MSNBC: EU Bailout is a robbery
-
Actually, what is your viewpoint here? All I really got out of what you've said on this is that Greece wore a bandana over its face, rode its horse alongside the EU train tracks, hopped on board and held them up with a six-shooter for bailout money. You've done alot of research, so... what've we got?
drothe wrote:
You've done alot of research, so... what've we got?
'We' have got bored, Sock Cooker has got caloused hands.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Link[^] See, even MSNBC is reporting some truth. Wake up.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Okay nob-head, the only sorces I have on this are not quotable due to the statements being made under 'Chatham House' rules. But what i can tell you is the the ECB and IMF have already discounted the facilty [please check up what that means, it is not a bailout] based on the risk of default. The perceived chance is obviously increased by the amount that will be drawn down. If Greece draws down it's entire facility, which is highly unlikely considering it's more than 10x what was considered the maximum they would need, the chance of default is around 30%. Yup, every euro becomes 70 cents. But those figures, which come from a lot more reliable source then you could dream of having, actually reflect how low the risks are. The huge favilities that have been provided are there so that they won't need to borrow. I know it's confusing for your little drug-addled mind, but the larger the facility the less likely they are to need to use it. If you've borrowed $100 from me and I find out you're only making 50 bucks a week, I'd be worried that you couldn't pay me back in a month as promissed, so I'd put pressure on you and you'd end up paying me early and finding you couldn't pay your crack dealer or something. Now imagine your Mom came to me and said she has $1,000 dollars and should you need some you can borrow it, do you think I would be as worried about getting my mney back?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
That is not reporting, it is a rant. There is no analysis, it is totally superficial. The IMF is involved in this because that is what its job is, turning banana republics into fiscally responsible states. It has a record of forcing austerity and responsibility upon its 'clients', and of getting its money back[^]. (The link also supports Mr Chaka Fattah's claims that this is existing IMF money. Apparently they were stashing the cash - over and above immediate requirements - a year ago.) Had the USA a strong economy, it would not be taking any of these measures, but it is broke. So, if Greece fails, and the rest of the PIIGS, UK, ... follow suit, the economy of the USA will have to take that walk through the Market's full body scanner, and its financial impotence, too, will be revealed. Perhaps asking the IMF to put the USA's banana republic in order would be a smart, if embarrassing, move.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
The IMF funds are a facility, see below.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
When it supports your viewpoint, it's "truth." When it opposes your viewpoint, it's media propaganda and government lies. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)So whats new? Thats how almost the whole of humanity work, especially governments, who are the creatoprs of propaganda and spin. If you think peoplke and society is about anything other than power and money and doing almost anything toi get it then you are naieve.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So whats new? Thats how almost the whole of humanity work, especially governments, who are the creatoprs of propaganda and spin. If you think peoplke and society is about anything other than power and money and doing almost anything toi get it then you are naieve.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
If you think peoplke and society is about anything other than power and money and doing almost anything toi get it then you are naieve.
Huh, and here I figured it was more about survival, as we're not exactly top flight predators on our own.
-
So whats new? Thats how almost the whole of humanity work, especially governments, who are the creatoprs of propaganda and spin. If you think peoplke and society is about anything other than power and money and doing almost anything toi get it then you are naieve.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
If you think peoplke and society is about anything other than power and money and doing almost anything toi get it then you are naieve.
Damn! Why didn't I take Sociopathology 101?
Bob Emmett Immorality is indistinguishable from social prescription
-
That is not reporting, it is a rant. There is no analysis, it is totally superficial. The IMF is involved in this because that is what its job is, turning banana republics into fiscally responsible states. It has a record of forcing austerity and responsibility upon its 'clients', and of getting its money back[^]. (The link also supports Mr Chaka Fattah's claims that this is existing IMF money. Apparently they were stashing the cash - over and above immediate requirements - a year ago.) Had the USA a strong economy, it would not be taking any of these measures, but it is broke. So, if Greece fails, and the rest of the PIIGS, UK, ... follow suit, the economy of the USA will have to take that walk through the Market's full body scanner, and its financial impotence, too, will be revealed. Perhaps asking the IMF to put the USA's banana republic in order would be a smart, if embarrassing, move.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
So, if Greece fails, and the rest of the PIIGS, UK, ... follow suit, the economy of the USA will have to take that walk through the Market's full body scanner, and its financial impotence, too, will be revealed.
I get a kick out of economic illiterates who desperately argue that somehow, the EU is important to the U.S.'s economy. Take a walk down to your local dog pound. Check to see how many tails are wagging how many dogs. Or, to put it another way, when the U.S. catches a cold, the EU dies of pneumonia. When the EU comes down with the bubonic plague, the U.S. takes a couple of Tylenol. The only question worth asking about the IMF/Fed bailout of Europe is why, after an entire century of Europe needing the U.S. to clean up their mess, is Obama actually doing it. Those who will not learn from history are, I guess, doomed to repeat it.
I don't dial 911, I dial .357
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
So, if Greece fails, and the rest of the PIIGS, UK, ... follow suit, the economy of the USA will have to take that walk through the Market's full body scanner, and its financial impotence, too, will be revealed.
I get a kick out of economic illiterates who desperately argue that somehow, the EU is important to the U.S.'s economy. Take a walk down to your local dog pound. Check to see how many tails are wagging how many dogs. Or, to put it another way, when the U.S. catches a cold, the EU dies of pneumonia. When the EU comes down with the bubonic plague, the U.S. takes a couple of Tylenol. The only question worth asking about the IMF/Fed bailout of Europe is why, after an entire century of Europe needing the U.S. to clean up their mess, is Obama actually doing it. Those who will not learn from history are, I guess, doomed to repeat it.
I don't dial 911, I dial .357
Oakman wrote:
I get a kick out of economic illiterates who desperately argue that somehow, the EU is important to the U.S.'s economy.
Good for you, at our age we got to get our jollies wherever we can. However, I believe that my sequence started with the tip of the tail before working up to the dog. Speculators love politicians who ignore the fundamental weaknesses of their economies and shout 'bring it on'. The speculators play on those weaknesses, and always win (well, so far). I have every expectation that the Euro zone bailout will fail[^], and that the rest of the EU will follow, because nobody is addressing the real problem of debt. Nobody is addressing it in the US either. Why bother? We're recovering aren't we? The worst is over. Well, O.K., maybe a couple of years with high unemployment before the recovery really kicks in, and then, Up, Up, and Awaay. I hope so, but I fear not.
Oakman wrote:
why, after an entire century of Europe needing the U.S. to clean up their mess, is Obama actually doing it.
Because the Federal Reserve has told him to, because they have less confidence in the US economy than you do? Who knows? Audit the Fed. Mark to market. The reason may become apparent. BTW: 'Needing' is too strong. If you hadn't 'cleaned up our mess', things would have resolved themselves differently, that's all.
Oakman wrote:
Those who will not learn from history are, I guess, doomed to repeat it.
As are those who eat garlic.
Bob Emmett Proud to be an economic illiterate - when I look at where the literate have got us.
-
Oakman wrote:
I get a kick out of economic illiterates who desperately argue that somehow, the EU is important to the U.S.'s economy.
Good for you, at our age we got to get our jollies wherever we can. However, I believe that my sequence started with the tip of the tail before working up to the dog. Speculators love politicians who ignore the fundamental weaknesses of their economies and shout 'bring it on'. The speculators play on those weaknesses, and always win (well, so far). I have every expectation that the Euro zone bailout will fail[^], and that the rest of the EU will follow, because nobody is addressing the real problem of debt. Nobody is addressing it in the US either. Why bother? We're recovering aren't we? The worst is over. Well, O.K., maybe a couple of years with high unemployment before the recovery really kicks in, and then, Up, Up, and Awaay. I hope so, but I fear not.
Oakman wrote:
why, after an entire century of Europe needing the U.S. to clean up their mess, is Obama actually doing it.
Because the Federal Reserve has told him to, because they have less confidence in the US economy than you do? Who knows? Audit the Fed. Mark to market. The reason may become apparent. BTW: 'Needing' is too strong. If you hadn't 'cleaned up our mess', things would have resolved themselves differently, that's all.
Oakman wrote:
Those who will not learn from history are, I guess, doomed to repeat it.
As are those who eat garlic.
Bob Emmett Proud to be an economic illiterate - when I look at where the literate have got us.
-
Okay nob-head, the only sorces I have on this are not quotable due to the statements being made under 'Chatham House' rules. But what i can tell you is the the ECB and IMF have already discounted the facilty [please check up what that means, it is not a bailout] based on the risk of default. The perceived chance is obviously increased by the amount that will be drawn down. If Greece draws down it's entire facility, which is highly unlikely considering it's more than 10x what was considered the maximum they would need, the chance of default is around 30%. Yup, every euro becomes 70 cents. But those figures, which come from a lot more reliable source then you could dream of having, actually reflect how low the risks are. The huge favilities that have been provided are there so that they won't need to borrow. I know it's confusing for your little drug-addled mind, but the larger the facility the less likely they are to need to use it. If you've borrowed $100 from me and I find out you're only making 50 bucks a week, I'd be worried that you couldn't pay me back in a month as promissed, so I'd put pressure on you and you'd end up paying me early and finding you couldn't pay your crack dealer or something. Now imagine your Mom came to me and said she has $1,000 dollars and should you need some you can borrow it, do you think I would be as worried about getting my mney back?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
'Chatham House' rules
I understand what you are trying to say, but even CSS can make that same claim. If he understands it (issues with google...).
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
but even CSS can make that same claim.
Yes, but he doesn't go to Chatham House...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
If you hadn't 'cleaned up our mess', things would have resolved themselves differently, that's all.
Ja, Sie sprechen Deutsch.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
И я понял, вы не понимаете, и действительно пользоваться свободами, у вас есть, в качестве британского подданного.* Is it true? You don't see the difference between living as a Brit, as you do know, versus if Germany had won WWII, or if Russia had won the Cold War? :omg: :wtf: *And I realized, you do not understand and really enjoy the freedoms you have, as a British citizen.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
И я понял, вы не понимаете, и действительно пользоваться свободами, у вас есть, в качестве британского подданного.* Is it true? You don't see the difference between living as a Brit, as you do know, versus if Germany had won WWII, or if Russia had won the Cold War? :omg: :wtf: *And I realized, you do not understand and really enjoy the freedoms you have, as a British citizen.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
And I realized, you do not understand and really enjoy the freedoms you have, as a British citizen.
You supposed, rather than realized. But if a united Europe (i.e. with Britain and France) under the Germans had, together with Japan, trounced the USSR, or vice versa, the alternative 'me' would never have known of those freedoms. Thanks to the relatively accurate information available to me, I can compare and contrast my probable life under fascism or 'communism' with that which I have enjoyed. Given the nature of these regimes, it is likely that such information would not have been available to the alternative 'me' - so how would I have known what I was missing? BTW: Given the current erosion of freedom occasioned by acts of terrorism, how free would a USA surrounded by the British, Dutch, French, Japanese, Russian, ... colonial Empires - under the control of Adolf or Joe - have been, do you suppose?
Bob Emmett
-
RichardM1 wrote:
And I realized, you do not understand and really enjoy the freedoms you have, as a British citizen.
You supposed, rather than realized. But if a united Europe (i.e. with Britain and France) under the Germans had, together with Japan, trounced the USSR, or vice versa, the alternative 'me' would never have known of those freedoms. Thanks to the relatively accurate information available to me, I can compare and contrast my probable life under fascism or 'communism' with that which I have enjoyed. Given the nature of these regimes, it is likely that such information would not have been available to the alternative 'me' - so how would I have known what I was missing? BTW: Given the current erosion of freedom occasioned by acts of terrorism, how free would a USA surrounded by the British, Dutch, French, Japanese, Russian, ... colonial Empires - under the control of Adolf or Joe - have been, do you suppose?
Bob Emmett
Wow. Not even specious. That is the absolute lamest excuse for an argument I have ever seen. I don't think I've seen anything this sophomoric since, well, ever. Utterly amazing that you would think to use this as an argument. By your argument, you are OK with dying yesterday, because today, you would not know you had died. You, not some hypothetical, alternate history, totalitarian state controlled you, but YOU, seem to think it is OK if YOU are a slave, if you didn't know any different. You would be totally fine with being low man in the USSR or Nazi Germany. And YOU know it is screwed up. Do you really expect me to believe you are that messed up? If so, lets get started - Bitch, iron my shirt.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You supposed, rather than realized.
I supposed you had some kind of an argument. When I read this, I realized you don't. I stand by what I wrote. Based on not caring if you are a Nazi a Commie or a Torrie... I realized you do not understand and really enjoy the freedoms you have. At ALL
Bob Emmett wrote:
BTW: Given the current erosion of freedom occasioned by acts of terrorism, how free would a USA surrounded by the British, Dutch, French, Japanese, Russian, ... colonial Empires - under the control of Adolf or Joe - have been, do you suppose?
I fight against the erosion happening now. I do not think that more erosion for other reasons is any better. I don't know if it would be worse - there is a definite enemy in that case. Now, there is no distinguishing the enemy from the civilians. I suppose there, we would not give a crap about happening to kill a civilian or five thousand, just to kill a Brit, or a Jap, the threat would be more real, and people would not be apologists for the enemy.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Wow. Not even specious. That is the absolute lamest excuse for an argument I have ever seen. I don't think I've seen anything this sophomoric since, well, ever. Utterly amazing that you would think to use this as an argument. By your argument, you are OK with dying yesterday, because today, you would not know you had died. You, not some hypothetical, alternate history, totalitarian state controlled you, but YOU, seem to think it is OK if YOU are a slave, if you didn't know any different. You would be totally fine with being low man in the USSR or Nazi Germany. And YOU know it is screwed up. Do you really expect me to believe you are that messed up? If so, lets get started - Bitch, iron my shirt.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You supposed, rather than realized.
I supposed you had some kind of an argument. When I read this, I realized you don't. I stand by what I wrote. Based on not caring if you are a Nazi a Commie or a Torrie... I realized you do not understand and really enjoy the freedoms you have. At ALL
Bob Emmett wrote:
BTW: Given the current erosion of freedom occasioned by acts of terrorism, how free would a USA surrounded by the British, Dutch, French, Japanese, Russian, ... colonial Empires - under the control of Adolf or Joe - have been, do you suppose?
I fight against the erosion happening now. I do not think that more erosion for other reasons is any better. I don't know if it would be worse - there is a definite enemy in that case. Now, there is no distinguishing the enemy from the civilians. I suppose there, we would not give a crap about happening to kill a civilian or five thousand, just to kill a Brit, or a Jap, the threat would be more real, and people would not be apologists for the enemy.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Sounds to me that you are wanting Britain, and other countries, to be forever in the debt of the United States. Just how deep do you want Britain and others to bow to the miracle that is Uncle Sam ???? The British WWII debt to the United States has been paid, and paid in full. Don't forget, it was Germany who declared war on the United States, and only then because of Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour. That is what brought the United States into WWII. Until then, you were more than happy to take a more or less neutral stance with respect to the then plight of Britain, the Free French, and other countries around the world. Yes, the United States had a positive impact in Europe after you were brought into that war. And afterwards, with the Nazi's gone, two competing political theologies, and their armed forces, faced each other with distrust. Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States. If the United States did not have any of the many interests in Europe after the conclusion of WWII they would have returned all of their forces home. So for mutual benefit, and as a buffer against these Communists, it was United States self interest to retain a presence here. If Pearl Harbour and the German declaration of war had not happened, the here and now of today would be very much different, and how much difference would be speculative which it probably what Bob was getting at.
-
Sounds to me that you are wanting Britain, and other countries, to be forever in the debt of the United States. Just how deep do you want Britain and others to bow to the miracle that is Uncle Sam ???? The British WWII debt to the United States has been paid, and paid in full. Don't forget, it was Germany who declared war on the United States, and only then because of Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour. That is what brought the United States into WWII. Until then, you were more than happy to take a more or less neutral stance with respect to the then plight of Britain, the Free French, and other countries around the world. Yes, the United States had a positive impact in Europe after you were brought into that war. And afterwards, with the Nazi's gone, two competing political theologies, and their armed forces, faced each other with distrust. Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States. If the United States did not have any of the many interests in Europe after the conclusion of WWII they would have returned all of their forces home. So for mutual benefit, and as a buffer against these Communists, it was United States self interest to retain a presence here. If Pearl Harbour and the German declaration of war had not happened, the here and now of today would be very much different, and how much difference would be speculative which it probably what Bob was getting at.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Sounds to me
Then you are not listening. I didn't say anyone owed us anything (except as noted below), and I appreciate the ally most of the UK has been. Hell, we stole most of a continent (North America) from Britain, and we still get to be allies. :laugh: I am just astounded that Bob is so unwilling to think anything good of the US that he says it would not bother him to live in a Nazi or Soviet occupied Britain, as opposed to saying a single good thing came from the US. That is pretty pathological.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what brought the United States into WWII. Until then, you were more than happy to take a more or less neutral stance with respect to the then plight of Britain, the Free French, and other countries around the world.
Don't play these silly ass revisionist games, they are just stupid. We had been selling arms and armaments to non Axis forces weapons since '39. We called out our National Guard in 1940 and started expanding the military to 1.5 million men. We gave you and France a bunch of ammo and 50 destroyers in 1940. Eagle squadrons were formed in September 1940. Flying Tigers in the same time frame. Lend-lease started in March, 1941. We took over for your troops in Iceland in mid'41, freeing them up to fight. But you don't owe us anything. Except the truth.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States.
:doh: :confused: What interests were those? Other than you and people like you? Are you just as willing as Bob to live under Communist rule? :rolleyes: It was in everyone's best interest, but more yours than ours. We would not have lived under the Soviet thumb. You may have had the Channel for protection, but we had the whole Atlantic, or at least the Bering Straight and a hunk of Canada.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Sounds to me that you are wanting Britain, and other countries, to be forever in the debt of the United States. Just how deep do you want Britain and others to bow to the miracle that is Uncle Sam ???? The British WWII debt to the United States has been paid, and paid in full. Don't forget, it was Germany who declared war on the United States, and only then because of Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour. That is what brought the United States into WWII. Until then, you were more than happy to take a more or less neutral stance with respect to the then plight of Britain, the Free French, and other countries around the world. Yes, the United States had a positive impact in Europe after you were brought into that war. And afterwards, with the Nazi's gone, two competing political theologies, and their armed forces, faced each other with distrust. Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States. If the United States did not have any of the many interests in Europe after the conclusion of WWII they would have returned all of their forces home. So for mutual benefit, and as a buffer against these Communists, it was United States self interest to retain a presence here. If Pearl Harbour and the German declaration of war had not happened, the here and now of today would be very much different, and how much difference would be speculative which it probably what Bob was getting at.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Sounds to me
Then you are not listening. I didn't say anyone owed us anything (except as noted below), and I appreciate the ally most of the UK has been. Hell, we stole most of a continent (North America) from Britain, and we still get to be allies. :laugh: I am just astounded that Bob is so unwilling to think anything good of the US that he says it would not bother him to live in a Nazi or Soviet occupied Britain, as opposed to saying a single good thing came from the US. That is pretty pathological.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what brought the United States into WWII. Until then, you were more than happy to take a more or less neutral stance with respect to the then plight of Britain, the Free French, and other countries around the world.
Don't play these silly ass revisionist games, they are just stupid. We had been selling arms and armaments to non Axis forces weapons since '39. We called out our National Guard in 1940 and started expanding the military to 1.5 million men. We gave you and France a bunch of ammo and 50 destroyers in 1940. Eagle squadrons were formed in September 1940. Flying Tigers in the same time frame. Lend-lease started in March, 1941. We took over for your troops in Iceland in mid'41, freeing them up to fight. But you don't owe us anything. Except the truth.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States.
:doh: :confused: What interests were those? Other than you and people like you? Are you just as willing as Bob to live under Communist rule? :rolleyes: It was in everyone's best interest, but more yours than ours. We would not have lived under the Soviet thumb. You may have had the Channel for protection, but we had the whole Atlantic, or at least the Bering Straight and a hunk of Canada.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I have a big respect for the US but need to correct a few things
RichardM1 wrote:
We had been selling arms and armaments to non Axis forces weapons since '39.
and to axis, although I admit to a far lesser degree, however IBM were providing equipement and technology to germany well into 40 (and to the end of the war as a german subsiduary)
RichardM1 wrote:
We gave you and France a bunch of ammo and 50 destroyers in 1940.
no, in 1940 we were still required to PAY for all these items, and those 4 stackers cost the british govenment more than a new H class did despite there age (but as you will point out beggers cannot be choosers)
RichardM1 wrote:
Eagle squadrons were formed in September 1940.
this was a wholely RAF squadron that was made up of US pilots who defide thier govenment to join! what is conviently forgotton is that lend lease was introduced because you had drained the liquid assets. and that it took until the 1990s to finish paying you back. There was a lot on money made in the US from the war, overall you were the only country involved that made a profit and we were the only country NOT to default on its debt. and there is room for resentment in our treatment, firstly you had a embassador to the court of st james that alledgely provided the germans with intelligence.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Sounds to me
Then you are not listening. I didn't say anyone owed us anything (except as noted below), and I appreciate the ally most of the UK has been. Hell, we stole most of a continent (North America) from Britain, and we still get to be allies. :laugh: I am just astounded that Bob is so unwilling to think anything good of the US that he says it would not bother him to live in a Nazi or Soviet occupied Britain, as opposed to saying a single good thing came from the US. That is pretty pathological.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what brought the United States into WWII. Until then, you were more than happy to take a more or less neutral stance with respect to the then plight of Britain, the Free French, and other countries around the world.
Don't play these silly ass revisionist games, they are just stupid. We had been selling arms and armaments to non Axis forces weapons since '39. We called out our National Guard in 1940 and started expanding the military to 1.5 million men. We gave you and France a bunch of ammo and 50 destroyers in 1940. Eagle squadrons were formed in September 1940. Flying Tigers in the same time frame. Lend-lease started in March, 1941. We took over for your troops in Iceland in mid'41, freeing them up to fight. But you don't owe us anything. Except the truth.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States.
:doh: :confused: What interests were those? Other than you and people like you? Are you just as willing as Bob to live under Communist rule? :rolleyes: It was in everyone's best interest, but more yours than ours. We would not have lived under the Soviet thumb. You may have had the Channel for protection, but we had the whole Atlantic, or at least the Bering Straight and a hunk of Canada.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you just as willing as Bob to live under Communist rule?
No and neither did Bob say that. What I said was [quote] If Pearl Harbour and the German declaration of war had not happened, the here and now of today would be very much different, and how much difference would be speculative which it probably what Bob was getting at. [/quote] It is likely that Soviet expansion might not have occurred at all if it had not been for (1) WWII and (2) the politics that came after WWII where, as I said, [quote] And afterwards, with the Nazi's gone, two competing political theologies, and their armed forces, faced each other with distrust. Thus the cold war that required the United States to retain a large presence in Europe to protect the interests, chiefly, of the United States. [/quote]
RichardM1 wrote:
but we had the whole Atlantic
Yes you did. And your industry that manufactured the armaments as used in all WWII theatres were immune from enemy action. Your industry was unscathed - the German or Japanese military did not have the ability to harm your industry. Mind you, there were many who were terribly worried that Japan might visit America's west coast with force after Pearl Harbour - you were somewhat exposed in those dark days!
RichardM1 wrote:
Don't play these silly ass revisionist games, they are just stupid.
Who is playing. The whole world was at war after Pearl Harbour, before that, as reported in many American newspapers, Europe had something of a phoney war going on.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you don't owe us anything. Except the truth.
That is a two way street. Truth is what is. American public opinion may or may not have been told the entire truth, especially when you have Hollywood re-writing history. And when history starts getting re-written, confusion exists.