[OT] Nothing Learned From History

[stop spam]

From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
pre-1939 maneuvering?


If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
election.

.....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: [OT] Nothing Learned From History
>From: stop spam
>Date: 9/12/2004 11:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
>you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
>pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
>If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
>Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
>military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
>crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
>condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
>aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
>election.
>
>....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.


How could FDR possibly invaded Germany?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "stop spam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
> > you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> > pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
> Seems to me that comparing Dubyah to FDR is a huge insult
> to FDR. If you are looking for a good historical parallel
> with the Iraq war, how about Benito's invasion of Abessynia?
> This seems rather more appropriate to me.

Nope, he draws an interesting and not totally unrealistic comparison.

>
> > If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> > Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> > military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> > crimes against humanity,
>
> Such simplistic proposals ignore feasibility.

He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you
would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for
prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the
manner he described. And deep down you know you would have, even if you
would not admit it.

Brooks

<snip>

>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Nope, he draws an interesting and not totally unrealistic comparison.
>
> The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
> always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;
> comparisons that both on ground of policy and personality
> are extremely far fetched.


Get off your stump, for gosh sakes. He drew the comparison because the
situation can be looked at in the same way--if Roosevelt had possessed the
capability to conduct a preemptive strike to remove the Nazi menace before
it ignited global war and done so, you would have been tossing the same
arguments aginst him that you now throw at our current leadership. There was
no compariosn stated or implied as to Bush and FDR on the personal level.

<snip further straying from the topic at hand>

>
> > He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos
> > like you would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger"
> > and condemning him for prosecuting a preemptive war had he
> > been able and willing to act in the manner he described.
>
> It depends. If a 1930s president had gone off his rocker in
> the way George W Bush did, sending an army into Europe
> to invade Germany in absence of a rational policy and
> realistic war goals, I would (if I had lived at that time)
> indeed have condemned that president as a mad war-monger,
> and IMHO quite correctly so.


Back up your turnip truck there, Gus. Yes, we did have a rational policy and
goals; the policy is, when necessary, to strike threats before they can
strike (or again strike) us or our interests. The goals included removal of
Saddam (done), elimination of Iraq as a regional military threat (done),
curtailing Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not find them to be of
the scale we thought they would be at the beginning), and let the Iraqi
people institute their own form of government (underway).


So would, and with ample
> justification, have done the people of the USA.

"Have done"? You must have missed the fact that a bit over half of us
*still* support the President's Iraq policy--and more did so when we
embarked upon it. Stop assigning YOUR whacky thoughts to "the people of the
USA"--you who is not even a citizen of this nation. You know, the best thing
about reelecting Bush is perhaps the fact that it will signal the sentiment
of the American people towards all y'all Euroweenies who so fervently want
to meddle in our election process--think of it as a symbolic middle finger
directed in your direction come November.

>
> If a 1940 president had sought to build an alliance to fight
> the fascist dictatorships in Europe, say in a 1930s version of
> NATO, and would have committed troops to Europe to support
> it, I think I would have warmly welcomed that as the only way
> to rescue the continent from the abyss. Sadly, at the time that
> too would have been rejected by the American people.

The old "only an alliance can wage righteous war" bit, eh? Ignoring the fact
that, like today, nations like Belgium, France, and probably even the UK at
that time, would have decried the idea of the US striking Germany
preemptively, and would not have been willing to do themselves.

>
> I am not opposed to the use of military force to support a policy.
> I am opposed to the rash and incompetent use of force.

Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored
assualt depth versus time, use of precision strike systems to emasculate a
still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more
than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France
tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of
accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid as
to call it "incompetent".


To quote
> the dictum attributed to Clausewitz, "war is politics continued
> by other means". Like Wilhelm II, the neo-cons seem to have

Yo, you sound like Art--"neocon this, neocon that". Some of us were
conservatives before this strange, not well-defined term even sprang into
use. Given that Bush's approval rating is now around 52%, I guess you think
a bit over half of us are neocons", eh? Fat chance.


> adopted military force as an alternative to politics, instead of a
> tool of it,

We had some twelve years of trying to let politics take care of the Iraq
problem--it failed, thus the Clauswitzian extension into war.

because they lack the competency and understanding
> of the world that are needed to define and implement an effective
> policy. As barbaric narcissists, these people have been seduced
> by the power at their command, and they can't resist using it even
> when it does them and their country no good. Their obsession
> with showing "strength" betrays their fundamental weakness.

The above reads like the typical limp-wristed fare we have come to expect
from a lot of Europeans exhibiting their usual stuffy disdain for the US,
and their own cultural and intellectual superiority to all others.
Newsflash--Europe is on the wane, and it won't be long before it moves from
second to third place in terms of economic and political importance (watch
out for Asia...). Get used to it, and get off that high horse you are trying
to stay astride before you fall off and bust your collective rump.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>

[Rex F. May]

in article , stop spam at
wrote on 9/12/04 12:19 PM:

> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
> you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
> election.
>
> ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
>
Assuming, of course, that the Germans just roll over and let it happen.
You'd probably end up with vicious bands of guerrillas a lot worse than the
Nazis. Imagine what kind of suicide bombers Germans would make.

[John Mullen]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...


> Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored
> assualt depth versus time,

Bwah hah hah hah!

Hilarious! Thanks for cheering up a grey Edinburgh day with this hilarious
statement! And some people over here still maintain that Merkins don't 'do'
irony!

>use of precision strike systems to emasculate a
> still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more
> than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France
> tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of
> accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid
> as
> to call it "incompetent".

Cor! Why is that stupid? What would an 'incompetent' policy look like then?
How would we know the difference?

1000 US troops and mercenaries dead, ~10 000 Iraqis dead, continuing and
escalating violence, no rule of law, no credible democracy in place.

No WMD. Not, as you put it "Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not
find them to be of
the scale we thought they would be at the beginning)"

No WMD. Tell it like it is. Even your compatriots and fellow GW Bush fans
must be laughing at the above quote from your post.

No Osama Bin Laden.

And you didn't even get to keep the oil you wanted!

This three years after US citizens learned for the first time what the
Palestinians and the Irish among others have known for many years, how it
feels to be on the receiving end of a vicious bloodthirsty attack by
terrorists.

Nearly a year and a half after your draft-dodging, coke-snorting,
election-rigging President posed on an aircraft carrier under the words
'Mission Accomplished'.

Again, in what regards would an incompetent policy be different to what we
have now?

John

[Nicholas Smid]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Nope, he draws an interesting and not totally unrealistic comparison.
> >
> > The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
> > always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;
> > comparisons that both on ground of policy and personality
> > are extremely far fetched.
>
>
> Get off your stump, for gosh sakes. He drew the comparison because the
> situation can be looked at in the same way--if Roosevelt had possessed the
> capability to conduct a preemptive strike to remove the Nazi menace before
> it ignited global war and done so, you would have been tossing the same
> arguments aginst him that you now throw at our current leadership. There
was
> no compariosn stated or implied as to Bush and FDR on the personal level.
>
If FDR had had that power in 1937 he would quite rightly have been viewed
then and ever after as an imperialistic warmongering son of a bitch. Because
in 1937 exactly what had Germany done that was so terrable?. Oh now we know
that in time they would build up, but I can just imagin FDR trying to sell
that one, 'Well gee I know they haven't hurt anyone, well no worse than most
other governments in the world, but I just know in a few years they are
going to because I read it in a history book from the future', they'd have
sent for the boys in white coats with butterfly nets. Based on what was
known in 1937, and on their actions untill that time Germany had done
nothing seriously out of line, the USA would have had as much if not more
justification for invading Poland, and probably France, any of the balkin
states, and probably the British empire if you were really keen.

> <snip further straying from the topic at hand>
>
> >
> > > He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos
> > > like you would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger"
> > > and condemning him for prosecuting a preemptive war had he
> > > been able and willing to act in the manner he described.
> >
> > It depends. If a 1930s president had gone off his rocker in
> > the way George W Bush did, sending an army into Europe
> > to invade Germany in absence of a rational policy and
> > realistic war goals, I would (if I had lived at that time)
> > indeed have condemned that president as a mad war-monger,
> > and IMHO quite correctly so.
>
>
> Back up your turnip truck there, Gus. Yes, we did have a rational policy
and
> goals; the policy is, when necessary, to strike threats before they can
> strike (or again strike) us or our interests. The goals included removal
of
> Saddam (done), elimination of Iraq as a regional military threat (done),
> curtailing Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not find them to be of
> the scale we thought they would be at the beginning), and let the Iraqi
> people institute their own form of government (underway).
>
Well as far as anyone out side the US can see US policy and planing for Iraq
seemes to have been, hold a nice quick war, go home and hold a victory
parade well all them sand ******s bow down at our feet in gratatude. When
useful numbers of said sand ******s failed to show their apreteation the
plan such as it was fell apart and the US has been running round ****ing on
fires ever since. Opps.
Oh and those WMD programs had been effectivly killed off years before the
Shrub came into power, as the UN inspectors were saying even though things
weren't going as well as anyone would have liked, and as the CIA, and its
field office MI5, would have known if they hadn't been so busy looking for
what the boss wanted to hear.

>
> So would, and with ample
> > justification, have done the people of the USA.
>
> "Have done"? You must have missed the fact that a bit over half of us
> *still* support the President's Iraq policy--and more did so when we
> embarked upon it. Stop assigning YOUR whacky thoughts to "the people of
the
> USA"--you who is not even a citizen of this nation. You know, the best
thing
> about reelecting Bush is perhaps the fact that it will signal the
sentiment
> of the American people towards all y'all Euroweenies who so fervently want
> to meddle in our election process--think of it as a symbolic middle finger
> directed in your direction come November.
>
Ah, he was talking about your proposed invasion of Germany, which would have
had, in 1937, even less justification than Iraq. And that a bit over half
support for Iraq was around 70% not that long ago.

> >
> > If a 1940 president had sought to build an alliance to fight
> > the fascist dictatorships in Europe, say in a 1930s version of
> > NATO, and would have committed troops to Europe to support
> > it, I think I would have warmly welcomed that as the only way
> > to rescue the continent from the abyss. Sadly, at the time that
> > too would have been rejected by the American people.
>
> The old "only an alliance can wage righteous war" bit, eh? Ignoring the
fact
> that, like today, nations like Belgium, France, and probably even the UK
at
> that time, would have decried the idea of the US striking Germany
> preemptively, and would not have been willing to do themselves.
>
What problem do you have with the factual statement that in 1940 the US's
voters would not have supported an alliance against Germany?. Anyway your
little adventure in Iraq is an alliance, or haven't you been listening to
the shrub rambbling on about his alliance of the willing?, not ofcourse that
being part of that alliance permits a country to disagree with US policy
without incuring the wrath of Washington.

> >
> > I am not opposed to the use of military force to support a policy.
> > I am opposed to the rash and incompetent use of force.
>
> Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored
> assualt depth versus time, use of precision strike systems to emasculate a
> still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more
> than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France
> tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of
> accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid
as
> to call it "incompetent".
>
Beating the Iraqi army, oh I forgot most of the Iraqi army sat the war out,
beating the Republican Guard, most of which also sat the war out, was hardly
a feat of arms to brag about, it was a fairly well organised march but
please don't insult our inteligence, and the memories of those who fought
serious wars, by claiming occuping Iraq was some awsome feat of arms, the
Zulus had more chance against the Brits back in the spear chucking days, and
infact put up a much better fight.
As for the sanctions, they were acheving everything anyone wanted,
militaraly Iraq was irrelavent, just another tin pot dictatorship in a world
full of them. He wasn't killing any more of his people than many of the
countries around him were, and still are for that matter. So some people ,
other than US presedentual contributers, were making a bit of money out of
it, big deal, the problem was nicly contained and the area as stable as its
likely to get. Now the country is on fire, thousands have died, many more
are going to, the US army is so bogged down it probably can't respond to a
situation anywhere else, US credability in the region is going down the
toilet with every evening news broadcast and the terrorists are having a
recruting field day, oh yes the plan is unfolding wounderfully, just who's
plan remains to be seen but so far this thing has been a dream come true for
AQ.

>
> To quote
> > the dictum attributed to Clausewitz, "war is politics continued
> > by other means". Like Wilhelm II, the neo-cons seem to have
>
> Yo, you sound like Art--"neocon this, neocon that". Some of us were
> conservatives before this strange, not well-defined term even sprang into
> use. Given that Bush's approval rating is now around 52%, I guess you
think
> a bit over half of us are neocons", eh? Fat chance.
>
Down from what 6 months ago? a year ago?
Anyway neocon is probably a more concice discription than Euroweeny.

>
> > adopted military force as an alternative to politics, instead of a
> > tool of it,
>
> We had some twelve years of trying to let politics take care of the Iraq
> problem--it failed, thus the Clauswitzian extension into war.
>
What failed?, who had Iraq invaded in those years, who had they threatened?,
how many outsiders had they killed? 12 years of granted somewhat muddled
policy had kept things nice and quiet in a very important part of the world.
I trust you don't think the current mess is some sought of improvment?.
Granted its alegidly a work in progress so I suppose there is an outside
chance in 10 years time the place might even be a liberal western democracy,
personly I'd give better odds that the horse will learn to sing.

[robert j. kolker]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
> always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;

Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.

Bob Kolker

[robert j. kolker]

Rex F. May wrote:

> Nazis. Imagine what kind of suicide bombers Germans would make.

Not very good ones. Their culture did not glorify martyrdom unto death.

Japs and Moslems are good at it. Germans not good.

Bob Kolker

>

[B2431]

>From: "robert j. kolker"
>Date: 9/13/2004 7:29 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9Yq1d.187109$Fg5.159779@attbi_s53>
>
>
>
>Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>> The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
>> always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;
>
>Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
>of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.
>
>Bob Kolker

He boffed Marylin Monroe, upset Kruschev over the missiles in Cuba and beefed
up the green beanies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"stop spam" > wrote in message
...
> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if you
> compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing military,
> thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and crimes against
> humanity, then the United States would have been condemned in shame by the
> world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive aggressors, and FDR would
> have been cast out of office in the subsequent election.
>
> ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
>

It would have been impossible.

The US Army in 1937 wasnt big enough to invade any
country in Europe except Monaco and Lichenstein

Keith

[Greasy Rider @ invalid.com]

On 14 Sep 2004 00:51:06 GMT, (B2431) proclaimed:

>He boffed Marylin Monroe, upset Kruschev over the missiles in Cuba and beefed
>up the green beanies.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well said! We got our monies worth with JFK.
I knew a SS agent from that time frame. JFK was a "OK Boss".

[robert j. kolker]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> The US Army in 1937 wasnt big enough to invade any
> country in Europe except Monaco and Lichenstein

IIRC, the U.S. Armed Forces ranked 20-th in the world, behind the armed
forces of Roumania!

Bob Kolker

[Pooh Bear]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> in 1937. Simply overturning Germany
> would at best have resulted in a postponement of the crisis

Errrr...... No. It would have stopped WW2.

Most Germans would have been glad to have seen Nazi tryanny overurned.

Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too afraid to
say even Booh !


Graham

[Peter Stickney]

In article <9Yq1d.187109$Fg5.159779@attbi_s53>,
"robert j. kolker" > writes:
>
>
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>> The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
>> always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;
>
> Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
> of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.

Well, there was also the Berlin Crisis of 1961, which saw a long-term
nuclear showdown with the Soviets, including having the the National
Guard activated to, among other things, stand Victor Alert (That's
nuclear bombs at the end of the runway) in Europe, and that Cuban
Missile Thingy, and continuous Airborne Alert with fully armed B-52s -
until a couple of them crashed with live weapons on board, and the MLF
(Multi-Lateral Force: Basically big freighters with Polaris missile
tubes and NATO crews, which would Sail the Seas to deter the
Soviets. (As Tom Lehrer put it "We've got the missiles, the peace to
deter-mine, and one of the fingers on the Button will be German."))

We spent most of the Kennedy era with the Guard and Reserve activated,
with everybody primed for Nuclear Conflict, toe-to-toe with the
Russkies. One crisis after another. Now, mind you, a lot of that was
due to Kruschev's hopeless misreading of Kennedy's intellect and
willpower, but I can recall some rather scary times.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Nicholas Smid]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> > in 1937. Simply overturning Germany
> > would at best have resulted in a postponement of the crisis
>
> Errrr...... No. It would have stopped WW2.
>
> Most Germans would have been glad to have seen Nazi tryanny overurned.
>
> Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too afraid to
> say even Booh !
>
Actually most Germans thought Hitler was doing just fine untill well into
the war, ofcourse after the war they naturaly sung a very different tune,
had to if they expected to hold down any job better than ditch digging.
Through the 30's the Nazies were very populer and really only oppressed the
small minority who activly oposed them, or the Jews, but then who in Europe
at the time thought oppresing jews was a bad thing?
>
> Graham
>

[stop spam]

B2431 wrote:
>>From: "robert j. kolker"
>>Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
>>of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.
>>
>>Bob Kolker
>
> He boffed Marylin Monroe

True

> , upset Kruschev over the missiles in Cuba and

Or, in other words, for the price of shipping a few missiles back and
forth to Cuba once, Kruschev managed to get JFK to abrogate the Monroe
Doctrine.

> beefed up the green beanies.

True.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well, two of of three isn't bad.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "stop spam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if you
> > compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> > pre-1939 maneuvering?
> >
> >
> > If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> > Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing military,
> > thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and crimes against
> > humanity, then the United States would have been condemned in shame by the
> > world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive aggressors, and FDR would
> > have been cast out of office in the subsequent election.
> >
> > ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
> >
>
> It would have been impossible.
>
> The US Army in 1937 wasnt big enough to invade any
> country in Europe except Monaco and Lichenstein

Couldn't have afforded the steamship tickets to get over there, either.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:

> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> > in 1937. Simply overturning Germany
> > would at best have resulted in a postponement of the crisis
>
> Errrr...... No. It would have stopped WW2.

Part of it, perhaps.

Japan was already rampaging through China and the Far East, and Italy was
already fumbling around in Africa.

> Most Germans would have been glad to have seen Nazi tryanny overurned.
>
> Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too afraid to
> say even Booh !

There was clearly a bit more support than that. There weren't enough
Nazis around to drag the entire population along unwillingly.

[marc_CH]

In article > wrote...

> Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too
> afraid to say even Booh !

And where did you get this nonsense from? You may be forgetting, but the
Nazis were *elected*.

marc

[Jussi Jalonen]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you
> would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for
> prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the
> manner he described.

Considering FDR's party affiliations, I would suspect that most of the
people who would have condemned him for prosecuting a pre-emptive war
would have been Congressional Republicans. That is, yahoos like...
well, you, I suspect.

Needless to say, seventy years afterwards, both you and the
intellectual heirs of these people would still continue to criticize
the decision to intervene in a "European conflict where the United
States had no direct interest" and cry at the decision to attack
"instead of pursuing a diplomatic resolution".

No doubt there would also be suggestions that Roosevelt's decision to
attack was counterproductive and only led to the escalation of Jewish
persecutions in Germany - which was, mutatis mutandis, an argument
which the opposing party in your country also advanced during the
Kosovo crisis.

So, in this alternate timeline, the ones who would have been most
likely to label FDR a "warmonger" would have actually been people like
you.

(And deep down you know you would, even if you would not admit it.)

By the way, remove the cross-posting from SHWI, please? Some of these
posts may have had little allohistorical content, but not enough to
justify the others on this thread which do not have any.



Cheers,
Jalonen

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(stop spam) wrote:

> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany,
> captured Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party,

He would probably been impeached. Apart from the fact the US would
have had trouble invading Mexico, let alone Germany, there was no
cause. In 1937, the Germans had not committed any breach of
international law. They might have breached the terms of the
Versailles treaty but that was a dead letter by 1935, and the Anglo
German naval treaty. At the time Hitler had committed no acts of
territorial aggression. The union with Austria was confirmed by what
seems to have been a fairly fair plebescite. It was as far as I know
accepted as fair at the time. If anything Mussolini and Stalin were
seen as greater threats to world peace.

The situation was very different from that prior to Gulf War 2. This
is going to be my only post on this subject as it comes rather close
to the BOP.

Ken Young


Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)

[robert j. kolker]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> Errrr...... No. It would have stopped WW2.
>
> Most Germans would have been glad to have seen Nazi tryanny overurned.
>
> Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too afraid to
> say even Booh !

That is why these afraid German people cheered the Fuehrer, while he was
winning. The German people (adults) were overwhelming complicit in the
evil of the Nazis.

Bob Kolker

[robert j. kolker]

Peter Stickney wrote:

>
> Well, there was also the Berlin Crisis of 1961, which saw a long-term
> nuclear showdown with the Soviets, including having the the National
> Guard activated to, among other things, stand Victor Alert (That's

He allowed the Berlin wall to built. When American tanks faced Soviet
tanks in August of 1961, it was the U.S. that blinked. I witnessed that
and I was ashamed.
>
> We spent most of the Kennedy era with the Guard and Reserve activated,
> with everybody primed for Nuclear Conflict, toe-to-toe with the
> Russkies. One crisis after another. Now, mind you, a lot of that was
> due to Kruschev's hopeless misreading of Kennedy's intellect and
> willpower, but I can recall some rather scary times.

Yes it was scary. If Kennedy had followd through on the Bay of Pigs
Invasion the Cuban Missile Crisis would never have occurred.

Kennedy was mostly sizzle and very little meat.

Bob Kolker

[Rex F. May]

in article BZq1d.38838$MQ5.14039@attbi_s52, robert j. kolker at
wrote on 9/13/04 6:31 PM:

>
>
> Rex F. May wrote:
>
>> Nazis. Imagine what kind of suicide bombers Germans would make.
>
> Not very good ones. Their culture did not glorify martyrdom unto death.
>
> Japs and Moslems are good at it. Germans not good.
>

Maybe, but you're talking about the likelihood of their becoming suicide
bombers. I'm talking about how good they'd be at it, given proverbial
German efficiency, once they'd made the decision.

[Theodore Jay Miller]

stop spam > wrote in message >...
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
> election.

And rightfully so, just as someone who killed Hitler
during the 1920's would rightfully be condemned as a
murderer, even though he was preventing the same things.

In 1937 Hitler hadn't done anything worse than many
other local tinpot dictators throughout history, ones
who who didn't become threats to the world. You don't
go around invading countries and causing the deaths
of huge numbers of people just because one of those
dictators MIGHT one day become such a threat, any more
than you go around murdering every disgruntled anti-Semitic
housepainter because one of them might become another
Hitler.

If FDR had specific information from the future as
to what Hitler would eventually do, he'd need to show
that info to defend his actions; I don't recall George
W. Bush showing any history books from the year 2050.
If FDR didn't have such specific info and he attacked
and conquered Germany in 1937, he WOULD be an imperialist
aggressor, just one who happened to guess right.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Jussi Jalonen) writes:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>
>> He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you
>> would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for
>> prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the
>> manner he described.
>
> Considering FDR's party affiliations, I would suspect that most of the
> people who would have condemned him for prosecuting a pre-emptive war
> would have been Congressional Republicans. That is, yahoos like...
> well, you, I suspect.

Actually, that wasn't the case. In the 1940 election, the most
virulent opposition to FDR's candidacy came from the Midwest
Progressives - the Socialist/Ultra-Liberal wing of the Democratic
Party. They were overtly aided an abetted by the German Abwehr.
Principal among these people were John L. Lewis, President of the
United Mine Workers and the CIO (Pre-AFL-CIO merger) William Rhodes
Davis, President of the Crusader Oil Company, and the main supplier of
Bunker Oil to the Kreigsmarine (Including shipping oil out of Mexico
under false pretenses.) (Davis, btw, was carried on the Abwehr's books
as Agent C-80. Lewis was carried as Sub-agent C-80/L. It was
certainly an overt relationship - Lewis on several occasions with
Dr. Hertslet, the Abwehr's head of the American Desk. Lewis and Davis
were the main conduit of roughly $3,000,000 of German government funds
funelled to various members of the Democratic Party for the defeat of
Rossevelt. (Note that that's at a time when $1,000/year was a
comfortable living. It's the equivalant of about $150,000,000 in
today's money.) Also complicit in this campaign were Senator Burton
K. Wheeler (D-Montana). It should be noted that the Abwehr didn't
confine its attempts at influencing the Election to the Democrats -
They also threw money at the Republican Party in a two pronged effort
- they wanted Roosevelts defeat, and they also wanted to head off the
candidacy of Wendell Willkie, a very public Interventionist, whose
views on Germany parallelled Roosevelt's. The Abwehr also stuck iself
in with an independant propoganda campaign, populated by shadow
organizations, falsified documents,
Others of the Midwest Progressives who threw in with the Nazis include
Philip Fox LaFollette, theGovernor of Wisconsin, Senator Wayland
Brooks, of Illinois, and Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago
Tribune.

In the end, it was all for nought - Roosevelt adn Willkie wer
resoundingly nominated, and the election went bad for Germany.

Why these noted Liberal of their time would so whole-heartedly hate
FDR, or, for that matter throw in with the Nazis is an interesting
question. A fiar chunk of the hatred and resentment seems to come
from the idea that FDR "hijacked" their programs and platforms for teh
New Deal. Some of it may have been a legitiamate fear of being drawn
into another European War. There may be another factor as well- the
1930s was The Age of Dictators. Social change was seen to be achieved
not through evolution, or even widesprad Revolution, but by a "Strong
Leader" (read violent thug, such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin) who
sezed power and forced his nation to his will. (:aFollette was
particualry subject to this - he was very nearly Roosevelt's Attorny
General, until he started running his own vest-pocket Nuremburg
Rallys. (LaFollette had attended several of the real Nuremburg
Rallys.)

A good place to start researching this it Ladislad Farago's "The Game
of the Foxes", which is mostly based on the Abwehr Records found at
teh end of the war, and C.John Rogge's "The Official German Report"
(Rogge served as Assistant United Stated Attorney General in charge of
the Criminal Division of teh Justice Department during the war, and
ran the DOJ's investigation into German activites in the U.S.

I find the parellels fascinating.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Remus]

Re: [OT] Nothing Learned From History


There is nothing to learn from history. It is all merely
endless, purposeless, random destruction, having no value
whatsoever.

The moment you try to learn from it, it does something else.

It can be mildly entertaining, but that's about it.

[Gene Wirchenko]

(Theodore Jay Miller) wrote:

>stop spam > wrote in message >...

[snip]

>And rightfully so, just as someone who killed Hitler
>during the 1920's would rightfully be condemned as a
>murderer, even though he was preventing the same things.
>
>In 1937 Hitler hadn't done anything worse than many
>other local tinpot dictators throughout history, ones
>who who didn't become threats to the world. You don't
>go around invading countries and causing the deaths
>of huge numbers of people just because one of those
>dictators MIGHT one day become such a threat, any more
>than you go around murdering every disgruntled anti-Semitic
>housepainter because one of them might become another
>Hitler.
>
>If FDR had specific information from the future as
>to what Hitler would eventually do, he'd need to show
>that info to defend his actions; I don't recall George

1) It still would be "MIGHT".

2) Is the alleged future information credible?

>W. Bush showing any history books from the year 2050.
>If FDR didn't have such specific info and he attacked
>and conquered Germany in 1937, he WOULD be an imperialist
>aggressor, just one who happened to guess right.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

[VA Teacher]

"robert j. kolker" > wrote in message
news:LDA1d.434849$%_6.212951@attbi_s01...
>
>
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, there was also the Berlin Crisis of 1961, which saw a long-term
> > nuclear showdown with the Soviets, including having the the National
> > Guard activated to, among other things, stand Victor Alert (That's
>
> He allowed the Berlin wall to built. When American tanks faced Soviet
> tanks in August of 1961, it was the U.S. that blinked. I witnessed that
> and I was ashamed.

before I jump in here, i have to say that I have never understood the
mystique that surrounds JFK...he was an average President, at best.
However, what would you have had us do in regards to the Berlin Wall? Was
it worth a war, especially a nuclear war? ESPECIALLY, when the wall was a
great public relations failure for the USSR (admitting they couldn't keep
their own people inside without a fortified barrier)?

> >
> > We spent most of the Kennedy era with the Guard and Reserve activated,
> > with everybody primed for Nuclear Conflict, toe-to-toe with the
> > Russkies. One crisis after another. Now, mind you, a lot of that was
> > due to Kruschev's hopeless misreading of Kennedy's intellect and
> > willpower, but I can recall some rather scary times.
>
> Yes it was scary. If Kennedy had followd through on the Bay of Pigs
> Invasion the Cuban Missile Crisis would never have occurred.
>

Again, was it worth a war? Im no dove, I firmly believe that there are
things worth fightring and dying for...Cuba isn't one of them, not in the
1960s.

> Kennedy was mostly sizzle and very little meat.
>

Agreed.

> Bob Kolker
>
>

[[email protected]]

> 2) Is the alleged future information credible?



But of course... it came in ASB letterhead paper!

[Fred the Red Shirt]

stop spam > wrote in message >...
> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
> you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
> election.
>

So what?

In 1937 Germany was the most populous nation in Western Europe, the
most technologically advanced continent. Germany had the potential
to do eaxctly what Hitler did.

In 2002 Iraq had nowhere near that potential, indeed even in 1991
Iraq had no where near that potential.

--

FF

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:51:31 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

[snip]

> In 1937 Germany was the most populous nation in Western Europe, the
> most technologically advanced continent. Germany had the potential
> to do eaxctly what Hitler did.
>
> In 2002 Iraq had nowhere near that potential, indeed even in 1991
> Iraq had no where near that potential.

Sodom the Insane and the Baathless Part are toast.
They ain't comin' back.
Get used to the idea.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[jlk7e]

(marc_CH) wrote in message >...
> In article > wrote...
>
> > Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too
> > afraid to say even Booh !
>
> And where did you get this nonsense from? You may be forgetting, but the
> Nazis were *elected*.

Sort of...halfway elected. If by elected you mean "got the most seats
in elections to the Reichstag, but couldn't form a majority
government, in a situation where parliamentary government had already
broken down and the president was basically ruling by fiat with a
small cadre of amenable reactionaries, who then decided to bring
Hitler in in the hopes that their dominant position in the government
could tame him, while his popularity would give them the popular
support their rule needed, but were then outwitted by Hitler, who then
managed to win a majority in a highly dubious election after being
appointed chancellor." ObWI: No proportional representation in Weimar
Germany. Hitler gets an absolute majority in elections of July 1932!

[Gene Wirchenko]

wrote:

>> 2) Is the alleged future information credible?

>But of course... it came in ASB letterhead paper!

Printed on a bat wing? For the Goth touch?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

[George Carty]

ian maclure wrote:

> Sodom the Insane and the Baathless Part are toast.
> They ain't comin' back.

Exactly. Now that the Iraqis no longer have to worry about Saddam
coming back, they have only one enemy - the US puppet administration.

[Remus]

George Carty > wrote in message >...
> ian maclure wrote:
>
> > Sodom the Insane and the Baathless Part are toast.
> > They ain't comin' back.
>
> Exactly. Now that the Iraqis no longer have to worry about Saddam
> coming back, they have only one enemy - the US puppet administration.

Which the Iraqis elected?

[[email protected]]

Gene Wirchenko > wrote in message >...
> wrote:
>
> >> 2) Is the alleged future information credible?
>
> >But of course... it came in ASB letterhead paper!
>
> Printed on a bat wing? For the Goth touch?
>
Nah, batwing is for IMPORTANT STUFF.
For such trashy memmos they use human skin...

[Mike]

"stop spam" > wrote in message
...
> B2431 wrote:
>>>From: "robert j. kolker" Just what did Kennedy do in
>>>his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay of Pigs invasion? Creating
>>>the Camelot ambiance does not count.
>>>
>>>Bob Kolker
>>
>> He boffed Marylin Monroe
>
> True
>
>> , upset Kruschev over the missiles in Cuba and
>
> Or, in other words, for the price of shipping a few missiles back and
> forth to Cuba once, Kruschev managed to get JFK to abrogate the Monroe
> Doctrine.
>

Marilyn Monroe had a doctrine? Gosh, I knew she was brighter than her act
suggested, but a real, live university qualification.......

>> beefed up the green beanies.
>
> True.
>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Well, two of of three isn't bad.
>

[Mike Dargan]

robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
>> The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
>> always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;
>
>
> Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
> of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.

He stood up to the KKK and got James Meredith in the Ole Miss.

Cheers

--mike

>
> Bob Kolker
>
>

[Mike Dargan]

ArtKramr wrote:

>>Subject: [OT] Nothing Learned From History
>>From: stop spam
>>Date: 9/12/2004 11:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
>>you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
>>pre-1939 maneuvering?
>>
>>
>>If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
>>Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
>>military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
>>crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
>>condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
>>aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
>>election.
>>
>>....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
>
>
>
> How could FDR possibly invaded Germany?

Did FDR have any sons? If so, did he take care to keep them safe from
the hazards of combat?

Cheers

--mike

>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Mike Dargan]

robert j. kolker wrote:

>
>
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
>> The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are
>> always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.;
>
>
> Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
> of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.

He stood up to the KKK and got Ole Miss integrated.

Cheers

--mike

>
> Bob Kolker
>
>

"stop spam" > wrote in message
...
> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
> you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
> election.
>

If the US could have invaded Germany and done all of that by themselves in
one quick swoop like the Iraq war (This would take ASB) then what would
happen to post war Germany? Without WW2 putting a strain on Stalin and the
Russian forces, could they have taken over all of europe?

Saddam was a pretty ****ty guy, but he was also the foil to Iran. A
fundamentalist Iraq-Iran super-state in the middle east isn't a pretty idea
and will end with Saudi Arabia begging us for help.

There is also a school of thought that the US should have stayed out of WW2
longer and let Russia and Germany really kill each other and maybe that
would have avoided the cold war....it's doubtful

> ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
>

Kinda sucks, but you can never be celebrated if you solve a problem before
it's a problem. Especially in politics.

[Amamba]

stop spam wrote:
> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
> you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
> election.
>
> ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
>


First of all, the invasion of Iraq was not a preemptive strike. It was
President's personal reasons that drove him to war. Iraq under Saddam
was no fun but Iraq as it stands now is a breeding ground for the
terrorists and, IMHO, a much bigger threat to the US.

If W wanted to go pre-emptive, he should've dealt with N Korea (have
real WMD programs, have always threatened WMD war if touched), Pakistan
(supposedly our friends, but in reality an Islamic fundamentalist state
with nukes that lets its leading nuclear scientist to sell secrets to
other fundamentalist nation and wouldn't prosecute him for that), or the
Saudis (they finance all Osama wannabes out there & jack up oil prices
to make US pay for it). W's been afraid to touch any of them. He picked
on the wrong enemy for a wrong reason.

[Callisto]

stop spam > wrote in message >...
> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
> you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>
>
> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
> election.
>
> ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.


Ponder this historical parallel. in 1810 Napoleon decides to bring the
benefits of the French Revolution to the backward, benighted country
of Spain, delivering her from the disastrous rule of the Bourbons
(Charles IV and Fernando VII who were fighting each other at the
time). He sends a liberating army, overthrows both absolutists Kings,
and puts a constitutional king on the throen, thus giving Spain the
benefit of the Illustration and Democracy.

The Spaniards rise against the French, and a long, brutal guerrilla
war.

The story ends with Napoleon dying in the arms of St. Helena...

[Callisto]

stop spam > wrote in message >...
> B2431 wrote:
> >>From: "robert j. kolker"
> >>Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
> >>of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.
> >>
> >>Bob Kolker
> >
> > He boffed Marylin Monroe
>
> True
>
> > , upset Kruschev over the missiles in Cuba and
>
> Or, in other words, for the price of shipping a few missiles back and
> forth to Cuba once, Kruschev managed to get JFK to abrogate the Monroe
> Doctrine.
>

Which says that the President gets to have sex with actresses name Monroe???

[Keith Willshaw]

"Callisto" > wrote in message
om...
> stop spam > wrote in message
> >...
>> From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
>> you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's
>> pre-1939 maneuvering?
>>
>>
>> If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured
>> Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing
>> military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and
>> crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been
>> condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive
>> aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent
>> election.
>>
>> ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it.
>
>
> Ponder this historical parallel. in 1810 Napoleon decides to bring the
> benefits of the French Revolution to the backward, benighted country
> of Spain, delivering her from the disastrous rule of the Bourbons
> (Charles IV and Fernando VII who were fighting each other at the
> time). He sends a liberating army, overthrows both absolutists Kings,
> and puts a constitutional king on the throen, thus giving Spain the
> benefit of the Illustration and Democracy.
>

1808 Actually and the king just happened to be his brother.

Keith

[B2431]

>From: (Callisto)
>Date: 9/25/2004 17:28 Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>stop spam > wrote in message
>...
>> B2431 wrote:
>> >>From: "robert j. kolker"
>> >>Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay
>> >>of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count.
>> >>
>> >>Bob Kolker
>> >
>> > He boffed Marylin Monroe
>>
>> True
>>
>> > , upset Kruschev over the missiles in Cuba and
>>
>> Or, in other words, for the price of shipping a few missiles back and
>> forth to Cuba once, Kruschev managed to get JFK to abrogate the Monroe
>> Doctrine.
>>
>
>Which says that the President gets to have sex with actresses name Monroe???

I knew if I waited long enough someone would go there. <g>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:51:31 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > In 1937 Germany was the most populous nation in Western Europe, the
> > most technologically advanced continent. Germany had the potential
> > to do eaxctly what Hitler did.
> >
> > In 2002 Iraq had nowhere near that potential, indeed even in 1991
> > Iraq had no where near that potential.
>
> Sodom the Insane and the Baathless Part are toast.
> They ain't comin' back.
> Get used to the idea.
>

He's not dead yet.

--

FF