 sj |
||
|
||
BS: worst president ever?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: worst president ever? From: tar_heel Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:05 PM The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims: FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent . Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? YOU be the judge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:26 PM Thanks Tar Heel, I'm sure some lefists will come screaming over the fence on this one, but the minute they do, remind them that in order to validate their allegiance to the Democratic Party, they are going to have to first admit that some wars are justifiable. And legitimately some will and some won't; men from both parties died in those wars. But when they realize that that is an editorial from a Southern newspaper, they will see that the Kerry route to the Presidency just got longer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: tar_heel Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:29 PM LET 'EM SCREAM,CLAYMORE....it's about time they screamed about something meaningful... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:32 PM Tar Heel Please keep up your fine campaign. It's refreshing to see that everyone here is not so extreme left-winged that they can't see the common sense of so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bobert Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:43 PM Yeah, Bush does make my Top Ten List of Crappy Presidents. Ohters: 1. Tyler 2. Polk 3. Lincoln 4. Roosevelt, Teddy 5. Wilson 6. Hoover 7. Nixon 8. Reagun 9. Bush I and... 10. BUsh II Honorable mention: Jackson, Grant, Taft, Hayes and Clinton... As fir my Worst of the Worst: (drumroll)... Lincoln, by far for pushing the country into civil (which it wasn't) war!... 23,100 lost at Antietam alone... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Rapparee Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:56 PM I'm on neither side here, but let's do look at some historical facts. "Germany never attacked us: Japan did." True, but German U-boats sank "Reuben James" and other vessels before Japan bombed Peal. Japan also attacked an American gunboat in China prior to 1941. "North Korea never attacked us." There were US troops in Korea and these were most definitely attacked (and damn near defeated) when North Korea invaded in the 1950. "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962." There were already US "advisors" in Vietnam, they'd been there for quite some time. "Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire." Yup, he sure did, and I completely agree, 'cause it ruined the lives of more than one person I know and flat-out disrupted mine. But let's not forget that everyone wanted to run the war: the Congress, the President, the Executive Branch, the Protesters. Fer godsakes, there are records that show naval supporting fire being directed not from the shore, but from Eagle One -- the White House! Vietnam was a military action that was ruled by politicians. At the same time, such programs as Head Start were also begun.... Also: Republican William McKinley led the US into the Spanish-American War. Democrat Woodrow Wilson led the US into WWI. Republic Abraham Lincoln could be said to have caused The War Between The States by taking office as President. Democrat James K. Polk led the US into the Mexican War. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower put the first US troops into Vietnam (then called Indochina). As I said, I'm not taking sides here, but I do think that the history is more than a little simplified and revised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bev and Jerry Date: 19 Feb 04 - 06:16 PM FDR led us into World War II... Truman finished that war and started one in Korea... John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict... Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire... Clinton went to war in Bosnia.... President Bush has liberated two countries,.... No bias here! Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Alice Date: 19 Feb 04 - 06:24 PM Tar Heel, 9/11 was not caused by Iraq. We are misplacing our troops and money on Saddam, a guy Bush wanted to take out go after even before 9/11. We should have used our military resources in Afganistan and the other areas where Osama trains terrorists. It was not in Iraq. We had so much good will support from the rest of the world after 9/11 that we could have really put together a defense against Islamist terrorism... but Bush squandered that good will. I know you don't agree with me, but I had to just exercise my freedom of speech in stating this. And I DO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Alaska Mike Date: 19 Feb 04 - 06:54 PM Dubya is by far the worst president I've been witness to in my lifetime. He ALLOWED terrorists to kill thousands in NYC so he could have a reason to invade not one, but two sovereign countries for the primary purpose of letting his friends and contributors make millions of $$ in war profits. He took a flourishing economy and gutted it with tax breaks for the rich, thereby contributing to the largest deficits in history. He circumvented environmental laws which had been successfully improving the quality of our air, water and natural resources in order for more of his fat-cat friends to make more millions of $$ to the detriment of everyones long term health. And, not least, he moved 3 million jobs out of the country where underpaid, overworked, poorly educated and unprotected foreign workers can make even more millions of $$ for the corporations and multi-nationals that bought and paid for his appointment to the highest office in the land. Yep, absolutely the worst president I have ever seen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bobert Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM Horrors, Rapaire... I am so embarrassed for leaving McKinley out... Somehow I always blame Teddy Roosevelt fir that war... As fir the worst, I'm stickin' with Lincoln... Worst in my life, however, does go the current one. He's a pathological liar, a theif and has only kept 2 campaign promises, a massive tax giveaway to the rich and changing the tone in Washington. Unfortunately the tone is worse now than anything since the days of Jos McCarthy, and maybe even worse... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bobert Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:16 PM BTW, Claymore: I'm playin' Saturday night at the Potomac Gallegry (x from Leesburg Resturant...). Two one hour sets beginning at 6:00 and 8:00. Plus there are 7 different live music venues going on right there in old town... Come on down. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Peace Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:29 PM Been my experience that the worst president or prime minister a people have is the one they're living under at any given time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Benjamin Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:39 PM In my book, although this will offend a lot of people here, I would say FDR. If you think the way the Bush administration rounded up Arabs is bad, then look into the Japanese internment. I would personally recomend the book Judgement Without Trial by Tetsuden Kashima. Also the book Anyways, I personally am not of fan G.W.B. I don't agree with many things. But take a look at history and see what others have been through. Times HAVE been worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Gareth Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:39 PM And from this side of the pond - Thank God for FDR, and his neutrality patrol and lend lease. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: tar_heel Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:43 PM WELL,to those who don't know it,i am a die hard conservative and i make no,aplogies for it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amergin Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:46 PM "President Bush has liberated two countries" kind of like how Hitler liberated Poland... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bobert Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:51 PM Yo, Ter Heel, what do you think of Bush? This question oughtta test the die hardiness of yer conservatism v. partisanism... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Cobble Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:53 PM He's a pathological liar. We have one over here blaming everyone else when the truth comes out BLAIR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Peace Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:56 PM He's definitely a liar, but I don't know that it's pathological. Let's not smear the man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: kendall Date: 19 Feb 04 - 08:11 PM How anyone with an IQ over 60 can support the rat eyed lying phony bastard is a mystery to me. TH, you can twist history all you want, Bush lite is the only president I ever detested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: dianavan Date: 19 Feb 04 - 08:11 PM I think we're in trouble. Bush and Blair are liars and it looks like Canada's new P.M. Martin will join the ranks. Oh well - birds of a feather... The worst president? Its a tie between Nixon and Junior Bush. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Alaska Mike Date: 19 Feb 04 - 08:31 PM Tar_heel, if you truly are a "die hard conservative", why would you be extolling the questionable virtues of the Shrub? He spends money like a sailor on leave with his buddy's credit card. He lied to us about reasons for the Iraq war, he lied to us about how much it will cost and he will continue to lie to us in order to cover up his previous lies. This president used his priviledged status to get into the Texas Air National Guard in order to avoid Vietnam. Then after we spent a couple million dollars to train him as a pilot, he decided on his own not to show up for his last year or so of duty. Most of the "die hard conservatives" that I know have too much respect for the sacrifices our military has made to ever put up with this type of weaselly conduct. I thought "die hard conservatives" wanted LESS government. Our current president has muliplied government bureaucracy to a degree never seen before. He has eroded our constitutional rights with the USA Patriot Act, and wants to erode it further with Patriot II. He has made it easier for corporations to take more of our natural resources for their own profit. He has trashed many of the environmental safeguards that were set up to protect the air and water that we all must share. He has mortgaged our children's future with his deficits and tax breaks. There is absolutely NOTHING I can see in him that a truly "die hard conservative" could possibly admire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Walking Eagle Date: 19 Feb 04 - 08:36 PM Mine? Good ol Andy Jackson. Pushed all of my people off of our land and out of our businesses, forced us to walk a pretty fur piece and wouldn't even let the soldiers let us stop to bury our dead. How would you like to carry your dead child a few thousand miles. Do you even play any folk music troller tar? Please let us know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Walking Eagle Date: 19 Feb 04 - 08:38 PM Me? I think I'll stay above the line for awhile. The trolls seem to be trying to take back Mordor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 04 - 08:44 PM as we see, folks differ in what and WHO they consider 'bad' *grin*.....that's part of what makes America interesting. As for 'worst'. that is REALLY hard to decide, as some flaws are easier to overlook than others. Nixon WAS a crook, but he was smarter than Bush...and Clinton was a dork in some things and brillant in others. Reagan was 'mostly' an honest conservative with blinders on, roaring down a pre-decided road with little regard for what he ran over in the process. It is hard to compare someone like Tyler or Andrew Johnson with Bush, as the world was so different then. I do think Bush is one of the most dangerous presidents ever. His compulsion to 'do' certain things, based on dubious principles, whether it bankrupts us or makes the rest of the world hate us or polarizes the population even more than it is already, makes him a serious threat to the stability of many institutions, both national & international. He is simply not aware enough or smart enough to make the decisions he is making..(even though many of them are guided by VERY smart, but dangerous advisors). If G. Bush, with his particular attitudes, had grown up in Nazi Germany, I shudder to think how he might have reacted.....Pure speculation? Yeah, but..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Former Republican Date: 19 Feb 04 - 10:21 PM Yes, George W. Bush is the worst president ever. Here is a well written article which gives specific facts and documentation of his presidency. Wm. Fairchild |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 04 - 10:47 PM mumble,mumble,mumble,,,hmmm....*reading*....mumble,mumble...... ok...yep, former Republican...that article seems to cover it. Very clear, concise...and scary as hell! except it doesn't make the point quite strongly enough just how much "Messianic delusion" is driving a lot of his goals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:04 PM Tar Heel, do you write the "Dick and Jane" editions of history books? Yes, FDR led the USA into WWII (after provoking Japan with a trade embargo meant to drive them to war, which it did). No Germany had not yet attacked the USA in any significant manner (there were a couple of U-boat incidents, but that happens in war all too easily and often by accident)...BUT...don't you remember...Hitler declared war ON the USA first!!!! FDR was then at war with Germany, courtesy of Adolf Hitler. So why blame FDR for it? Or didn't you know? (Secretly, FDR intended to go to war against Germany as soon as he could arrange it...and Hitler gave it to him on a platter...the second dumbest thing Hitler ever did...the first was invading Russia.) You see, Tar Heel, when you set out to interpret history expressly for partisan purposes (to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad, I mean) you will inevitably have to ignore or forget some details, deny others, and make up others as you go along in order to engage in a silly excercise that had no real point in the beginning anyway. "Liberals" are the boogeyman in your closet, Tar Heel. They are your mythical monsters. There is nothing "liberal" about USA Democrats. The USA has 2 parties that by world standards are both reactionary and right wing, and frequent promoters of militarism and aggression abroad. Only in the USA could anyone imagine that the Democratic Party is "liberal" in its basic nature. Ha! Ha! Ha! I laugh. Now. Vietnam. The US involvement there goes back to Eisenhower. Then Kennedy upped the ante a bit. Johnson (who ran on a "peace" ticket...ha! ha!...turned it into a major war. And Nixon continued it as a major war and finally threw in the towel and got out ("Vietnamization"...ha! ha!). I see no reason to quibble between the screwups of Dems and Reps on that one. They all screwed up. Yeah, Clinton went to war in Bosnia, and Bush I went to war in the Middle East, and Bush II went to war in the Middle East. So? I see again no reason to favour one lot of scoundrels over the other in any of that. Yeah, Clinton failed to take action against Osama. Yeah, Reagan did all kinds of illegal things in Central America, was tried by the World Court and found guilty for illegally attacking Nicaragua, and ignored the World Court totally...and supplied arms to the same Taliban fanatics in whose ranks Osama learned his trade in order to kill Russians, and...on and on...I see no reason to favour either Dems or Reps on that load of crap either. You're living in a dream world, man...like arguing who's better: Al Capone or Meyer Lansky? Who should we choose to run our city from among these two fine gentleman? You wouldn't know a real liberal if one fell in your lap. All you know is American party politics which is one bloodstained hand clapping in a total vacuum devoid of imagination or morality. Now...worst president? God knows. There have been some dandies. It would be very hard to choose the absolute worst out of them all. It think we have to get more specific. Most lascivious president: probably Clinton. Or Kennedy. Well, I guess it's a dead heat on that one. :-) Most murderous: Andrew Jackson? Probably. Most incompetent in running governemnt: Hmmm. Tough one. Probably Ulysses S. Grant. He was a great general, though. Most paranoid: Nixon. Most out of touch mentally while still in office: Reagan. Least sexy: Bush # 1 (ask any woman) Ugliest ears: LBJ Biggest liar: Ummm...ummm...well...aw forget it! Too much competition on this one. Most clumsy: Gerald Ford. Most clumsy looking: Lincoln. Most forgettable: I can't remember this guy's name. Now isn't this more fun than trying to prove Republicans are better than Democrats? Next, let's try to prove that pigs are smellier than goats. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bobert Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:21 PM Yeah, ol' tar heel started off strong but is lookin' more an' more like the guy who has jus' discovered that it's annoying arguing with folks who just happen to know more than him.... Bummer... Been there, tar heel. Fortunately, not this time... Yer guy is a crook.. No whine, just fact... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:22 PM I don't know about worst, but he's bad enough that I'd vote for just about any Democrat and most Republicans to get rid of him. And what's all this fooferaw about what past Presidents have done? Like I used to tell my children, "Just because the other kids do it doesn't make it right." clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: dianavan Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:31 AM I made up my mind. Bush is definitely worse than Nixon because he is more dangerous plus he has some very slick international PR. He is a threat to the world! I ordered Disney videos from the School district's media services (Canada). Bambi, Frosty and Rudolph seemed a safe bet to entertain the little ones while their older sibs were singing in the Christmas concert. Imagine my surprize when there was a 20 minute leader on the great American hero, Colin Powell! The parents weren't too impressed either. All three videos contained blatant, American propaganda. Disney offerred the District a deal they couldn't refuse. Disgusting! d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:38 AM One hand washes the other, doesn't it? Oh, and money talks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:23 PM Wow, I'm having a hard time believing LBJ doesn't rate much lower than most of you have him. - He earned the nickname "Landslide Lyndon" over election fraud early in his career. - He violated the civil liberties of at least his enemies and friends, conducting illegal survellence and wiretaps to build up materials in case he need to use them. He was the called the best arm twister in Senate history because he had a lot ong people to work with. According to legend LBJ was the only president to have a better dossier on J. Edgar Hoover than Hoover had on him and he was the one who set up the taping of the Oval Office (producing, for example, the Nixon tapes). - He may have had plausible deniablility, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the real slaughter in Viet Nam rest squarely on his shoulders no matter who sent advisors before him or who got stuck with the war after him. - All that and we haven't even gotten to the documentary the History Channel was showing implicating him in Kennedy's assassination. We are talking about US presidents aren't we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 04 - 03:09 PM LBJ was a hard one to categorize. He was a hard-nosed, conniving politician who was a master at arm-twisting and playing cards out of his sleeve to win on issues.....but he was also pragmatic and reasonable about a lot of things, and did sort of have the best interests of the country in mind..(well..what HE considered the best interests to be).. He DID push civil rights legislation thru and he was quite anguished by the Vietnam war, feeling trapped and confused about not seeing any easy way out....He knew it was pretty much his own fault for getting IN so deeply, but it 'seemed' reasonable at the time. (I have listened to some of the tapes of conversations about this) I did see that documentary about his purported involvement in the Kennedy assination...*sigh*..lots of VERY circumstantial evidence, with NO hard proof. I can't really believe even LBJ would stoop that low, but I doubt we will ever know exactly what happened. If I could push a magic button and change the past, LBJ would never have gotten to be VICE-president, as I think there were better choices...but a murderer?...I hope not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Rapparee Date: 20 Feb 04 - 03:21 PM Does anyone else remember the article back in the '60s which not only had LBJ commanding the assassination, but also putting the moves on Jackie after having intercourse with the throat wound on JFK's corpse when they were flying to DC from Texas? Can't remember the name of the magazine, but I don't think it was "Ramparts." Yeah, it was purportedly satire, of a low sort. But the whole JFK/LBJ story reminds me of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Boab Date: 21 Feb 04 - 01:17 AM Tarheel, you sure have been well-versed in all-American History of the right-right-right-wing republican variety! With respect , and regret for any offence given to Americans who DO know---America did not declare war on Germany; Adolph Hitler declared war on America. I could go through almost all of the diatribe and rip it to pieces, but don't want Tarheel kept too long from his constant prayers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 21 Feb 04 - 08:49 AM "No Germany had not yet attacked the USA in any significant manner (there were a couple of U-boat incidents, but that happens in war all too easily and often by accident)" A bit more than that, even to the point some believe that FDR was trying to provoke Germany into attacking the US and, disappointed at the public's reaction to the attacks, re-focused on Japan. As I understand it, FDR had ordered US destroyers to accompany British convoys in a fairly stark violation of the Neutrality Act. According to some historians, when Germany was able to avoid attacking US vessels, FDR ordered the US destroyers to interpose themselves between the British warships on the convoys and their German attackers. Two destoyers were attacked, but the US public was so anti-war at the time, it was ignored. US seaplanes with US crews also participated in the search for the Bismark. Somewhere around here I have a translated diplomatic message from Tokyo to their Embassy in DC describing the pressure they were under to protest the attacks that the US was making on Germany. I'm not siding with tar_heel here (Germany did try to avoid bringing the US into the war until it was ready), but FDR was hell bent on getting into the war so he could save the British. He knew that the US anti-war sentiment was such that he could not deliver the first blow, so he had to provoke them into attacking us. Japan was just easier to provoke than Germany. Here's the plan for doing just that dated October 7, 1940. It explains why US military analysts did not expect to be able to provoke Germany and why there was value in provoking Japan instead. Almost all of the action items in Section 9 were implemented. (Sorry, I'd normally use a more neutral source, but this was the one I could find quickly and it's the same as the hardcopy I have.) The McCollum Memo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Hrothgar Date: 21 Feb 04 - 09:38 AM Well, I detest Dubya too, but why hasn't Warren Harding earned at least an honourable mention here for general absolute incompetence? He would make even Grant look like a shining light of statesmanship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: IvanB Date: 21 Feb 04 - 10:11 PM If you want to name the most incompetent president, Franklin Pierce has to take the prize. He's probably the "most forgettable" one whose name Little Hawk couldn't remember and that fact is probably the reason his gross incompetence is unremembered. Essentially, Pierce was someone who enjoyed nothing more than a convivial evening (read: drink, and plenty of it) with his friends. Unfortunately, in his conviviality he found it impossible to say "no" to anyone and thus ended up making multitudes of diametrically opposed promises which he no chance of being able to keep. Probably the biggest reason his administration was so ineffective and easily forgotten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: M.Ted Date: 22 Feb 04 - 02:12 AM Pierce was also considered to be the best looking President--his personal appeal, and his good reputation in Washington society made him the perfect choice as a Presidential candidate--unlike the other contenders, he was liked as a person, and respected for his public career by everyone. His inability to provide leadership in the "Bloody Kansas" conflict turned that situation into a dress reheasal for the Civil War. He was so reviled on leaving office that he never showed himself in public again. The funny thing is that one Barbara Pierce, the mother of our current leader, is reputed to be one of his relatives-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Feb 04 - 02:00 PM Yes! Franklin Pierce!!! The absolute worst. And I don't even care whether or not he was a Republican or a Democrat (as if it mattered...). :-) Strick - You are absolutely right on the naval warfare bit. I would've gotten into that too, but I'd already written enough on it, I figured. Roosevelt's government was already unofficially assisting the British in the Battle of the Atlantic long before Hitler ever declared war on the USA. And yes, the Japanese were more easily provoked. Here's another interesting sidelight on the early war years. The Luftwaffe had been strictly ordered from early 1940 NOT to bomb British cities or metropolitan areas. It was the British bomber command that commenced aerial attacks on German civilian centers on May 11, 1940, thus beginning the strategic bombing offensive. This was Winston Churchill's decision. One of the key targets specified was "railway stations", which normally lay in the very center of the most densely inhabited civilian areas of German cities. On June 20, 1940 the definition of "military targets" was expanded to include industrial targets...this meant not only factories in Germany, but also the workers homes that lay all around those factories. Therefore, the British commenced the infamous "blitz" themselves in June 1940. The Germans did not respond until September 6th of that year, launching their own blitz on London and other English cities in retaliation. The horrors that followed between then and VE Day included the well-known bombing of London and Coventry, the German V-weapons, and the incineration of much of Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, and a hundred other places by Allied bombers. At no time did those bombing raids achieve their stated aims: to break the fighting will of the enemy populace or to break the ability of their industry to keep producing war materiel. No...but they wrote a whole new chapter in the insanity of war. It took ten times the effort (and money) to build a 4-engine bomber and to crew it, as it did to build a fighter plane. In the air war over Germany, the German fighter planes generally shot down a fair bit more Allied bombers than they lost fighters in doing so. Accordingly, the whole proposition of mass bombing cities with fleets of 1,000 or more bombers was a peculiar one...in that it was prohibitively expensive and did not achieve its principle objectives...but it was done anyway. Why? Because it COULD be done. And that is probably the same reason the atomic bombs were dropped. Because they COULD be. Put it this way. Give a violent person who is in a killing mood an ax, and he is likely to use it. Give him a shotgun, and he will use that too. Give him a bazooka, and the same result follows. Murder is not a procedure that is often accompanied by a sense of humanity or proportion. I have written the above merely to demonstrate that simplistic thinking which wants to place all the "good guys" on one side of a historical conflict and all the "bad guys" on the other side is unrealistic and self-serving nonsense. It's equally silly to make all the "good guys" either Republicans or Democrats...or conservatives or liberals. You can only do it by being totally partisan and willfully blind. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:10 PM Rapaire: I think that was Paul Krassner in his paper "The Realist." He got by with an amazing amount of stuff, but I think he got in trouble for the "Disneyland Orgy." clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,noddy Date: 23 Feb 04 - 04:20 AM the answer is always the one in power...unless he gets asassinated then he is the greatest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:51 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:59 AM How can we possibly have a discussion on the worst president ever and not mention James Earl Carter. During his administration inflation rates were in double digits, the interest rate was 17% when I bought my first home, (slightly higher than the current interest rates around 5%) their were gas lines, hostages in Iran, a failed rescue mission where dead american soldiers were dragged through the streets, and the USA was the joke of the world. The Soviet Union invaded Afganistan and Carter retaliated by pulling out of the Olympics. Boy- I bet that thought the Soviet Union a lesson. I remember him sitting in sweaters telling us how we all have to turn our thermostats down because we don't have enough energy. (I teach energy efficiency for a living and support an energy policy- but all he showed was weakness) I get sick every time I hear him criticize the current president. He was the very first person I ever voted for, and the last time I ever voted for a Democratic president. Larry K |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:10 AM "Here's another interesting sidelight on the early war years. The Luftwaffe had been strictly ordered from early 1940 NOT to bomb British cities or metropolitan areas." I had read that a German plane in trouble cleared it's bombs (dropped them randomly to gain altitude, not to attack a target) over a populated area which provoked Churchill. He is supposed to have relished the idea since it was the only way Britain could strike back at German at the time. Either way it's easy to argue that the Germans really never initially intended to bomb civilian targets. They didn't have the planes for it. It was the British and Americans that read H.G. Wells and built long range heavy bombers for that kind of work even before the war. In the end the Americans were the most promiscuous of all at bombing civilians. Can't agree with Jimmy Carter. Come on, Jimmy Carter is the best ex-president we've ever had. No kidding, no fooling, a man who deserves everyone's respect since he left office. He was just too nice for the job in those troubled times. Well, while we're dragging them all out of the closet (so to speak), there's always Chester B. Arthur who did little but was supposed to be sigularly currupt in doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM Yeah, Strick...that pilot was lost in the fog and scared. He jettisoned the bombs over an unknown area (to him), but it happened to be London. He was arrested and courtmartailed by the Luftwaffe High Command for having done so. The British, in the meanwhile were quite deliberately bombing Berlin and other German cities by night. The great German war crimes were committed against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Eastern Europeans, and so on... The great Allied war crimes were committed against the civilian populations of Germany and Japan. Only one set of scoundrels faced trial at Nuremberg. If you read about the life of "Bomber Harris" you get a glimpse into the mind of a very disturbed man, guilty of mass murder in my opinion. I don't agree about Jimmy Carter either. He is an uncommonly decent man who had the very bad luck to land in office at one of the worst possible times...he did not cause the oil embargo or the Iran hostage crisis...he was merely the recipient of them. It was a no-win situation for Carter. He made the mistake of actually caring about human lives, and for that he is called "weak". Well, Jesus was weak too, wasn't he? (by that definition, I mean) He could've called down the wrath of God and destroyed all those scribes and pharisees and burned Rome to the groung, killed 30 million or so unregenerate sinners, and set things right in the ancient Mediterranean, by golly! Hmmm. I betcha Jesus never gets a job at the Pentagon with his wimpy, compassionate attitude. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:52 AM The Luftwaffe had been strictly ordered from early 1940 NOT to bomb British cities or metropolitan areas Huh? More revisionist history or what? I am sure that little gem is of great comfort to the people of London. And to the victims of the Blitzkrieg - a tactic employed exclusively by the Germans in Poland (September 1939), Denmark (April 1940), Norway (April 1940), Belgium (May 1940), the Netherlands (May 1940), Luxembourg (May 1940), France (May 1940), Yugoslavia (April 1941), and Greece (April 1941). I guess the officers in Auswitz, Dacau and Belsen were under strict instructions to provide Jews, Gypsies, Poles and any other dissidents with comforatble accomodation, pleasant food and light entertainmeant as well. In fact, those places did not realy exist at all. They were all a figment of Churchills imagination! Damn, no wonder I was never very good at History... Sorry to all my German friends who know I am not anti German in the slightest. I just hate it when people try to justify their own peculiar agendas by re-writing the history of planet. It is how extremists have gained power since time began. Oh, BTW, I think Dave was the worst president ever. The film was awful. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 23 Feb 04 - 01:26 PM "Hmmm. I betcha Jesus never gets a job at the Pentagon with his wimpy, compassionate attitude." I suggest you re-read Revelation. Dave, no question the German war machine got progressively worse as the years went by (slaughtering thousands of helpless prisoners of war on top of all the things you've mentioned), but that wasn't the point. German just didn't start the air war against civilians, at least not intentionally. Oddly enough and in a slightly related manner, Germany shouldn't be held responsible for the US development of the atomic bomb either. The Germans were convinced by their top physicists that a bomb wasn't possible; they were working on nuclear powerplants instead. Heisenberg never lived it down since no one believed him when he claimed he was merely trying to slow their effort down. It was too apparent he believe it was impossible right up to Hiroshima. Guess in a way it was a shame he wasn't on our side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 04 - 02:02 PM German just didn't start the air war against civilians, at least not intentionally Sorry Strick, afraid you are wrong there. The German war machine invented the Blitzkreig tactic and used it to sucessfuly invade Poland before any of the Allied forces got involved. OK, the Blitzkrieg was also land based and aimed at cutting off enemy troops and supply lines. It's other purpose however was to terrorise the civilan population into submission and there is ample documentary evidence to prove that very point. Look up 'Blitzkrieg' with any search engine you care to mention and it will give you the same picture. If that is not intentionaly starting an air war against civilians then I am afraid that you and I speak a very different language! Well off topic I'm afraid but as I said before I simply hate to see the the truth twisted. As to the US development of the Atomic bomb. It was often said, particularly during the cold war, that it was simply a question of whose German scientists came up with it first, the American ones or the Russian ones! I have no doubt that had the war gone any other way the need for the Atomic bomb may not have arisen but please don't try to imply that the German scientists were working for the good of mankind when it is also well documented how their research often went. Justification of this evil regime is the first step to recreating a similar one on your own doorstep. And, coming back on topic, should that happen I think you would find that GWB and all his predecesors will be nowhere near the top of anyones list in the years of tyrany that follow. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 23 Feb 04 - 03:07 PM "OK, the Blitzkrieg was also land based and aimed at cutting off enemy troops and supply lines. It's other purpose however was to terrorise the civilan population into submission and there is ample documentary evidence to prove that very point." In Blitzkrieg, the objective is tactical and the objective to, if you'll forgive the expression, "shock and awe" your opponents though an overwhelming tactical advantage at a particular point. This is quite different from "strategic" bombing that held entire civilian populations virtually hostage. MAD without the proper technology. Regardless, German did not intentionally bomb civilian targets over Britain until after the British air raid on civilian targets in Berlin. No attempt at justifing any regime, only one minor point in the war, much like the fact that the Germans went out of their way to avoid attacking neutral US shipping. In the first case it didn't occur them; in the second, they were trying to avoid the mistake they made in WWI. I'll let you know if I experience any tyrany here. My family has been on the rebellious side of most every conflict since the War of the Roses, we generally don't stand for tyrany. Most of what I've seen here personally seems less like tyrany and more about like the level of security I found when visiting Britain during the Troubles ("Give Ireland back to the Irish, don't make them take it away..."). It won't last long or else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 04 - 03:44 PM So all the history books are wrong? The all night bombing of London on 23 August 1940, 2 days before the first Allied raid on Berlin, was by mistake? Interested to see how that can be proved. A raid that lasted all night and blanketed an area of that size hardly seems to be the act of a rogue pilot droping his load to gain altitude. That aside the Blitzkreig itself was always known to cause extemely high civilian casualties. Look at the blanket damage done and tell me that the perpetrators of this tactic did not intend killing civilians. The only difference between this destruction and that of tactical bombing is in name! So, on hard evidence, not speculation, it does appear that the agressors were the Axis powers. All the destruction, be it Blitzkreig or tactical bombing was started by them. How can anyone persist in saying it was the Allies that started it? Just interested. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 23 Feb 04 - 04:17 PM "To keep up the pressure, the Germans began night raids, to stop the defenders repairing damage overnight. On one night raid, some aircraft bombed civilian areas of London by mistake; a mistake which was to become a crucial turning point in the Battle. Attacks on civilian centers were something which had been specifically banned by Hitler, who was still hoping at this time that the hoplessness of the situation would cause the British to sue for a negotiated peace. The German High Command knew that widespread civilian casualties would only harden the resolve of the nation to fight on. In reply to this accidental attack, the British bombed Berlin. Fears grew that cities would be raided more often, so children were evacuated again in a second mass exodus to places of safety in the country, as they had been during the Phoney War of 1939." Quoted from The Battle of Britain -- The Official Royal Air Force Website No one absolved Germany of being the aggressors in WWII. Only that the Germans did not indiscriminately attack British civilians until after the attack on Berlin. At that more civilians were killed in air attacks on Dreseden - 35,000 or Tokyo - 100,000 (or heaven help us on Hiroshima - 70,000 or Nagasaki) than in London - 30,000 - during the Blitz. Plenty of innocent blood to go around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Feb 04 - 05:07 PM Dave, you're letting your emotions distract you to the extent that you're not reading my posts carefully enough, as far as I can see. And you need to do some more reading of materials that are already out there: such as "A History of Bombing" by Sven Lindqvist, a Swede. The book was written in 2001, and covers and dates the key decisions made regarding bombing from its earliest historical inception up to the present day. I never said that Germany was not an aggressor, so don't suggest that I did. I never excused Germany for their hideous crimes in the Holocaust, so don't suggest that I did. Prior to WWII the German Condor Legion terror bombed Guernica in Spain. Germany began WWII with their open aggression against Poland, and they bombarded Warsaw indiscriminately with bombing and artillery...but it was a fortified city defending itself with dug-in troops and artillery of its own. In the West they terror bombed Rotterdam in 1940, in an effort to force a quick(er) surrender by resisting Dutch forces in that city. They scrupulously avoided bombing British cities until Sept 1940, however, for a variety of reasons: One was that they lacked an effective strategic bomber force, having an air force equipped only with smaller 2-engine tactical bombers, not really suited to area bombing of cities. The British did not lack such a strategic bomber force (nor did the USA). Hitler feared British retaliation if British cities were bombed. He also still viewed England as a potential ally in the future fight against Communist Russia, and did not want to alienate them unnecessarily or even seriously damage them if they could be convinced to make peace and join Germany. It may have been for this reason that the Panzer divisions were never ordered in to crush British forces at Dunkirk. They could have been, but they were held back. I think Hitler was enough out of touch that he actually believed that if Churchill was only not in office the British could easily be persuaded to join with Germany in a common cause. Fat chance! Churchill decided as early as May 1940 to begin strategic bombing of Germany. That decision was never made public. Why? I quote directly from J.M. Spaight, author of "Bombing Vindicated" (an enthusiastic endorsement of the Allie's WWII strategic bombing campaign): "Because we were doubtful of the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of the eleventh of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia's decision to adopt her policy of 'scorched earth'. It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kiev and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol, in the face." So who can the good citizens of those British cities thank for their ordeal? You don't get this do you? I am NOT trying to excuse Nazi atrocities (which were extraordinary), I am simply pointing out that they and the Japanese were not alone in committing atrocities, well-planned ones, and that if they had won the war (highly unlikely) there would have been a different set of war criminals on trial...and a different popular view of history in the minds of 98% of the present population. People will insist on believing only the official line which is: "We and ours are always good. They and theirs are always bad." Sorry. It ain't that simple. The Luftwaffe was not ordered to area bomb British cities until early September 1940. The British had been area bombing German cities since May 1940. That's a window of delay of 4 months before a German tit for tat response. The rest was inevitable. In the end he who had more bombers and a bigger war industry killed more of the other guy's civilians, but of course both sides gave it their utmost before it was over. In the Pacific theatre it was the Japanese who first terror bombed cities...in China. It was the Americans who finished up on Japan. Basically, whoever had the strength (and equipment) to do it and get away with it did it! But the Germans waited 4 months before doing it back to England. It's really rather surprising that they did. The British were not strong enough to mount truly damaging raids (of sufficient size, I mean) until 1943. From there it escalated steadily until the final act: the incineration of Dresden. They were able to destroy an entire city, and they did. Quite unnecessarily. The war was already decisively won. Here's another interesting note: On the first day of the 2nd World War, in 1939, FDR in the still neutral USA appealed to the warring powers to "under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities"...terror bombing, in other words. All the involved powers agreed (verbally) to that proposition, but the British were not too happy about it...because it gave them little or no way to effectively strike at Germany at that point in the war. So in May 1940, they quietly decided to do it anyway. They began the strategic bombing offensive. Unpalatable? Tough. It's history. You may not like it, but you cannot deny it if you bother to check it out. And if you think this means I am supporting Naziism you are very mistaken. I am entirely happy that Hitler did not win his war and instead went down to destruction. Nor am I denying any of the wellknown German atrocities against humanity. I'm simply being even-handed and saying what is barely ever heard anywhere: the whole truth, rather than just the fashionable version. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 04 - 07:43 PM They scrupulously avoided bombing British cities until Sept 1940 Huh??? The first record of a London bombing was 23 August 1940. That lasted around 4 hours and covered totaly civilian areas. What history books are you reading??? Sorry LH but you are just proving that American revisionist history is more powerful than you think! Perhaps the worst President ever is the one that re-wrote the history books to suit the USA? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:03 PM Oh, sorry, just noticed The British had been area bombing German cities since May 1940 for which, as far as I can see, there is no validation at all. The first recorded bombing of a German city (Berlin) was on 25 August 1940. Again, no intention of agression, just wondering where these 'facts' come from... Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:18 PM Dave, check my link (blue "clicky" thing). That source would be very surprised to be called "American revisionists". What history books have you been reading? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Sam L Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:58 PM Die hard conservatives with brains and principles don't know what the hell this guy thinks he's doing. Bush proposed less change from the Clinton administration than Gore did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:16 AM Just checked the clicky, Strick. It does say that the Germans bombed London and the English retaliated by bombing Berlin. Which is exactly what I said so what is the argument about? I am quite happy to agree that it also says it was by mistake - So what? It is still a fact that the Germans bombed a civilian centre first. And to LH. I am not allowing anything to get in the way of the facts. The facts are quite simple. It is statements like Churchill decided as early as May 1940 to begin strategic bombing of Germany that are misleading and emotive. The decision may well have been made but the fact remains that strategic bombing was not started by the English until 25 August that year. 2 days after the German raid on London. A raid which you also misleadingly describe as ...that pilot was lost in the fog and scared. He jettisoned the bombs over an unknown area (to him), but it happened to be London. It was NOT one pilot jettisoning his bombs by mistake. It was a sustained bombardment by a number of planes. Mistake? OK - fine. I am happy to accept that but it was still the start of the Blitz on English cities as far as history is concerned. No changing that I'm afraid! One thing I think we are all in agreement on though. It was a terrible thing for both sides to do. Remarkably we still seem to be doing it, both by mistake and on purpose. Which I think helped start this thread in the first place! Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:06 AM It was my recollection that it was only an accidental discharge of bombs. My mistake. On the other hand, it changes little. All Little Hawk and I were pointing out was that the Germans did not intentionally bomb British cities until after Britain bombed Berlin. I heard someone say recently that all wars are a series of blunders; the one who makes the fewest wins. The same goes for diplomacy or other great acts of public policy. To a very great extent it's always a bit of groping in the dark whether it's trying to understand how your actions affect the economy or rolling the dice in the fog of war. Armchair generals and politicians are always better at it than the real thing, hindsight being so much easier than foresight. I always discount what someone says he would have done in the same way I discount some 50 year old's assessment of he would have done if he had been playing at the crucial juncture of a football game. Easy to say when the pressure's not on you and you have all the facts before you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:55 AM I have received a long email affirming the many-faceted muchly deserved categorization of GWB as the Worst President Ever. (WPE Award). When I get home, if I remember and cans till find it, I will try and post a link to the analysis. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 12:10 PM I hope that's not that long email "resume" that been circulating around the internet, Amos. Are we going to have to show that most of that is either pure bullshit or badly misrepresented again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 04 - 12:51 PM All wars are a series of blunders; the one who makes the fewest wins *BG* I Love it! One for the archives, Strick:-) I think it would be pretty good if presidents / monarchs / prime ministers, whoever, settled things by a good game of twister or kerplunk. Then we could say the worse presidents (or whatever) were the one who were no good at games... Works for me. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:15 PM "I think it would be pretty good if presidents / monarchs / prime ministers, whoever, settled things by a good game of twister or kerplunk." It would certainly make our process of determing who should be each party's candidate more entertaining. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM No, it isn't. You can find it at this page for example, or just do a google-search on the phrase "Bush Wins Triple Trifecta". It is widely distributed. Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:10 PM Thanks. Some interesting points, Amos, but still a fair amount of rhetorical BS. I'll be back later to chat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 08:51 PM Well, Amos, I've read the Trifecta article. Answer me honestly. While I can appreciate it would be satisfying if you already hate Bush, do you really expect anyone to take something from such an obviously politicized site seriously? I mean, look a their first argument: "Hoover presided over a major stock market crash. Clinton resided over a major stock market crash. We like Clinton but we don't like Bush so let's compare Bush to Hoover instead." Did I miss something? At least the author had the decency to admit that most of the late economic troubles began in an earlier Administration. Even the basic premise is fairly week. Large, prolonged deficits can be detrimental to the economy. The negative symptoms are inflation and high interests rates. Please call me when you see inflation and high interest rates. Considering the source (reading this kind of crap makes me tired), I'm going to just mention a couple of the obvious nonsensical arguments. Corruption: Decimation of the electric grid? Bush alone is responsible for 50 years of negelict? Enron's main finanical crimes were commited prior to 2001. Where was the SEC then? No one has shown the slightest evidence that anyone in the current Administration aided Enron in the least. Who is more responsible, the person in charge when the crimes are commited or the person in charge when they're discovered? Halliburton got exactly the same non-compete kind of contracts going into Iraq it got when we went into Bosnia. Were you complaining then? No, Clinton kept it a secret. Constitution: the worst violators of the principles of the Constitution were actually Lincoln who suspended habis corpus and FDR who interned hundreds of thousands of US citizens without the slightest due process. The Patriot Act was originally proposed during the Clinton Administration passed by an outrageous majority in both Houses immediately after 9/11. Most of the provisions aren't that different from what I experienced in Britain during their problems with the IRA terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters). Got a problem with it? It's only a law. Work to revoke it. As for the enemy combatants thing, it's no different from when a military court marshall sentenced the Lincoln assasination conspirators to death (well, and a couple of folks now thought to be innocent) or the way Jefferson and other presidents dealt with pirates. Or the way the British dealt with insurgents in any number of places for that matter. Don't go into battle with any nation if you're not officially a combatant. Global Contempt: Horse hocky. No one likes any of our conservative presidents. LBJ and Nixon was more hated than any presidents when it comes down to it. FDR was hated in South America for the imperial way he treated countries there. In fairness, so what? We didn't like De Gaulle. Military Madness: I know it's commonly held that the US never started a war. It's a lovely myth that originated to help vilify the Japanese after the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Sadly it's not true. The US has been the aggressor or attacked other nations with the flimsiest of provocations numerous times. What did the Mexicans do to start the war of 1845, own land we wanted? The Spanish-American War started even though many in government knew the Maine was an accident. Think of the thousands of transgressions against Native Americans or the way the US invades Carribean and South American republics at the drop of a hat. FDR waited to enter WWII but did not only because he had to politically. It's a bald faced lie to say that "no one ever advocated attacking countries that hadn't attacked us." Messianic Delusion: Riiiight. Bush is a Methodist, a denomination that, as you may know, is an offshoot of the Anglicans. Here in the US it's considered a liberal tradition, meaning that, as a rule, Methodists are technically neither fundamentalists nor evangelicals. That's right, they're theologically the opposite. There are exceptions, but the exceptions are rare. Not once has anything Bush said varied from the standard Methodist doctrine. The most liberal Methodist Biships might oppose Bush's politics, but they can't fault his religious beliefs. I know, I'm a Methodist and I have them here in front of me in writing. To say that Bush has some kind of Messiah complex is so ridiculous it doesn't really bear answering. Only someone completely ignorant of religious matters could believe it. Hell, there's more, but I've wasted too much time on this already. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:50 PM The book I got the info from, Dave, is called "A History of Bombing", written by Sven Lindquist, a Swede, translated from the Swedish into English by Linda Haverty Rugg, published by Granta Books 2001 in the UK, also published by The New Press in the USA 2001. It's not a book devoted solely to WWII, but is a comprehensive study of the entire history of aerial bombing from its earliest inception, including some examples of non-aerial bombardment of cities by naval forces, etc. It is a look into the psychological assumptions that underly the decision to bomb people. These assumptions are of several types, and they are all tremendously self-serving and inhumane. The book spares no one. It's not partisan, except in the sense that it is passionately antiwar. It favours neither England, for example, nor Germany, nor America, nor Russia, but simply tells what happened in chronological order. It's a fascinating and very disturbing book to read, quite apart from what it may contribute to a debate on decisions made in WWII. Check it out if you get the chance. It also has an extensive bibliography to provide backup for what Lindqvist has to say. I think the reason we're disagreeing about the timing is this: the first OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED British raid on Berlin was, as you say, on 25th August 1940, after German bombs had fallen accidentally on London due to bad navigation. However...the decision was made by Churchill in May 1940 to begin bombing numerous rail centers and communications centers in Germany. Those rail and communications centers were located in the densest metropolitan centers of German cities, and the bombing done was inaccurate night bombing...area bombing...of what were German civilian centres. That is strategic bombing...but it was not officially announced as such to the British public, who got a very different impression of what was going on. As for Hitler, he didn't officially blow his top about it until after the official British raid on Berlin in August. Then he went berserk, made a fiery speech to the party faithful vowing to retaliate on London a hundredfold, a thousandfold...and away went the German Blitz. Ironical, because it may have cost them the Battle of Britain. Adolf was psychologically outplayed that time by the British...or else they just got "lucky". So, when does strategic bombing begin? When it actually begins?...or when it becomes official and is done officially to an enemy's capital city? In the end, it's the general impression of what happened that speaks loudest in people's collective memory...and that impression is generated by media coverage more than it is by specific facts. Apparently, both the German public and the British public were of the firm opinion that the other guys did it first! This doesn't surprise me at all. :-) That's almost always how it goes in wartime. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:26 PM Strick I don't have the time to argue over Mister Bush. I think he is a dangerous and misled man. I grant yout h piece was rhetorical in excess. It doesn;t help. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:21 AM Aha! Agreed then LH - The bombings did indeed begin earlier. Both the British bombings of rail and communications centres and the German bombings of Military targets that also happened to be in civilian centres in Poland and Holland. I certainly agree it is all about semantics but I do not like to let misleading statements go unoticed. I felt that the postings by yourself and Strick led people to believe that the Germans did no bombing of cilivian areas until after the British. this is blatantly untrue. It is playing the game that the very polititins that are being derided in this thread do all the time. Whether it was called strategic bombing or military strategy the bombing of Warsaw saw countless civilian lives lost before a single allied aircraft had left the hangar. The later strategic bombings of London, Berlin, Coventry, Dresden and all the rest were terrible acts indeed, but it was only the name that had changed. I hope there has been no offense taken. I only intend to point out the 'facts' can be presented in such a way that makes the 'truth' seem different. Your versions, while being accurate in themselves did not, I believe, show the whole picture. To get back on topic it painted a distorted image, just like the worst president ever does all the time :-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:06 AM "I grant yout h piece was rhetorical in excess." Gee, that's rather generous. Malicious mudslinging might be more accurate, perhaps? There are plenty of reasons not to like Bush. If those are enough, why are people going around making new ones, particularly ones this so outrageously misleading? Clearly the Republicans aren't the only ones devoted to the study of Goebbles. Do the Democrats really need to stoop even below the level of radio talk show hosts? That's supposed to impress me? Positively, I mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM Impress you? Well, no, certainly not. All these communications are from individuals, known or unknown, and none are from "the Democrats". There is no they there. IMHO, BUsh is an appropriate candidate for the thread topic. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:59 AM My apologies I should have said specific Democratic supporters who are probably registered Democrats. I made the more general statement because there are other articles and emails of a similar nature that seem to use the same standard of the truth and lack of substance. Didn't say Bush wasn't a candidate for this thread. Any president is. Just said that particular document wasn't worth considering as evidence one way or the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: pdq Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:27 PM George W. Bush is the worst president ever??? Get serious. GWB isn't even the worst president in the last decade! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 04 - 01:19 PM I disagree; I think he is the most dangerous and irresponsible man ever to take over the White House without a popular vote. Don't get me started on the number of reasons I have for this assertion. Premeditated murder, to begin with. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Strick Date: 26 Feb 04 - 01:22 PM "Don't get me started on the number of reasons I have for this assertion." If you can support it logically and with facts, perhaps you should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,guest Date: 16 May 04 - 07:43 PM By no means was Franklin Pierce the worse president this country ever had. That honour must go to James Buchanan, the man AFTER Pierce. (By the way, Pierce was a Democrat). Pierce opened up trade with Japan, finished purchasing the continental United States, purchasing southern New Mexico and parts of Arizona. Bleeding Kansas was horrible, granted, but I hardly think that should cause him to be the worst...at least HE preserved the Union, unlike good ole' Old Buck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: pdq Date: 16 May 04 - 10:13 PM Thanks GUEST, guest, but please don't leave the wrong impression about party affiliation. James Buchanan may have beem the worst president ever, but he was also a Democrat. In 1856, the newly-formed Republican party ran John C. Fremont, the man who accepted the surrender of Mexican interests in California. Buchanan got an impressive 59% of the popular vote and still did a poor job in office. By the way, are you sure that you don't want to join officially? Membership costs nothing and is quite painless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST Date: 17 May 04 - 01:36 PM Jimmy Carter is exactly the kind of man we need as president now. Older, honorable and intelligent. He just needs better advisors this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Irish sergeant Date: 18 May 04 - 02:47 PM Do we need to fight terrorism? Hell yes. Do we need to be in the business of overthrowing legitimate governments? No. that is what happened and let's face it kids, we callit liberation and I agree Sadaam had to go but the Iraqi people do not see it that way. At least not the occupation part. So George W belongs but the worst? Warren G. Harding (AKA Warren G. Hardon after the Nan Britton Scandal It wasn't only Clinton and Kennedy.) Check out the Teapot Dome scandal. Ulysses Grant certainly belongs there. Great general , lousy judge of character. James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford (Though in his defense he had very little time to sort out the mess handed to him by Richard Nixon) Ain't real impressed with Ronnie reagan or G.H.W. Bush either Irish sergeant who used to be a conservative and now values the constitution more and more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST Date: 18 May 04 - 08:22 PM Yes, George Bush Jr. is the worst president I have ever witnessed in office. Not only has he duped us into a war under false and misleading pretenses, he has managed to bankrupt America morally and economically while doing so. We have lost over 2,600,000 jobs in the United States under his watch. And he wants to cut overtime pay? Under little george's watch we have been warned by his pal Al that we need not expect to recieve much in Social Security when we retire? because three trillion should go for permanent tax cuts for the rich now. As far as little george's environmental record...which poison in the air and water do you want to consume today? When Clinton lied no one died. tar heel you're a bad dog! GO TO BED! Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: LadyJean Date: 19 May 04 - 12:26 AM William Jefferson Clinot lied about his sex life, which proved that he was male. George W. Bush decided that we should invade Iraq, and found a reason. (Please Dear God! He didn't let 9/11 happen so he could go after Saddam. Please! I do not want to see an American president hanging from a lamppost, which is what should happen if that's true.) He lied about weapons of mass destruction and the necessity of this war. I've been hearing about a friend's two year old son, joking about how when he turns 18, and gets a full scholarship to M.I.T. she'll look back on it all and laugh. If things go on the way they've been going on, when he turns 18, he may be drafted to fight in Iraq. Incidentally, I don't know about civilians in London, but I do know, because my father was there, that at the end of the war, German planes bombed columns of refugees in Poland. Dad may have lied about his sex life. (Most men do.) But he was, otherwise, an apallingly truthful man. He also spoke of a guard at a P.O.W. camp, who, after the bombing of Dresden, got up in one of the towers and turned a gun on the British and American P.O.W.s, until the other guards shot him. His family had been killed in the bombing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 19 May 04 - 05:32 AM LH - with regard to German bombing of civilian targets and your apparent belief in the myth that they had orders not to bomb such targets. They seemed to have had a bit of practice: Spanish Civil War - On April 26, 1937, 25 German bombers dropped 100,000 pounds of bombs and incendiaries on the peaceful Basque village. Seventy percent of the town was destroyed and 1,500 people, a third of the population, were killed. Poland 1939 - Warsaw Holland 1940 - Rotterdam - declared an open city, but that didn't stop the Luftwaffe from bombing and burning it. Norway 1940 - Narvik In 1939 and 1940 the RAF was not capable of mounting a bomber offensive. It took another two years before that was made possible. Sir Arthur Harris could provide the only means of directly attacking the enemy that Britain had. Dresden was a target that was forced on him by others. It was one of four targets under consideration, Stalin wanted Dresden, certainly not Harris who objected mightily. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Sensei)(Rebel Date: 20 Jun 04 - 03:53 PM STFU tar heel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jun 04 - 04:38 PM Teribus - You did not read my earlier posts in this thread with much care. I already myself pointed out the Luftwaffe's terror bombings in Spain, on Warsaw, and on Rotterdam. I did forget to mention Narvik. I was not implying that the Nazis were such nice guys that they didn't want to bomb civilians. :-) I was implying that the British and Americans did similar things, and that all the involved powers were equally ruthless in the end when it came to bombing civilian areas. Therefore, all committed war crimes, in my opinion, but only the losers faced trial afterward for it. That's what always happens. People are inclined to see evil in everyone but themselves, and winners are inclined to believe that they saved the World from an indescribable evil...them losing! :-) It was not my suggestion that Hitler delayed bombing British civilian centres out of humanitarian concerns...:-)...or out of good military judgement either. No indeed. He seems to have had the notion that the British could be persuaded to negotiate peace, and eventually even ally themselves with Germany against the Soviets. Accordingly, he was initially inclined to "hold the hounds back" from certain actions which might cause the gravest offence...such as bombing London, for example, in hopes of securing a negotiated end to the conflict. He eventually changed his mind about that. While the British were not capable of a massive strategic bombing effort early in the war, they were certainly capable of significant night bombing of German metropolitan areas and they carried it out as best they could with their Whitleys, Wellingtons, Lancasters, and Halifaxes, starting in May 1940. I am not taking sides in any of this, Teribus, I am merely judging all participants by the same moral compass, period. If you want to decide who bombed civilian populations first, you have to go farther back...before Spain or World War II, to the colonial era between the wars. The British did it in the Middle East to Arabs and the Italians did it in Africa to Ethiopians, and so on, and so on. Basically, everybody that had the means to do it did it...somewhere. The Germans got involved later, when they had the means to do it, and the excuse to. I will always oppose the antiseptic and unrealistic notion that all the evil in a major war was perpetrated by one side only (the losing side), because I detest that sort of bland, self-congratulatory hypocrisy. It's a bunch of "Rah! Rah! Aren't we wonderful?" BS, as contemptible as the "Aren't we wonderful!" BS spewed by the Nazis when they were riding roughshod over Europe. They too believed they were saving the World and introducing a new and glorious era in human society. Had they won, people would still be hearing that BS...and believing it too! A war is a gigantic miscalculation which ordinary people pay the price for. The whole thing is a crime, perpetrated by people who claim to be saving civilization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST Date: 21 Jun 04 - 12:49 PM How little history most of you know and the misinformed are the "worst" citizens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:30 PM C'mon Bobert...LINCOLN?! Probably wouldn't be a United States if not for him, back when the Republican Party stood for human rights and equality. My worst Grant...good generals often make bad Presidents Taylor...see above Fillmore...slept through his term Hoover...had George W been President at the onset of the Great Depression, results would have been similar Buchanan...completely over his head Harding...small town corrupt politico goes bigtime Taft...would have done as well if he just stayed in the bathtub |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Peace Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:07 PM September 18, 1858, Lincoln is on record as saying that he was not in favour of freeing the slaves. Uh, GUEST, history is a thing I like, read and have studied. It would be helpful if you said what you disagreed with and with whom instead of just that you disagree. Might teach me something, and I ain't too old to learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:48 PM Well Brucie, Lincoln was a politician and he wanted to be elected. Prior to the War, only the extremist Abolitionists wanted to free the slaves and Lincoln didn't want to be identified with that fringe group. Most people were content to stop the spread of slavery to new states. Slavery was THE divisive issue that would split the Union and Lincoln knew it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:14 PM My opinion i sthat the current incumbent is the worst, or close to it, in our history. What amazes me is that people voted for him once. Ah, well, fool me once, don't fool me again...shame on...whoever.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Peace Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:38 PM Lonesome EJ: That's true. I was not trying to impune the dignity of that man. I am aware of the fine line he walked, and I do teach his Gettysburg Address to my English classes. It a marvelous piece of writing, and I think it shows a beautiful side of the man who may well have been the greatest President the US ever had. If I offended with my remark to GUEST, I do apologize. But, as you said, he was a politician. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 21 Jun 04 - 09:56 PM " What amazes me is that people voted for him once..." some people would vote for him if he sprouted horns & a tail, just because they have emotionally committed themselves to one of the narrow single-issue positions the Republicans have used to cloud their minds about the big picture....abortion, gays, religion, "family values", "war on terrorism", business concerns, taxes...etc...all with appropriate slogans and conservative talk shows & news hosts like Rush Limbaugh, and Joe Scarborough (the worst!) and Bill O'Reilly... to do slanted put-downs and sanctimonious distortions of any Democrat who starts making sense. It is a just a circus...and I think Kerry is being smart by keeping a low profile right now and letting the news do his work for him....Kerry can then wait till after the convention and remind the voters..(many of whom have VERY short attention spans) what Bush & Co. did the last couple years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Amos Date: 21 Jun 04 - 11:02 PM Bill: Thanks for a refreshing note of relative clarity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Genie Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:10 AM Lonesome EJ - Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:30 PM: My worst Yer prolly right, LEJ. But I'll hafta go with Dubya, 'cause I wasn't around when Millard Fillmore or Grant were Pres. Guess ya'll hafta ask Don Firth or Jerry Rasmussen 'bout Fillmore and Grant. §;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Bush hater Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:07 AM Bush junior is most definately the worst U.S president by far .He declared war on a country that he had absolutley not cause on earth to do at all.If everyone remembers correctly he was actually after Bin Laden at the time but then he suddenly switched over to go after Hussien when he had no cause to do so at the time except that he wanted to finish what his daddy started all those years ago. If anyone should be brought before The Hague for war crimes it is George W. Bush and I for one would gladly see him up before a firing squad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,NODDY Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:14 AM A live one and usualy............................. the one in power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: DougR Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:07 PM Wow, Bev and Jerry, I'm impressed! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:12 PM "...relative clarity." well, I did notice as I posted that I had managed to stuff most of that into one long sentence..*grin*...but there was no place to stop!...and I left OUT some! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:19 PM Doug...I'm NOT impressed with Bev & Jerry's post...except for the comment about Johnson and Viet Nam, most of those statements were silly distortions of what actually happened....and Johnson had 'some' extentuating circumstances, even though he mis-judged a lot. (Did you eve listen to the tapes of LBJ discussing Viet Nam with various people and agonizing about what he could do and how trapped he felt?) But Truman & Roosevelt 'starting' wars? Give me a break! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:28 PM Roosevelt managed to keep us out of World War II until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. This, in retrospect, might not have been a good thing. Someone really should have stomped the crap out of Hitler before he got as far as he did, and someone should have done something about the way the Japanese were rampaging all over Asia, but that's Monday morning quarterbacking. We weren't really prepared for war, even when the Japanese attack came. Had the Japanese known how much damage they actually did at Pearl Harbor (pretty much wiped out the US Pacific fleet), they could have invaded the West Coast without much opposition. Those who keep saying that Roosevelt got us into WWII (presumable to end the Depression) are a bit fuzzy in their knowledge of history. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Bill D Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:49 PM as my post above notes..I did leave out some...let me add one to this list..."talk shows & news hosts like Rush Limbaugh, and Joe Scarborough (the worst!) and Bill O'Reilly..." I just left the TV where Robert Novak is holding forth on "CrossFire", mostly trying to link what he perceives as Bill Clinton's moral character to everything he doesn't like...sheeesh! Novak used to a somewhat respected 'journalist', even when I disagreed with him... but he is simply emulating O' Reilly and Limbaugh these days. His declining years are gonna be embarassing, if they let him stay on TV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jun 04 - 05:42 PM I can't really agree with you there, Don. FDR did deliberately maneuver the Japanese into a trade embargo where it was absolutely inevitable that they would attack the USA, only question was where and exactly when. I don't think the Americans regarded Pearl Harbour as a very likely target...it was just too far away from Japanese bases. No one had ever mounted a carrier raid over such a vast distance before, and the Allies grossly underestimated Japan's naval expertise before that war started! The raid on Pear did not "pretty much wipe out the US fleet" at Pearl, because they missed the all-important aircraft carriers...the one class of ship that was decisive in the Pacific naval war, as the Japanese had just so amply demonstrated.* (*before someone else says it, submarines also proved decisive...American submarines, that is...they had almost totally obliterated the Japanese merchant marine by the end of 1944) The old battleships that the Japanese nailed at Pearl really didn't matter much one way or another...except in a psychological sense...they were the old symbols of ocean power in people's minds at the time. But they were too slow to escort aircraft carriers and good for nothing much else except reducing island strongholds by bombardment or fighting other old battleships (this happened only once...at Leyte Gulf in 1944...and 2 old Japanese battleships, Fuso and Yamashiro were sunk in a night battle by 5 or 6 old American battleships). The ships that mattered...tremendously...were the aircraft carriers Enterprise, Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, and Wasp. None of them were at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese raid hit, but three of them could easily have been. The Americans got lucky, cos they just happened to all be out cruising at the time. The Japanese would have sunk the lot if they'd been in harbour...and THEN the US Pacific fleet would indeed have been crippled, and the west coast in some real danger. While I agree that FDR made trade moves to provoke a war, I can see why he did, given the international situation. War was in fact becoming inevitable, but he moved the clock forward some by depriving Japan of their sources of steel and oil. He could be either lauded or criticized for having done so, depending on whether you had decided to like him or not in the first place... :-) If you hate Democrats, you will not like FDR. What I'm saying is, yeah, he got the USA into that war...and yeah, he had a number of rather understandable reasons for doing so. His main concern was Nazi Germany. He did not want the Germans to win the war. Hitler made FDR's job easier by declaring war on the USA very shortly after Pearl Harbour. He could have done nothing more agreeable, from FDR's point of view! It's ironical. Hitler was a very strange fellow, in the grip of his own violent emotions. FDR was a much cooler player, who calculated the odds wisely and carefully before making his move. As for the Japanese, they had been backed into a corner. They could either fight the USA and Britain (and almost certainly lose) or not fight and be relegated to the status of a disempowered has-been in the Pacific. That they chose to fight was inevitable. It had all the tragic markings of a classic Shakespearian tragedy...Japan being the murderous MacBeth, doomed to a bitter end by his own violent crimes (against, in this case, China). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,ej Date: 23 Jun 04 - 07:55 AM baby bush is da wust eber............... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM Ah, Little Hawk, but why the trade embargo? The US had been selling scrap metal, oil, and various raw materials to Japan for years, which they were converting into weapons for their aggression against other Asian countries. They were determined to bring all of Asia under the Japanese Empire. The level of disapproval of Japan's aggression was one of the major reasons for the embargo, and not just by the US, but by other countries as well. We knew that the Japanese would be mightily pissed, but it wasn't all that sure that they would want to get involved in a war with the US because that would slow down their Imperial ambitions in Asia. There was also a question as to whether they even could attack the US. In addition, we were in the middle of peace talks with the Japanese when the attack on Pearl Harbor came (there were several Japanese diplomats in Washington, DC on the morning of the attack). Also, according to several books I've read on the period (and I was a kid during that time and I remember a lot of it), the Pacific fleet was in pretty bad shape. We were damned lucky that the aircraft carriers were out cruising at the time, otherwise the war might have taken an entirely different direction. We were simply not prepared for war and it was bloody miraculous how quickly everybody pitched in and factories started converting for war production. It was some time after the war was over that it came out that the Japanese didn't fully realize how much damage they had actually done, and that had they known, we would have very likely been fighting Japanese on the beaches of California, Oregon, and Washington. This, of course, was not something we wanted to be common knowledge. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jun 04 - 02:06 PM Hi, Don. Agreed, there were some good arguments for instituting that trade embargo. That's why I say that FDR knew very well what he was doing and why...and people will judge it from their own level of prejudice, meaning: if they already hate FDR they'll find something bad about it, if they already like him they'll find something good about it. I think the main thing the US Navy had going against them in '41 was overconfidence and lack of battle experience. The Japanese were conservative in their expectations (they anticipated heavy losses in the attack on Pearl, and were agreeably surprised at how well it went), and the Japanese were also highly experienced and trained to a "T" after several years of fighting in China. They had the most elite, well-trained navy in the World in '41, and they had the finest naval pilots too, and the World's best naval fighter plane at the time. Their torpedo planes were also the most modern then in service and their dive bombers were pretty much equal to the American SBD Dauntless in capability...and way more experienced at putting bombs on the target. The Americans were still depending too much on the "battle line" (a column of battleships) to decide a naval war. I believe what they anticipated in late '41 or early '42 was a Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia and the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies. They expected that MacArthur's forces would hold the Japanese to a stalemate on the ground in the Phillipines. Then they figured the American fleet of battleships would sail to an epic confrontation with the Japanese fleet somewhere off the Phillipines, with aircraft carriers simply scouting and making nuisance attacks of minor consequence, while the battleships slugged it out with their Japanese counterparts and sent them to Davy Jones' locker. This was the naval conflict that had been anticipated in the mid-Pacific ever since the 20's, and numerous wargames were played by the Americans and Japanese both around that assumption. It was called "Plan Orange" in the USA, and the Americans were confident they would win such a battleship duel. Yamamoto rewrote the book with his new carrier tactics, inspired by the British attack on the Italian fleet at anchor in Taranto, earlier in the war (a paltry force of British biplane torpedo bombers sank several Italian battleships in a night attack and utterly changed the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean in less than an hour). I don't think the Pacific fleet was "in bad shape", I think they were just going by the outmoded rules of the last war (WWI) and the Japanese got the jump on them by innovating. This was very imaginative on the part of the Japanese, and it netted them an astoundingly cheap victory and an early advantage in a war they were almost bound to lose in the long run. Japanese invading the West Coast? Naw...I've tried to invade the American west coast with Japanese forces in some pretty realistic WWII simulation games, and it's simply too long a stretch and too big a nut to crack for Japan. It's a fool's errand, fraught with disaster. They might have been able to take Hawaii, if they had absolutely gone all out with everything possible, but even that would have been very difficult to pull off. If they had sunk the US carriers AND taken Hawaii, then they might have been able to make it so costly for America to turn it around in the Pacific as to secure a negotiated settlement giving them what Japan wanted in the Pacific...a secure Empire and key resources in the Dutch Indies. Just maybe. In 1943 and 1944 the Americans built so many ships and airplanes that it was just ridiculous from the Japanese point of view. There was nothing Japan could do to stop that. The USA had the capability to outproduce them ten to one. That was what beat Germany too. That and the vastness of Russia. No one has ever conquered and occupied the whole of Russia, and I doubt that anyone ever will. Only 2 nations have been foolish enough to try. It would be about equally foolish for anyone to try to invade and occupy the USA...in fact, even more so, given that there's an ocean to cross. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,WJClinton Date: 24 Jun 04 - 05:35 PM I suggest the following.... Cheney for Mayor of Baghdad or Mosul or Tikrit... George Bush as President of Eye-rak... All of his followers and believers and cultists would be fine as his cabinet, chiefs, subchiefs...etc His alcoholic daughters and drug infested neice could provide entertainment at "state" functions... I am casting the 1st vote for the above slate... (Have you read my new book?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jun 04 - 06:30 PM I haven't read it yet, Bill, but I am eager to. I think you're great, and I really miss you. You're darned near as great as William Shatner. The Halls of Power are not the same since you left. I think Hillary's great too! ...can you arrange for an introduction? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,KERRY BETTER FOR JOB Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:15 PM I really can't believe that America has voted for this Bush again. He is one of the worst Presidents of our time. In 2000 Gore got screwed and everyone knows that. The presidents brother is the Govenor in Florida and he had everything fixed. Bush went into Iraq to fight a personal war that his father started and couldn't finish. He got Saddam so what. Gore or Kerry would have gotten him too. Bush has made Iraq a haven for terror and every month we are losing more and more troops. Americans are still being beheaded. People say Bush is a stronger leader YEA RIGHT. Bush reads from his little notes in every speech he gives. I heard Kerry speak in every speech and he knows what he is talking about. Kerry clearly won every debate. Jobs for America NOT with this guy Bush in office. I still am so shocked that Bush has won. Get ready for four more years of hell and the same bulshit promises. We will yet again be attacked because Bush is not the man to do the job in Homeland Security. We lost 3,000 lives on September 11. How many more Americans have to die before you Bush supporters realize he is worng man for the JOB? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: Once Famous Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:19 PM Kerry lost. Deal with it. get a life. Go out for a nice dinner. Spend time with your family. You are not the one who is going to write a history book. You haven't got the qualifications. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: worst president ever? From: GUEST,Glenda Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:39 PM As with artists, it takes time to tell. Glenda |
