American Education

Again, Bill, my initial response in this thread was to challenge and offer alternatives to the specific assertion that QUOTE "The simple fact, like it or not, is that the United States bore the brunt of combat operations in the war". On the broader front, I agree that there are many possibilities. To your post, what was offered was a series of alternatives to your position that you posed as "points for consideration".

In the broader context it is not clear to me what or with whom you take issue. I agree that the US made a significant contribution to the war and have stated such in my last post to you. I agree that the war would have been extended significantly had the US not become involved. We are in broad agreement.

.

 

Well Lawrie, if you follow the progression of the posts, surely even you can figure out what I was referring to.

Ken stated "This is also an insult to the many British, French, Canadian, etc., who gave their lives to defend freedom before the U.S. suffered loss and decided to enter the war".

To which I replied "And, there was no insult to the Brits, French, etc. The simple fact, like it or not, is that the United States bore the brunt of combat operations in the war".

Now, you do know that the British, French, and Canadians didn't fight on the Eastern Front, right? The Soviets & the Eastern Front didn't enter into my mind because I was referring to the imagined slight against the Brits, French, and Canadians. I wasn't referring to the Reds anymore than I was referring to the Pacific theatre. You know, the part of the war where non-US Allied ground troops were about as scarce as hen's teeth?

And, I ask once again....ever heard of the Lend-Lease Act? The Soviets were the biggest recipients of US aid, material, equipment, and weapons during the war. I've never seen any definitive evidence, but I'd wager the Soviets couldn't have beaten back the Germans without this assistance. In what has become a fairly typical response by recipients of US welfare, we got a knife stuck in our back for the trouble.


Bruce

 

Bruce - have you ever deferred your opinon to that of anyone else? Have you ever found that your oninion was flawed and that you had to chnage it?

Just wondering ...

This was not asked in disrespect, but i was just wondering.

Maybe, we find a place to run these same questions again in say 5 and 10 years, and see what the answers are ... the facts may be the same and then they may be different, but i wonder about the attitude.

In the meantime I sit by and smile - quietly, and yes i can answer all of your questions, even about Lend Lease, but what is the point in giving you another [researched] point of view for you to disagree with? For your opinion alone will be right and everyone else's wrong.

 

Really? Yet in your last post you say, Quote "I was responding to the assertion that the Soviets and the Brits would have defeated the Germans without US intervention." So which is it, Bruce? Were you referring to the "Reds" or weren't you? Did they enter your mind or not? Perhaps you should let your left hand know what your right hand is typing.

Yes, I believe even I can figure it out. You make inflammatory and offensive statements that you cannot substantiate, then you deny that you ever made them. You further excuse yourself by claiming that even if you did make the statements you only did so in response to claims about Soviet contributions, yet that too was demonstrated to be complete falsehood. Even your own testimony in the same post contradicted that. Now, when exposed, you resort to this abuse and bluster. There's a pattern here.

If you have evidence that supports you position (whatever it is), present it, otherwise let's move on.
.

 

Again, the lend-lease (like the war in Kuwait) was done in support of American interests. To suggest that this was altruistic welfare for which the recipients should be grateful is absurd.

Lawrie / Peter,

What you have to understand is that the Bruce's issue is not a factual one (i.e. a truth issue) which may be debated and resolved... it is an issue of faith, patriotism and national mythology. The model for resolution must take that similar to saving a brainwashed person from cult membership rather than an academic exercise.

Incidently, this discourse actually has some similarities to the RA vs. foreign academic quality debate.

 

I agree with the last sentence. The similarity is that both of them are troll-threads.

You are a provocateur, "Ken". From your very first post in this thread to this last one, you are trying as hard as you can to push buttons and to increase people's anger.

What you hope to gain from that, I don't know.

 

No, it's obvious that you can't.


Bruce

 

On one of the anniversaries of Thomas Edison discovering the electric lamp (I forget which one), it was suggested that everyone in the United States turn off their lights for one minute in Edison's honor. It was decided that such a display would wreak havoc, such was the US dependent on Edison's invention.

I propose something similar to all those countries who receive foreign aid (money, food, weapons, whatever) from the United States. I think the US should enact a one-year embargo on *ANY* sort of foreign aid to *ALL* countries.

I would wager my life savings that such an embargo would cause a BIG change in the attitudes displayed by our so-called "friends".

That's not mythology or patriotism, that's just the hard truth.


Bruce

 

One year embargo?

Not a bad idea. Why not start with not shipping anymore weapons to Israel and pumping how many millions or billions into it's economy?

 

Re: One year embargo?

Why start with that one, in particular?

 

Why not? Shooting civilians (including unarmed children), destroying civilian homes, demolishing refugee camps. I feel that war criminal states are best too avoid funding and arming.

Since the UN has condemned Israels actions in these matters more then once, I seem to be in good company.

 

First, the electric lamp was invented, not discovered, Bruce. Though in Edison's case you are correct, since it (the light bulb) had been invented by Swan in England three years before Edison, uh, "discovered" it. Prior to that, the "electric lamp", had been going since development on the arc lamp, begun in 1802 by Sir Humphry Davy.

As I recall, by far the majority of foreign aid of any kind, goes to two nations: Israel and Egypt. Again, if memory serves, the aid to these two countries accounts for around 80% of all US foreign aid. The aid is given because the US government believes it is in the interests of US foreign policy to give it.

Should the US leave Israel weakened? Should we allow Egypt to descend into economic chaos with all the consequent political ramifications? How much, do you think, would it cost the US to conduct a general war with a radicalized fundamentalist controlled Egypt, bent on Jihad? A lot more than the 2 or 3 billion a year we pay them now, I suspect, not to mention the cost in American lives.

Yes, there could be a real big change . . . but who are the "friends" of whom you speak, Bruce? Israel and Egypt? Bosnia? The Ukraine? For they represent the bulk of US foreign aid, last I looked. We have spoken of Israel and Egypt. Do we want to withdraw aid to the Bosnia, help destabilize the region again, so we can spend more billions cleaning it up one more time? The Ukraine: do we want them to forswear their legacy of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, or not? Should they just do this for us because we are nice guys? And what of our new friend, Afghanistan? Should we deny them aid and allow another group of radicals, bent on terror, to overrun the country?

United States policy on foreign aid is determined by the security and other interests of the United States. It is not a matter of largesse but of cold political calculation. Besides making you feel better, how would your suggestion benefit the people of the United States?

.

 

Oh, you want to nitpick?? In that case, please refrain from using that word "American" in reference to the United States. Surely you know that the "America" technically means both North & South America, no?

Since (as far as I know) you don't reside in either Israel or Egypt, I take it that you don't care either way about my suggestion that ALL US foreign aid be suspended for one year. Yes or no?

How about lower taxes? I'm not too keen on my tax dollars being spent on foreign welfare. Come to think of it, I'm not keen on my tax dollars being spent on domestic welfare either, but that's a whole other subject.


Bruce