worse to come. Congress had voted Lend-Lease until the end of the war with Germany and Japan and no longer. When the European war ended, most people expected the conflict with Japan to last for another year or so. The atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended that assumption. Almost within the hour, President Truman, unwillingly no doubt, but without any choice in the matter, notified Attlee that Lend-Lease was being cut off. At that time it was worth £2,000 million a year. There was no possible means of increasing our exports to the United States to earn that sort of sum. Britain was in pawn, at the very time that Attlee was fighting to exert some influence on the postwar European settlement. The only solution was to negotiate a huge American loan, the repayment and servicing of which placed a burden on Britain’s balance of payments right into the twenty-first century."
Do you really think that the allies got everything for free? You like to research the web. Maybe this time you may learn something? Under the terms of the Act, many countries were required to scuttle ships/aircraft/ weapons obtained during the war, as the United States feared the impact the abundance of such weapons would have on American post-war rebuilding efforts.
Tim, this was the first reference of the Lend-Lease Act I found. Is this what you are talking about?
Lend Lease
(March 11, 1941)
In December 1941, President Roosevelt received a letter from Winston Churchill, the leader of Great Britain, stating that by June of that year England would no longer be able to pay for the supplies and arms the United States had been providing in the battle against Germany. In 1934, the Johnson Debt-Default Act had forbade the United States from trading with any warring nation except on cash terms. If England was to survive, a way around the Johnson Act had to be found.
Roosevelt devised a plan where the necessary supplies and equipment could be lent and leased to England. Using the analogy of lending a neighbor your garden hose if his house was on fire and thereby keeping the fire from spreading to your own house, he gained support for the concept. The Lend Lease bill (H.R. 1776) gave the president broad powers to “sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend or otherwise dispose of” items to other countries if he decided they were not vital to national security. In so doing the United State became, as Roosevelt stated, “the great arsenal of democracy.”
At its peak the Lend Lease program assisted 38 countries and made $48 billion available. England received the largest share. After the war most of the debts were cancelled. Only about $8 billion was ever actually repaid and most of that came from England and France. The Soviet Union foreshadowed its Cold War hostility towards the United States by refusing to repay its portion
The USA may have entered WWII for the reasons you stated (likely), but there are less noble speculations about how and why our entering WWII was sold to the citizens and for what reasons. The USA’s continued shipments of military supplies to Europe aboard passenger vessels, thus endangering the lives of all aboard and the sinking of those ships by Germany causing an uproar. There has also been speculation the the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was not all that surprising to some in the ivory towers, (Not unlike the World Trade Center inside job theorists.).
FDR, like Woodrow Wilson was also a One World Government-alist. He had a major hard-on for the formation of the United Nations after the failure of Wilson’s League of Nations. All credit is due Britain for not aligning with the European Union (IIRC). FYI, our united States is often considered to be a single country, like Mexico. But, in reality is was initially to be (and still has a shadow of) individual country/states i.e. the country/state of Pennsylvania, or Texas, in the same way there is the EU with France, Spain, etc.
FRD was one of our worst presidents in many ways, which may be an ominous sign for us of the current administration’s attempt to compare BHO with FDR.
.
David Hill said:Yes! I knew if I waited long enough someone would advance the "pearl Harbor was an inside job" argument.
The USA may have entered WWII for the reasons you stated (likely), but there are less noble speculations about how and why our entering WWII was sold to the citizens and for what reasons. The USA's continued shipments of military supplies to Europe aboard passenger vessels, thus endangering the lives of all aboard and the sinking of those ships by Germany causing an uproar. There has also been speculation the the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was not all that surprising to some in the ivory towers, (Not unlike the World Trade Center inside job theorists.)
David Hill said:Besides the idea that he liked the UN, what other evidence is there that FDR supported "One World Government?"
FDR, like Woodrow Wilson was also a One World Government-alist. He had a major hard-on for the formation of the United Nations after the failure of Wilson's League of Nations. All credit is due Britain for not aligning with the European Union (IIRC). FYI, our united States is often considered to be a single country, like Mexico. But, in reality is was initially to be (and still has a shadow of) individual country/states i.e. the country/state of Pennsylvania, or Texas, in the same way there is the EU with France, Spain, etc.
David Hill said:And yet the American people elected him FOUR times! What did they know that you don't?
FRD was one of our worst presidents in many ways.
Hugo Chavez, BJ Cliinton, GW Bush, Richard Nixon, were all re-elected. What do American’s know that I don’t?
David Hill said:I'm guessing quite a bit
Hugo Chavez, BJ Cliinton, GW Bush, Richard Nixon, were all re-elected. What do American's know that I don't?
I suppose you are an elite intellectual yourself from the sound of it.
Mike,
as regards the Pearl Harbor attack, in researching the propaganda/reenactment of ‘actual’ footage of the attack by John Ford, ‘December 7th’, I found information that America knew that placing an embargo on oil exports to Japan would have dire consequences and would be seen as a hostile act. At the time, Japan was totally dependent on American oil. It was considered placing the ban over twelve months earlier, but the decision was made not to, as perhaps America was not ready for war. The politicians knew that the ban was going to have repecussions.
In an earlier thread, I pondered the outcome if the ban had of been placed in 1940 and not twelve months later in 1941. Japan had not yet attacked the Burma/Malay peninsula and Singapore had not surrendered. I wonder the outcome of the war, without the extra twelve months of oil supplies and the extra time to manufacture arms. In the two months after Pearl Harbor, Japan had swept down the Malay Peninsula, accepted the surrender of Singapore and was extending down into Indonesia on its way to New Guinea to prepare for an invasion of Australia (the Battle of the Coral Sea stopped a full scale attack on Australia, but northern areas near Darwin were bombarded relentlessly through 1942).David,
you have highlighted points regarding the amount repaid but no reference link. If you had of read the link provided then you would have seen the position that Roosevelt took and the opposition from many in congress to the Act, plus the reason, in Roosevelt’s words, as to why the Lend Lease Act was so important for America’s survival. The folowing is an excerpt from the link that I provided and is quoted from Harold Wilson, an English prime minister (part of the arrangement of the act was to forgo any claim on the one-way exchang of technology and thus no royalties would be paid -
“…Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of
the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different.”
And further -
“…Britain was in pawn, at the very time that Attlee was fighting to exert some influence on the postwar European settlement. The only solution was to negotiate a huge American loan, the repayment and servicing of which placed a burden on Britain’s balance of payments right into the twenty-first century.” At the end of the war Britain had to secure a loan to repay its wartime debt. Whether some repaid or not, Britain made good its part of the Act.
Also as part of the Act, wartime equipment was required to be scuttled. Immediately post war, Australia was required to scuttle numerous ships and aircraft off our coastline, as required by the act.