If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:45:55 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote: where did I say 2 years? When you originally posted this and said that the US sat on its hands for about 2 years. That's where. really? your claim is bull**** because I didn't. NEXT If it wasn't you, it was someone else because that's what I responded to. compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12 years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think? so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when it come to sitting on hands. Your point is what You just said it. So my position is correct, the yanks sat on their hands And you're a complete obsessive pinhead a. less than a year and a half is nothing. Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like America when it saving your asses isn't it? America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their self interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for any other reason. Brilliant. so we agree that they sat on their hands. Nope, as I have shown, significant aid started in 1940. Apparently, you think that if someone doesn't act on day 1 they are sitting on their hands, I must be ignorant I thought that Lend Lease was passed in early 1941 You're entirely right, for once, there. That you're ignorant. Significant aid preceded that in 1940 Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the european war Oh sure moron. That's why we got all our money back with interest. Whoops, that was less than than $8 billion back out of $50 billion given. Where is the profit there genius? you do know what the lend lease programme was all about don't you. The recipients would pay for the arms after the war finished. The Americans actually being forced to enter the war changed things Which they didn't. Nowhere near in full much less with a profit which makes your statement complete nonsense as I said. |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
"John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:45:55 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: where did I say 2 years? When you originally posted this and said that the US sat on its hands for about 2 years. That's where. really? your claim is bull**** because I didn't. NEXT If it wasn't you, it was someone else because that's what I responded to. Have you got any idea what you are trying to debate? compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12 years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think? so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when it come to sitting on hands. Your point is what You just said it. So my position is correct, the yanks sat on their hands And you're a complete obsessive pinhead just trying to point out that the yanks sat on their hands as well as Europe in relation to hitler et al a. less than a year and a half is nothing. Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like America when it saving your asses isn't it? America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their self interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for any other reason. Brilliant. so we agree that they sat on their hands. Nope, as I have shown, significant aid started in 1940. Apparently, you think that if someone doesn't act on day 1 they are sitting on their hands, I must be ignorant I thought that Lend Lease was passed in early 1941 You're entirely right, for once, there. That you're ignorant. Significant aid preceded that in 1940 Well Lend lease was not aid so what AID flowed during 1940 Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the european war Oh sure moron. That's why we got all our money back with interest. Whoops, that was less than than $8 billion back out of $50 billion given. Where is the profit there genius? you do know what the lend lease programme was all about don't you. The recipients would pay for the arms after the war finished. The Americans actually being forced to enter the war changed things Which they didn't. Nowhere near in full much less with a profit which makes your statement complete nonsense as I said. Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was expected |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
|
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote: Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was expected On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time. Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist Congress. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
"Hatunen" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was expected On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time. Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist Congress. given the US isionlatist views at the time I tend to agree. But that does not take away from the fact that the US sat on their hands while Hitler et al was threatening Europe, which is the whole point of this sub thread -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:34:27 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was expected On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time. Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist Congress. given the US isionlatist views at the time I tend to agree. But that does not take away from the fact that the US sat on their hands while Hitler et al was threatening Europe, which is the whole point of this sub thread There is no point to your comments other than trying to make it look like the US was doing nothing in order to make it look bad. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother with such idiocy would you. You would, instead, show some gratitude for the thousands of Americans who died in Europe, the aid that was given and quite a few other things. But that's hardly your objective is it? |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:50:47 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:34:27 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:23:44 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: Sorry the terms of Lend Lease were what?, I think you will find payment was expected On paper, at least. Roosevelt probably didn't actually expect repayment. In fact, payment consisted of turning over a certain amount of Britsh property to the USA at the time. Without at least a pretense of quid pro quo Roosevelt might not have been able to get the bill through the somewhat isolationist Congress. given the US isionlatist views at the time I tend to agree. But that does not take away from the fact that the US sat on their hands while Hitler et al was threatening Europe, which is the whole point of this sub thread There is no point to your comments other than trying to make it look like the US was doing nothing in order to make it look bad. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother with such idiocy would you. You would, instead, show some gratitude for the thousands of Americans who died in Europe, the aid that was given and quite a few other things. But that's hardly your objective is it? One has to face the fact that the US was indeed highly isolationist up until Pearl Harbor. "Sitting on its hands" seems a bit strongly worded, but it's more or less accurate. There were certainly many intervention-minded people and politicians but on the whole the American people weren't interested in pulling European chestnuts out of the fire at the cost of American lives again. Franklin Roosevelt certainly took a longer view and knew that one day we would have to go to war against Germany, but any steps he took in that direfction had, politically, to be discreet. He had to dress up Amerian aid to Britain as "Lend-Lease", where the US would give Britain material aid in exchange for British bases and land in the Americas. And he had to appeal to American's nicer instincts by using the garden hose analogy in a speech. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odlendls.html From http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odllpc2.html: "Well, let me give you an illustration: Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now, what do I do? I don't say to him before that operation, "Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it." What is the transaction that goes on? I don't want $15--I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right. If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for the use of it. But suppose it gets smashed up--holes in it--during the fire; we don't have to have too much formality about it, but I say to him, "I was glad to lend you that hose; I see I can't use it any more, it's all smashed up." He says, "How many feet of it were there?" I tell him, "There were 150 feet of it." He says, "All right, I will replace it." Now, if I get a nice garden hose back, I am in pretty good shape." In some respects it's almost scarey. Particularly things like the wildly enthusiastic theatricality of the German-American Bund. Charles Lindbergh went to Germany a few times, was given awards by the Germans, and became the object of the isolationist movement, making speeches that in 1941 and later would have been treasonable. There is a Phillip Roth novel, "The Plot Against America", which takes the premise that Lindbergh ran against Roosevelt in 1940 on an isolationist platform and won. Even after Pearl Harbor the sentiment aginst the "yellow menace" was pretty strong and Congrtess heartily voted war against the Japanese on 8 Dec 1941. But war was not declared against Germany until 11 Dec 1941 after Hitler supported the Japanese by declaring war on the USA, and act not required by his treaties with Japan. As I mentioned before, it is interesting, if fruitless, to speculate on how history might have gone had Hitler not declared war on the US. What we found later about plans to divide the USA between German and Japan, and about Hitler's pushing for an Amerikabomber and other ways to drop bombs on the USA indicates that the Americans had scales on their eyes. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
Make credence recognised that on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:18:36 GMT, grant
kinsley has scripted: On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:28:43 GMT, (John Kulp) wrote: So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare something? How quaint? Are you completely unaware of all the technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems that makes you're argument completely ridiculous? I guess not. And, gee. 2003 was sooo long ago. RTFA I used Chicago, 1995 for comparison. Have you figured out this guy's debating strategy yet? -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:58:41 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:18:36 GMT, grant kinsley has scripted: On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:28:43 GMT, (John Kulp) wrote: So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare something? How quaint? Are you completely unaware of all the technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems that makes you're argument completely ridiculous? I guess not. And, gee. 2003 was sooo long ago. RTFA I used Chicago, 1995 for comparison. Have you figured out this guy's debating strategy yet? yep, he's a maroon, as bugs bunny would say, he pulls stuff out of his ass, then defends it with hand waving. that's why I'm not debating him anymore. :-) -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
spend $6 get $40,000 | [email protected] | Europe | 1 | February 27th, 2007 11:34 PM |
Belgians spend more than ever | ginger-haired-lard-arsed-money-grabbing-bitch | Europe | 1 | December 25th, 2006 08:42 PM |
SPEND | [email protected] | Europe | 1 | May 29th, 2006 08:46 PM |
SPEND YOUR MONEY FOR SOMETHING USEFUL | [email protected] | Cruises | 0 | May 25th, 2006 12:35 AM |
How should I spend one day in Reykjavik? | H Kong | Europe | 5 | November 23rd, 2003 12:16 AM |