Re: OT (yeah, right!): Politics

Page 5 of 14  
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

DID. Even the Russians admit this. Too bad you're so blinded by your ideology that you can't.

You just might be the only person in the US who's unaware of that.

Utter nonsense. We were fighting a common enemy. In no way were we "allies".

Common sense would suggest that known enemy agents should be discharged from the administration, rather than promoted.

You're *clearly* totally ignorant of what communism is all about.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I bought the new book, "Presidential Greatness" for a seminar I'm leading on the topic. This is the latest of a number of books on the subject written in the past 20 years. While many historians (you know, the people who actually study this stuff and become experts) feel that this rating stuff trivializes the subject, many others participated. For example, "Greatness in the White House" (survey in 1982, my edition 1988) gathered survey data from several hundred historians, the first truly broad survey conducted using scientific methods.
Many others have been conducted over the years, some merely anecdotal, others a bit deeper. "Rating the Presidents" (2000) fell into the anecdotal side, as does "Presidential Greatness." Some of the surveys have been accused of selection bias in choosing historians whom have liberal viewpoints, but the three mentioned here are are more balanced, with "Rating the Presidents" perhaps tending to the left more than the other two.
"Presidential Leadership" is definitely not liberal. Its editors are a writer for the Wall Street Journal and the Exec. VP of the Federalist Society, which is "committed to limited, constitutional government as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution." (from the jacket) Its writers include a few professional historians and the rest range from former Attorney Genral to interns.
"Greatness in the White House" (1982) necessarily excludes Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes. Rating the Presidents" (2000) includes Clinton. "Presidential Leadership" (2004) discusses but does not rate George W. Bush because his term is not complete.
In EVERY survey I have ever seen, scientific or anecdotal, right or left, popular or professional, three presidents are rated at the top: Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Despite its political orientation, "Presidential Leadership" puts Roosevelt at #3. Others rated highly are Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Jackson, Polk and Wilson. Newcomers to the higher rankings are Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan.
"Rating the Presidents" puts Mr. Reagan at #26 of 41, while "Presidential Leadership" puts him at #8 of 39. The latter did not rate several presidents for various reasons.
Personally I think that rating any president within 25 years of the end of his term in office is presumtuous, since the historical perspectives ar lacking. The entire Fall of Communism issue is an example; we simply don't have enough information to make a judgment.
Bob
P.S. "Rating the Presidents" puts Clinton at #23 of 41 and "Presidential Greatness" puts him at #24 of 39.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As I said, FDR; greatest president of the 20th Century.
In fact, interestingly enough, each of the three listed wind up being the greatest presidents of their respective centuries.
- - LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you watch CSPAN, you will heare many callers says Bush is the BEST and the GREATEST president of the United States.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I'm sure many of those callers are in this thread, too.
- - LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message

Do you really think tha tcommunism was sustainable and that the leadership of the Soviet Union was effective in sustaining it?

Hoy Crap!

Agents of which enemy, Germany, Japan, or Italy?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Any centrally-planned economy is ultimately unsustainable, and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable. Until Reagan, however, it was an open question whether the Soviets would succeed in their efforts to subvert the U.S. and other Western democracies before the collapse.
Reagan's military buildup greatly accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union. And even the Russians admit that. Google on Gennady Gerasimov.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

The Soviet Union and the United States were not enemies in WWII. The closest we came was US military aid to Finland in the Winter War, but that was soon dwarfed by the WWII lend-lease progam.
That you are opposed to the ideology does not make the Soviet Union a WWII enemy of the United States.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Of course they were. Communism anywhere is the enemy of freedom everywhere, and the U.S. and the Soviet Union were enemies for the entire time that the USSR existed. That no formal state of war existed between them, or that for a time they made war against a common enemy, made them no less enemies.

No, but the stated intent of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to spread Communism across the globe, certainly made the USSR an enemy of the US.
And of course, I never said that the two countries were enemies in WWII, only that they were enemies. Your apparent inability to recognize that enmity makes it no less a fact.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Resisting a common enemy is not the same as being allies. The US, UK, and France were allies: they shared intelligence, coordinated operations, and so forth. The Soviet Union was not an ally of those nations; they just happened to be at war with the same enemy.

And...?
That astonishing inability is yours, not mine. The US and the Soviet Union were *not* allies in WWII, they fought against a common enemy. There is a difference. Perhaps you should try to understand that.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

The US and UK provided the Soviets with arms including Hurricanes, Spitfires, Brewsters, and P-51s. Google for Hurricats. Intelligence was shared with the Soviet Union, and operations were coordinated even to the extent of who would enter Berlin first, how Europe would be divided after the war, and that the Soviet Union would attack Japan after the end of hostilities in Europe The leadership of all four nations all referred to each other as allies as do all historians.

Allies always fight against a common enemy. Fighting against a common enemy is NOT different from being allies, it is a prerequisite to being alies. What is your basis for declaring that we were NOT allies?
Next I suppose you'll be telling us we did not ally with Iraq in their war with Iran. We just sent our Navy into the Gulf to protect their shipping and shared intelligence with them, we weren't their allies.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As you will recall I wrote: "The people most respnsible for the fall of communism in Europe are the communists themselves, "

Agreed.
No it didn't. We weren't about to invade the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. The Soviets did not need to match our military buildup. Their decision to do so was their fault and their undoing.

Somewhat rehtorically, if they were operating, as you say, "with full knowledge of senior members_ of that administration" how was it spying?

I don't follow. How does being left, imply that he wanted Soviet spies in his administration?

Oliver North.

Huh?
Now you're just changing the subject.

In the early 1930s we were already fighting WWII. Google for Flying Tigers.
Are you arguing that the US should have fought Germany, Italy, Japan, AND the Soviet Union in WWII?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
<SNIP>

Sure it was, but that _was part of the RR political calculation_. Regan - well more properly his advisors - understood that upping the ante played well into the usual Soviet paranoia and they expoited the fact. Big Props to RR and company for getting right what virtually no American president seemed to remotely understand: Bust 'em at the bank using their own paranoic mindset.

Because, knowledge or not, agents of foreign governments must register with the US government or be treated as spies.

That really wasn't my point. My point was that as a not-so-closet Socialist, he failed to see the dangers of Soviet Communism and appeared to have a sort of gentle tolerance for these kinds of intrusions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who had NOTHING to do with Middle East issues to the best of my knowledge.

See ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ above.

No - I am trying to map your comment about providing aid to our enemy in the Persian Gulf. I'm still confused? Typo on your part of feeble-mindedness on mine?

The FT where hardly a combat unit. We did not formally declare our war intentions until after Pearl Harbor.

No, not at all. I'm arguing that FDR - being the Socialist he was - was far warmer to the Soviets than he needed to be. They were a necessary ally, but effectively conceding Eastern Europe to them was probably unnecessary. You seem to like history a lot. I cannot recomment "The Mitrokhin Archive" highly enough. It is a real insight into what was going on from the Boleshevik Revolution forward. It is simply a 'Must Read' for students of history of that time and place.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually towards the end of the war the Russians occupied eastern Europe advancing on a wide front before we even had got to Berlin .Posession being nine tenths of the law what were we supposed to do oust them from their captured territory? it was a fait accompli.
At the beginning of the war the Russians were allied with the Germans, Germany essentially gave them latvia ,Estonia and I think Lithuania.
They occupied Poland and systematically executed the entire officer corps of the Polish army, and as many intellectuals they could lay hands on .
I had two uncles both captains in the British army in the British expeditionary force who were captured at the beginning of the war by the Germans . They were handed over to the Russians and spent the whole war in a Russian POW camp in Russia.
I think they were allies by the time the US got into the war....mjh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can you be sure they weren't providing Stalin with exactly that information FDR wanted?

OK. Let's keep in mind also that there were anti-Soviet communists, Trotsky for example, and there have been Soviet spies that are not communist, Aldridge Ames for example.

I saw it, that is why I am confused.
...

Feeble-mindedness on your part. Evidently you've forgotten that the Reagan Administration sold arms to Iran while we were at war with Iran. Reagan testified that he forgot too, if that makes you feel any better.
Reagan did state clearly that the arms were not sold to Iran as part of a deal to free American Hostages in Lebanon. So if we take Reagan at his word, and I do not, the other motive was to raise money for the Nicaraguan Samosans/Contras.
If Reagan did not authorize the sale then arguable Noth and (Poindexter?) comitted treason. If Reagan did authorize the sale, arguably Reagan comitted treason, particularly if the motive was to raise money for the Contras.
...

Uh, Google for Flying Tigers. We even paid the pilots bonuses for each Japanese aircraft destroyed.
I mean the WWII fighter squadron, not the overnight delivery people. (:-)
WWII started with the invasion of Manchuria around 1932-33. There was naval combat between American destroyers and German U-boats befor Pearl Harbor.

Thanks.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, moveon renamed the file rather than remove it. That was discovered and publicized by Matt Drudge July 11th or 12th, and at that point the movie disappeared again. Whether it was removed from the moveon site or simply renamed again is unknown.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Did you verify that?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt asks:

Oh, c'mon, man. Drudge reported it. You don't REALLY think Drudge not already verified it six ways from Sunday do you? After all, the man has a reputation for probity...that might be reflected by Pinocchio's nose growth. He's a known fact checker. Or is that, he knows a fact checker...and doesn't like him?
Charlie Self "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When the Drudge report about the renaming came out I did follow the link to the renamed file and verified that it was there. That's why I responded in the first place.
I would have replied earlier, but the person you quoted to is in my killfile so I didn't see his post.
djb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message wrote:

I don't know, the last biography of Johnson I read didn't mention him being in the service. I did mention him flying as a passenger in a military plane while he was a congressman (i.e. exempt from service), the plane being shot at and him using that henceforth as him "being in combat during World War II".
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.