Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as long as we are seen as the supporters of these kind of actions, we are going to continue to have big trouble in the mideast:
Israeli soldiers shot and killed at least 20 Palestinian protesters today, and wounded several hundred others, during Nakba rallies around the region. Nakba commemorates the expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli territory during the founding of the Israeli state, and is officially illegal to commemorate inside Israel.
Of the 20 killed, 10 protesters were slain inside southern Lebanon when Israeli troops opened fire on demonstrators they decided had drawn too near a border fence. The other 10 were killed along the Syrian border, as Palestinians rallied to the border with the Occupied Golan Heights.
In addition to the killings along the northern border, Israeli forces shelled protests in the Gaza Strip, wounded scores of Palestinians there. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that he believes the protests are “just the beginning” of a series of rallies against the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights.
At the same time, Barak praised the military for its “restraint” in killing only 20 Palestinians, saying they could have very easily had a “ruinous bloodbath.” He insisted the killings were a defense of Israel’s sovereignty, but experts warn that killing civilian protesters who are “near” a disputed border might well violate international law.
whatever israel does, we are perceived to have done.
You seem to not know much about history.
Hitler declared war on the US - THEN we reciprocated - and NO Hitler could NOT be bargained with (mainly because the promises he made were WORTHLESS).
Oh and "Pat Buchanan? As a source of HISTORY? The guy who DENIED the Holocaust? Give me a break.
Alright, let me re-phrase that for you then: "he denied NAZI RESPONSIBILITYfor the Holocaust". His argument being that "it was the WAR the caused the Holocaust - NOT the NAZI's" - as if THAT argument makes any sense whatsoever considering WHO STARTED the war in the FIRST PLACE. Somehow the blame for the Holocaust falls on all those 'bad, mean countries" that had ganged up on Germany - an argument that's the equavalent of a wifebeater claiming "It's not MY fault - SHE made me MAD".
Ron Paul's complete support for deregulating banking would cause another housing bubble. His support for ending the Fed would put us back on track to the days pre-Fed when there was a banking crisis every decade.
Memo to Ron Paul: it's 2011, not 1811.
how? remember when the Central Bank was done away with and our debt was extremely low?
1913 Fed is born dollar is worth 3-4 cents now. Thanks for the help Fed. It's like a farmer fattening up a lamb for slaughter. And the dollar is the sacrificial lamb.
You seem to not know much about history.
Hitler declared war on the US - THEN we reciprocated - and NO Hitler could NOT be bargained with (mainly because the promises he made were WORTHLESS).
That may be the case in absolute terms, but president Roosevelt was determined to get us involved in the war. If you know anything about history, the US military constantly sent "volunteers" to fight in both Europe and Asia. These volunteers didn't just go with the shirts on their backs. No, they came with weapons, airplanes, and ships. America had taken sides since day one, and were for all intents and purposes at war with both Germany and Japan.
Later, the United States would pass the lend-lease act, which was illegal under the neutrality acts, which are intended to prevent us from trading with nations who are at war. The United States then commenced an oil embargo and froze Japanese assets. All of these things were acts of hostility, and were undoubtedly going to lead us to war. A war that the American people did not want.
Our political leaders were determined to take us to war, Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbor because they knew America's involvement in the war was inevitable. They hoped to completely destroy the American Pacific fleet in a surprise attack. They never intended to invade the United States, ever. They merely wanted us to stop our involvement in China and to stop threatening the Japanese empire. Basically, they wanted us to mind our own business. The same as Germany did not want war with the United States. Hell, Germany didn't even want war with France or England.
You should read this article by the BBC, if taken objectively, it might paint a more clear picture about what really happened.
Then Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.
He accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943.
Over in Washington, President Roosevelt told Congress the free world must act quickly and decisively against the enemy. "The forces endeavouring to enslave the entire world now are moving towards this hemisphere."
"Delay invites danger. Rapid and united efforts by all peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will ensure world victory for the forces of justice and righteousness over the forces of savagery and barbarism."
FDR was spouting nothing but propaganda, America was never in danger of Hitler invading, neither were we in danger of the Japanese invading. Hitler was correct in stating that FDR and other American political leaders had been waging a campaign against Germany for years, and at that point, the lend-lease act(which handed billions in military equipment to countries at war for absolutely no cost) had already been in effect for nine months.
The facts are, FDR cleverly pulled us into a war he had been trying to get us involved in for years.
Quote:
Oh and "Pat Buchanan? As a source of HISTORY? The guy who DENIED the Holocaust? Give me a break.
Ken
What Pat Buchanan was saying, is that the holocaust never would have happened if it hadn't been for the war. I don't believe he was really arguing that the Nazi's were innocent, but that it was avoidable.
Pat Buchanans argument is that Hitler never wanted war with the West. That the whole War began because Poland refused to give Danzig back to Germany because it had a war guarantee from Britain. That Danzig was 95% ethnically German, it had been part of Germany before WWI, and the people of Danzig had desired to rejoin Germany. Poland was run by basically a military dictatorship, and had recently joined Germany in carving up Czechloslovakia. That Germany had on more than one occassion asked Britain to be its ally. That Germany had built a defensive line to protect it from invasion from France(go figure). That Hitler's plan that was repeated constantly in his speeches and in his book, never gave any mention to the West, he was focused on the East. That Hitler basically let the British go at Dunkirk. The Germans basically had no Navy, they had almost no intentions of building a Navy. They made no attempt to take Frances Navy after it surrendered. That Germany treated the defeated French and other Western nations nothing like he treated the countries of the East.,
That Churchill himself would later declare the war unnecessary and avoidable. As what most people consider the true justification for the war(the holocaust), didn't begin for more than two years after the war began, and we had no idea was going on until 1945.
Up until the war began, all Hitler was doing was consolidating the German people back into a single German state. Those Germans in Austria, the Sudetenland, and in Poland were clamoring to rejoin Germany, they weren't being forced. Britain was just fearful of Germany becoming more powerful than the great Anglo-American empire, and was intent to keeping Germany down.
In the end, Britain was destroyed, it lost its empire, and communism nearly consumed Europe. Not much of a prize IMO.
In my own personal view, I believe Hitler became desperate as the war went along. In the beginning he largely just wanted the jews to leave Germany. The Nuremberg laws for instance were designed to basically get the jews to voluntarily leave Germany and never come back. Many of those jews went to places like Israel, and also to the East. As they acquired more territory in the East, they had more and more jews, and they had no where to send them. There were no Jewish homelands, no Jewish states, yet Germany was intent on emptying German territories of the Jews. As the war slowed down and America entered, there was more and more anger directed at the jews, and Hitler wanted them gone for good.
I don't know what would have happened if Britain hadn't given Poland a war guarantee. I don't know what would have happened if Britain hadn't declared war on Germany. I do know Germany never intended to harm the West at all. If England(which controlled Palestine/Israel at the time) had been allied with Germany, England might have allowed the German jews to migrate to Israel, and the holocaust may have been avoided.
Of course, Hitler and the Soviets would have eventually went to war, but its difficult to predict what the outcome would have been, and how it would have affected the West. I can't imagine it would have been much worse than the destruction of Western Europe and the Cold War.
Sure...we could have started digging a tunnel in Afghanistan and dug into the compound. Paul Sr. is wrong, period. Maybe some folks miss the days when we got to be a new color every day. Me, I feel better w/o bin Laden and his millions spearheading and bankrolling radical Muslims, a small but too-often successful group.
Become informed. It was Ron Pauls idea in 2001 to send in small special force units. Bush was clueless but at least the Obama caught on. Better late than never.
That is one idea of Ron Pauls that government FINALLY tried and it worked. If you believe the lives of all those killed in the Middle East are meaningless keep voting for the same despicable war mongers in office now. After all you're not there, what do you care.
That may be the case in absolute terms, but president Roosevelt was determined to get us involved in the war. If you know anything about history, the US military constantly sent "volunteers" to fight in both Europe and Asia. These volunteers didn't just go with the shirts on their backs. No, they came with weapons, airplanes, and ships. America had taken sides since day one, and were for all intents and purposes at war with both Germany and Japan.
Later, the United States would pass the lend-lease act, which was illegal under the neutrality acts, which are intended to prevent us from trading with nations who are at war. The United States then commenced an oil embargo and froze Japanese assets. All of these things were acts of hostility, and were undoubtedly going to lead us to war. A war that the American people did not want.
Our political leaders were determined to take us to war, Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbor because they knew America's involvement in the war was inevitable. They hoped to completely destroy the American Pacific fleet in a surprise attack. They never intended to invade the United States, ever. They merely wanted us to stop our involvement in China and to stop threatening the Japanese empire. Basically, they wanted us to mind our own business. The same as Germany did not want war with the United States. Hell, Germany didn't even want war with France or England.
You should read this article by the BBC, if taken objectively, it might paint a more clear picture about what really happened.
FDR was spouting nothing but propaganda, America was never in danger of Hitler invading, neither were we in danger of the Japanese invading. Hitler was correct in stating that FDR and other American political leaders had been waging a campaign against Germany for years, and at that point, the lend-lease act(which handed billions in military equipment to countries at war for absolutely no cost) had already been in effect for nine months.
The facts are, FDR cleverly pulled us into a war he had been trying to get us involved in for years.
What Pat Buchanan was saying, is that the holocaust never would have happened if it hadn't been for the war. I don't believe he was really arguing that the Nazi's were innocent, but that it was avoidable.
Pat Buchanans argument is that Hitler never wanted war with the West. That the whole War began because Poland refused to give Danzig back to Germany because it had a war guarantee from Britain. That Danzig was 95% ethnically German, it had been part of Germany before WWI, and the people of Danzig had desired to rejoin Germany. Poland was run by basically a military dictatorship, and had recently joined Germany in carving up Czechloslovakia. That Germany had on more than one occassion asked Britain to be its ally. That Germany had built a defensive line to protect it from invasion from France(go figure). That Hitler's plan that was repeated constantly in his speeches and in his book, never gave any mention to the West, he was focused on the East. That Hitler basically let the British go at Dunkirk. The Germans basically had no Navy, they had almost no intentions of building a Navy. They made no attempt to take Frances Navy after it surrendered. That Germany treated the defeated French and other Western nations nothing like he treated the countries of the East.,
That Churchill himself would later declare the war unnecessary and avoidable. As what most people consider the true justification for the war(the holocaust), didn't begin for more than two years after the war began, and we had no idea was going on until 1945.
Up until the war began, all Hitler was doing was consolidating the German people back into a single German state. Those Germans in Austria, the Sudetenland, and in Poland were clamoring to rejoin Germany, they weren't being forced. Britain was just fearful of Germany becoming more powerful than the great Anglo-American empire, and was intent to keeping Germany down.
In the end, Britain was destroyed, it lost its empire, and communism nearly consumed Europe. Not much of a prize IMO.
In my own personal view, I believe Hitler became desperate as the war went along. In the beginning he largely just wanted the jews to leave Germany. The Nuremberg laws for instance were designed to basically get the jews to voluntarily leave Germany and never come back. Many of those jews went to places like Israel, and also to the East. As they acquired more territory in the East, they had more and more jews, and they had no where to send them. There were no Jewish homelands, no Jewish states, yet Germany was intent on emptying German territories of the Jews. As the war slowed down and America entered, there was more and more anger directed at the jews, and Hitler wanted them gone for good.
I don't know what would have happened if Britain hadn't given Poland a war guarantee. I don't know what would have happened if Britain hadn't declared war on Germany. I do know Germany never intended to harm the West at all. If England(which controlled Palestine/Israel at the time) had been allied with Germany, England might have allowed the German jews to migrate to Israel, and the holocaust may have been avoided.
Of course, Hitler and the Soviets would have eventually went to war, but its difficult to predict what the outcome would have been, and how it would have affected the West. I can't imagine it would have been much worse than the destruction of Western Europe and the Cold War.
Yeah, I know all about that - and while it IS true that Hitler's primary goal was to re-unify the areas occupied predominently by ethnic Germans it wasn't his ONLY goal - as evidenced by his siezing the remains of Czechoslovakia even AFTER the'd gotten the ehtnically-German area of that country (the Sudetenland) - not to mention he later invasion of Norway, the Balkan, and the USSR. NONE of which had ANYTHING to do with a desire to "unify former German lands" - they were simply a grab for more power and property (same as any other dictator).
It IS true that Hitler's ambitions lay to the EAST - but again, that sure didn't stop him from siezing neutral countries to the west such as Holland etc. The fact is, the more Hitler siezed - especially the more he siezed EASILY - the more he WANTED.
And yes, Hitler's original goal in regards to the Jews was simply to kick them out of Germany so that Germany became "ethnically pure" but the NAZI's had already shown that they had few qualms about extermination when they instituted the Action T4 program to euthanize those deemed "incurably sick" (which included the mentally ill and handicapped) as early as the very first day of the war. This program was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Germans even BEFORE the tide turned against Germany in late 1942 - so it's pretty clear that the NAZIs had FEW QUALMS about simply putting people to death - be it the mentally ill, the politically undesirable, or the racially undesirable: Jews, Gypsies, Slavs - ALL of those folks were systematically put to death by the hundreds of thousands and the millions.
And yes - FDR DID do everything he could to help the Allies against Hitler - and you know what? It was the RIGHT thing to do. While Hitler had no goal to "conquer the whole world", he certainly had his eyes on a very sizeable chunk of it and ANYONE who fell under his dominion was in a WHOLE LOT OF TROUBLE.
Going to war with and defeating Hitler was America's Finest Hour - just as much as it was Britains'.
It IS true that Hitler's ambitions lay to the EAST - but again, that sure didn't stop him from siezing neutral countries to the west such as Holland etc. The fact is, the more Hitler siezed - especially the more he siezed EASILY - the more he WANTED.
Not exactly. The reason he took most of the Western nations was to basically build a wall between itself and Britain who had already declared war on Germany. Holland and Belgium were the unguarded passageway between the French Maginot line and the German Seigfried line. The allies had already made plans to either force those neutral countries to join the allies, or to disregard their neutrality for their own attack against Germany in 1941. As for Denmark and Norway, they were taken to protect the Iron ore supply lines from Sweden, which the British were already starting to put mines in the Norwegian waters when the Germans invaded.
Hitler was obsessed with the East, and constantly made overtures to the West for a cease-fire, armistice, and practically begged the British to be his ally.
Quote:
And yes, Hitler's original goal in regards to the Jews was simply to kick them out of Germany so that Germany became "ethnically pure" but the NAZI's had already shown that they had few qualms about extermination when they instituted the Action T4 program to euthanize those deemed "incurably sick" (which included the mentally ill and handicapped) as early as the very first day of the war. This program was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Germans even BEFORE the tide turned against Germany in late 1942 - so it's pretty clear that the NAZIs had FEW QUALMS about simply putting people to death - be it the mentally ill, the politically undesirable, or the racially undesirable: Jews, Gypsies, Slavs - ALL of those folks were systematically put to death by the hundreds of thousands and the millions.
I'll give you that Hitler was obsessed with ridding Germany of undesirables, but the T4 program was aimed at mental wards and insane asylums. The vast majority of these people were in basically a psychosis and had no idea what was happening to them. They were completely reliant on the government for everything, and Hitler went on a campaign that basically seeked to eliminate the costs on the German government to care for these people(probably to divert more resources to the war effort).
The same can be said for American prisons, which hold more than 2 million Americans at the expense of the tax-payer. And the inmates on death-row are the most costly of them all. Hitler hoped to rid itself of both genetic inferiors and of the costs imposed on the taxpayers by what he considered people who were genetically inferior, by sterilizing and euthanizing criminals and people with mental illness. It was just another example of an evil act based in good intentions.
I am sure that Hitler would have been fine with sending the undesirables to other countries that would have accepted them(like he did with the jews before the war), but that was just impossible under the circumstances.
In the United States about 20% of the population has a disability, in many European countries this rate is far higher. What causes disabilities? Mostly, they are genetic, thus they could potentially be eliminated. About 6% of the working-age population in this country say that it is difficult or impossible for them to find work.
All socio-economic indicators are incredibly bad for people with disabilities. The costs of taking care of people with disabilities is passed on to people without disabilities. The higher the percentage of the population with disabilities, the larger the percentage of your production is transferred out of your hands to care for them.
The question of course is, what should be done about it? Your position is basically that we should do absolutely nothing. Hitler believed that people who were a danger or incredible burden on society, should be gotten rid of. It kind of reminds me of this "death panel" scare we had recently. I mean, should a 90-year-old man be eligible for a heart transplant? Should he have the same priority as the 20-year-old? If it would cost $1 million for treatment for a 90-year-old man that would only extend his life by a couple months, should the government(the people) be obligated to pay it? How much is a year of human life worth?
Lets pretend the Japanese had actually wanted to invade the United States, and they had been slowly winning the war with America. What do you think would have happened to the thousands of Japanese-Americans that we were holding in internment camps? Keep in mind, America also had some pretty radical eugenics programs around that time.
Quote:
And yes - FDR DID do everything he could to help the Allies against Hitler - and you know what? It was the RIGHT thing to do. While Hitler had no goal to "conquer the whole world", he certainly had his eyes on a very sizeable chunk of it and ANYONE who fell under his dominion was in a WHOLE LOT OF TROUBLE.
Going to war with and defeating Hitler was America's Finest Hour - just as much as it was Britains'.
Ken
I guess that is your opinion. I will concur that I don't like the idea of Hitler taking over the whole of Eastern Europe, and the mistreatment of the people that came under Nazi authority. The truth is, the Soviet Union and Maoist China were no better. In fact, they killed far more of their own people than Hitler did. Let alone the consequences of the Cold War, whose legacy is still costing American lives in places like Afghanistan.
I am not arguing that Hitler was right or good, but it made no sense for Britain to declare war on Germany for invading Poland, when the Soviet Union invaded Poland at the exact same time and became Britain's ally. It made no sense that Britain gave Poland a war guarantee, so Poland refused to hand over Danzig and the other German lands that were lost with the Treaty of Versailles. Even Churchill admitted that the war was unnecessary and avoidable.
My belief is that communism was a much larger danger to the west than Nazism. The Nazi's readily traded with the West, while the communists created a trading bloc that excluded the West. Hitlers demands as of 1939 were for the previously held German lands, which were almost entirely ethnically German and who were clamoring to be returned to Germany.
Britain and France declared war against Germany at a time when it wasn't even prepared to go to war with Germany. It promised to protect Poland from invasion, but it did absolutely nothing as Poland was carved up. For months there was a phony war which was only words and politics, not action. There was no reason for Britain to declare war against Germany in 1939. Had it not declared war against Germany in 1939(and especially if she had become a German ally), Germany would not have invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, or Norway at all. The wholesale destruction of Western Europe would have been avoided.
Plus, Hitler could use the declaration of war by the West as justification for war to the people of Germany. The people of Germany believed that the west was being unfair by not allowing the people of Danzig to rejoin Germany. And under the changing circumstances, it may have been far more difficult for Hitler to convince the German people of the necessity of his Eastern campaign into Russia. Regardless of if a war had broken out between Germany and the Soviet Union, it would have given the West more time to build up a force to balance against weakened force of both the Germans and the Soviets from a long war.
Had Britain not declared war on Germany, the West would have stayed intact. The British would have kept her empire. The Americans would have been perfectly safe, and millions of people would still be alive today.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-18-2011 at 02:01 PM..
Not exactly. The reason he took most of the Western nations was to basically build a wall between itself and the Western nations who had already decladed war on it. Holland and Belgium were the unguarded passageway between the French Maginot line and the German Seigfried line. The allies had already made plans to either force those neutral countries to allow the allies passage, or to disregard their neutrality for their own attack against Germany. As for Denmark and Norway, they were taken to protect the Iron ore supply lines from Sweden, which the British were already starting to put mines the Norwegian waters when the Germans invaded.
Hitler was obsessed with the East, and constantly made overtures to the West for a cease-fire, armistice, and practically begged the British to be his ally.
I'll give you that Hitler was obsessed with ridding itself of undesirables, but the T4 program was aimed at mental wards and insane asylums. The vast majority of these people were in basically a psychosis and had no idea what was happening to them. They were completely reliant on the government for everything, and Hitler went on a campaign that basically seeked to eliminate the costs on the German government to care for these people.
The same can be said for American prisons, which hold more than 2 million Americans at the expense of the tax-payer. And the inmates on death-row are the most costly of them all. Hitler hoped to rid itself of both genetic inferiors and of the costs imposed on the taxpayers by what he considered people who were genetically inferior, by sterilizing and euthanizing criminals and people with mental illness.
I am sure that Hitler would have been fine with sending the undesirables to other countries that would have accepted them, but that was just impossible.
In the United States about 20% of the population has a disability, in many European countries this rate is far higher. What causes disabilities? Mostly, they are genetic, thus they could potentially be eliminated. About 6% of the working-age population in this country say that it is difficult or impossible for them to find work.
All socio-economic indicators are incredibly bad for people with disabilities. The costs of taking care of people with disabilities is passed on to people without disabilities. The higher the percentage of the population with disabilities, the larger the percentage of my production is transferred out of my hands to care for them.
The question of course is, what should be done about it? Your position is basically that we should do absolutely nothing. Hitler believed that people who were a danger or incredible burden on society, should be put down. It kind of reminds me of this "death panel" scare we had recently. I mean, should a 90-year-old man be eligible for a heart transplant? Should he have the same priority as the 20-year-old? If it would cost $1 million for treatment for a 90-year-old man that would only extend his life by a couple months, should the government(the people) be obligated to pay it? How much is a year of human life worth?
Lets pretend the Japanese had actually wanted to invade the United States, and they had been slowly winning the war with America. What do you think would have happened to the thousands of Japanese-Americans that we were holding in internment camps? Keep in mind, America also had some pretty radical eugenics programs around at that time.
I guess that is your opinion. I will concur that I don't like the idea of Hitler taking over the whole of Eastern Europe, and the mistreatment of the people that came under Nazi authority. The truth is, the Soviet Union and Maoist China were no better. In fact, they killed far more of their own people than Hitler did. Let alone the consequences of the Cold War, whose legacy is still costing American lives in places like Afghanistan.
I am not arguing that Hitler was right or good, but it made no sense for Britain to declare war on Germany for invading Poland, when the Soviet Union invaded Poland at the exact same time and became Britain's ally. It made no sense that Britain gave Poland a war guarantee, so Poland refused to hand over Danzig and the other German lands that were lost with the Treaty of Versailles. Even Churchill admitted that the war was unnecessary and avoidable.
My belief is that communism was a much larger danger to the west than Nazism. The Nazi's readily traded with the West, while the communists created a trading bloc that excluded the West. Hitlers demands as of 1939 were for the previously held German lands, which were almost entirely ethnically German and who were clamoring to be returned to Germany.
Britain and France declared war against Germany at a time when it wasn't even prepared to go to war with Germany. It promised to protect Poland from invasion, but it did absolutely nothing as Poland was carved up. For months there was a phony war which was only words and politics, not action. There was no reason for Britain to declare war against Germany in 1939. Had it not declared war against Germany in 1939(and especially if she had become German'y ally), Germany would not have invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, or Norway at all.
Hitler could use the declaration of war by the West as justification for war to the people of Germany. The people of Germany believed that the west was being unfair by not allowing the people of Danzig to rejoin Germany. And under the changing circumstances, it may have been far more difficult for Hitler to convince the German people of the necessity of his Eastern campaign into Russia. Regardless of if a war had broken out between Germany and the Soviet Union, it would have given the West more time to build up a force to balance against weakened force of both the Germans and the Soviets.
Had Britain became an ally of Germany. The West would have stayed intact. The British would have kept her empire. The Americans would have been perfectly safe, and millions of people would still be alive today.
Sorry, but those are lame BS arguments. The fact that people may be mentally ill or physically handicaped does NOT give the state the RIGHT to simply kill them - NO HOW, NO WAY, NEVER EVER EVER - not to mention the fact that "mentally ill" under the definition of the NAZI's could simply mean that you were anti-NAZI. Like the Soviets, they MASSIVELY OVERUSED that term. That argument is simply trying to EXCUSE NAZI behavior - and I'm not buying it for ONE SECOND.
Neither am I buying the argument that Hitler would simply have left the West alone had they abandon their treaty with Poland. The fact is, he had shown numerous times that he COULD NOT BE TRUSTED to keep his agreements or remain faithful to his allies. He kept his word ONLY as long as it SUITED HIM to do so.
Oh, and SHOW ME where "Churchill admitted that the war was unnecessary and avoidable." - and don't give me Buchanan's CLAIM of such - I want to see Churchill's WORDS. The ONLY way the war would have been unnecessary and avoidable was if Britain & France had stood up to Hitler EARLIER.
Last edited by LordBalfor; 05-18-2011 at 02:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paul Sr. is wrong, period. Maybe some folks miss the days when we got to be a new color every day. Me, I feel better w/o bin Laden and his millions spearheading and bankrolling radical Muslims, a small but too-often successful group.
