Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sinjection

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 67
Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 27, 2008, 07:47:26 pm »
This is called winning the debate in case you haven't been keeping up.

Nice try, but it won't fly. That dog won't hunt. It's 4th and 10 and you'd better punt.

Look at your own posting history why don't you.

Mike opened the topic expressing his concerns about Obama's church endorsing Hamas. Mike explained that in his view, Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on destroying the Jewish state and the Jewish people.  The early discussion centered around Rev Wright's controversial statements, the church taking a position on an issue which in this case, would give Jewish voters cause to pause when considering Obama's suitability to be a U.S. President because of what is a very close relationship between himself and Rev. Wright.

To counter his position, explain the reasons why the Rev Wright would harbor and express the opinions many Americans find troubling and divisive and defend Obama by explaining that while he has faithfully attended Rev Wright's church, was married by Rev Wright, had his children baptized by Rev Wright that it is unfair and untrue to assume that Obama was in total agreement with the Rev Wright's positions and preachments, some of us began to cite examples of questionable beliefs and behavior by Israel and Jewish people.

I believe it was karaszero who first made mention of the Holocaust. For my part, I suggested that the tactics Hamas has used against Israel may not have been that much different from those used by Menachem Begin and the Igrun against the British and Palestinians in the 1940s. I remarked that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I then offered up the offensive comments made by the Rev James D Manning which attacked and sullied Obama and his parents. Mike continued to press the point that Obama's membership in a church and close friendship with the pastor of this church which would endorse what he and other Jews consider to be a terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction would cause him to consider not voting for Obama.

The discourse continued, much of it centered around Obama's church, Rev. Wright, and reasons why Obama hasn't repudiated Wright, continues to be a member of the church and more examples of terrorist group vs freedom fighter depending upon one's perspective. In fact, we both used the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line. I did so in an earlier posting: mine, reply #8, 3-21, yours reply #37, 3-22. And so, the discourse continues. karaszero makes the point that Mike never seemed to be as critical of Republicans as Democrats and often seemed to attempt to rationalize and defend the actions of Israel even when those actions may have been indefensible at which time I mentioned Israel's arms sales to the apartheid government of South Africa and the appearance of a common ground between the two nations with respect to their enmity with people wanting to put an end to their existences as national entities.

Lion admonishes us to not turn this into a "which of us had it worse" discussion because doing so would be counterproductive. And of course, in reply #65 that is exactly what you do. You say that Jewish people have not suffered as blacks have IN AMERICA, say that is perfectly acceptable that blacks tell the Jews to "get in line behind us" as if this were a customer service line in a department store and then invoked the Holocaust again saying rightly that all holocausts are legitimate, but that as the Jewish people suffered their holocaust at the hands of nazi germany, that the U.S. doesn't owe Jewish persons anything related to that attrocity. Of course, I disagreed as I believe as many do - including U.S. Presidents whom you have dismissed as panderers - that the U.S. did play a part in the Jewish holocaust and I then cited the reasons why that was.

So while my comments dealt with Rev Wright, his church, Obama's membership in that church, the discussion of "terrorist group vs freedom fighter", YOU did EXACTLY WHAT LION ADMONISHED US NOT TO DO and thus, we find ourselves where we are now. And where we are now is your not being able to post anything that disproves what I've been saying about the debt the U.S. owes for our part played in the Jewish holocaust.

Feel free to keep trying, but I'm getting off this merry-go-round because you aren't going anywhere. I owe Mike a reply to his posting anyway. Good bye. Be good.

Black Panther / Re: Storm rejoins the X-men
« on: March 27, 2008, 12:11:49 pm »
i dont know enough about prodigy to co-sign that.. but we do need some more love to the non-white characters, though....especially the brothers!

I'm no Prodigy expert either, but from what I know of him through reading the few books I happen to have featuring his character in action, I believe that as the character is currently constituted (I wish I could learn to express my thoughts in simple english), Prodigy would make for a very interesting character. He possesses the knowledge and skills, but not the mutant powers, of every mutant he's encountered. If jamie madrox can somehow find a measure of success, a well-written Prodigy should too.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 27, 2008, 11:55:25 am »
In 2006 the US accepted roughly 1,300,000 new immigrants. 70 thousand were refugees and asylum seekers. Worldwide there were just under 10 million refugees seeking asylum. We can assume that considerably more than 70k tried to get American citizenship.

Why are you bringing up what happened 2 years ago when I am referring to an abomination that occured in the 1940s?

During that time period, the U.S. set a quota at 27,370 the refugees it would accept deemed "undesirable" namely, Italians and Jews. I have consulted one source which states the U.S. accepted approximately 21,000 Jewish refugees. The U.S. could have and should have in my view, accepted more. There were those who saw that the U.S. quota for Jews was not met. The same was true of other potential sanctuary nations, but I am more concerned with the U.S. Those who recognized that the U.S. quota had not been met and that more Jewish refugees could have been granted asylum but were turned away, attributed this fact to Roosevelt's seeming indifference toward the Jews.

Yes, there were more Jews seeking asylum in the U.S. and other nations and all seemed to set their quotas so low that all those seeking safety from the nazis by fleeing to another nation could not be accomodated. In the case of the U.S. and specifically for Anne Frank and her family, they were so close to safety only to be turned away by our nation who had not yet and never did reach its quota. So to you and to Curtis, it is my unwavering contention that through the extremity of cause and effect, the U.S. is directly responsible for the deaths of Anne Frank, her family and any other persecuted persons in their party. The Allies had received intelligence about nazi death camps and what was happening in those camps as early as 1941 - 42, approximately the same time the camps were established and operating. I have very little doubt that the U.S. government at its highest levels were appraised of this situation and like the Allies, dismissed the reports as exaggeration. So in my opinion, not only do I suspect the U.S. had knowledge of what was occuring in those camps, they chose to dismiss that intelligence even in the face of the desperate exodus from that nation by frightened Jews. That makes the U.S. both negligent and culpable in my book.

The degree of moral responsibility that you wish to attribute to the US government for its acts and omissions is a subject for discussion on which reasonable people can differ. However, unless you are accusing the US government of being an accomplice to Nazi Germany (which would be a more extreme claim than I have ever seen anywhere), there is no direct responsibility here.

I'm a reasonable person. I'm sure that the other fellow is as well. He has his opinion, I have mine. Our opinions differ, hence our exchange. And I would say that the U.S. government was an irresponsible, unwitting and tragic accomplice to nazi germany in the murder of Anne Frank, her family and those our nation turned away. As this is the case, you may now pass your eyes over one of the "more extreme" claims you have seen anywhere. I stand by my contention.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but how reliable are your reminiscences? It's been my experience that the reality is almost always more complex than any simple narrative.

The reality I saw related to my reminiscences are exactly as I stated them. The reportage of the events I cited were inescapable. "Necklacing", the practice of placing a gasoline-filled tire around the neck, chest and arms of a victim which is then set ablaze was a common practice of the ANC against those they regarded as traitors. Winnie Mandela herself approved of this brutal practice. Everyday it seemed, there were stories about violent clashes between Buthelezi's Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party and the predominantly Xhosa African National Congress. Black people killing black people. Black people killed by white soldiers. And then there was talk about how the Zulu Chief Buthelezi and Nelson Mandela, a Xhosa, leader of the ANC would co exist. In the meantime, the Sullivan Principles combined with ever-increasing, ever-restricting sanctions on the apartheid government was doing its part in bringing down the obscene government.

Would you care to enlighten me or correct me where you see I might be in error? What are your reminiscences Curtis?

happy coexistance shall reign in the HEF!


You know it, too. As always, "I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow"
A little Stuart Scott for your Thursday afternoon reading pleasure  ;)

Black Panther / Re: Storm rejoins the X-men
« on: March 27, 2008, 06:46:04 am »
  As far as Prodigy goes, we won't know until Young X-men I suppose.  He was last seen during the Messiah Complex alive and well.  He's not a mutant however but he does have all of the skills and knowledge he ever had before losing his powers.  So he has the knowledge and non-superpowered skills of all the X-Men.  If one were to list all of the skills and knowledge possessed by the X-Men we would see the makings of a character that deserves his own solo ongoing. 

I would definitely purchase a Prodigy ongoing publication.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 27, 2008, 05:42:55 am »
I think, if you really consider what  nations are and how this one in particular must function in order to maintain itself as itself, you may see how you've got your priorities in this matter a bit skewed.

A nation with wide open borders is not a nation. A nation that doesn't exercise control of who is allowed to join is citizenry is not a nation. These facts are true, they are constant, regardless of external conditions or trouble elsewhere.

Until you see this, you aren't seeing.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it now.

So we can turn away desperate people fearing for their lives, but decades later, we can try to make a point by allowing Fidel Castro to send us his convicts, crazies and kooks.

I believe I have seen the light. It's probably that freight train at the other end of the tunnel  :)

Uh oh. I'd forget my head if it wasn't attached to my neck, shoulders, torso, pelvis, legs, ankles and feet. I said last night that I would post to the topic. My bad. So this will be my final words regarding this line of discussion  :)

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 27, 2008, 05:39:41 am »


I think your assessments are based on a naive understanding of how nations work and on your singling out a particular group's suffering as some sort of  trump card. In fact, while many Jews were turned away, many were not. To you the US was required to provide universal asylum to any and all who were in need. Anything less than 100% and we're on the hook with the Nazis?

The U.S. took in approximately 21,000 Jewish refugees during the WWII era and it was known at the time that there was room for many, many more under the established quota. It was said that Roosevelt was possibly indifferent to the Jews and that is why more weren't granted asylum. Not one of our nation's brighter or prouder moments I'd say. If we turned away the boat carrying a passenger named Anne Frank, then I contend that the U.S. is directly responsible for that child's death in the concentration camps.

By the by...when I reminisce on the final years leading up to the eventual end of apartheid South Africa, I don't recall a strong, united effort by South Africa's blacks to overthrow the white-ruled government. I remember Mandela's ANC clashing with supporters of Zulu Chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi. I remember the two factions fighting each other with machetes and whatever else they could get their hands on. I remember the horrific practice of "necklacing". I remember armored South African vehicles, black children throwing rocks at those vehicles only to have white South African soldiers jump up like "jack-in-the-box" guns blazing. Aside from that, I'm certain that at the highest levels of the ANC there was a positive push aided mightily by the Sullivan Principles and international sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa that eventually culminated in FW deKlerk freeing Nelson Mandela and allowing the black majority to participate in their own nation as full citizens.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 27, 2008, 05:23:34 am »
One thing I should clear up. Going into WWII, the U.S. military was as stringently segregated as it had always been. Having fought alongside white soldiers in the Revolutionary War and showing remarkable valor in segregated units during the Civil War, the Plains Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War (don't believe the hype. It wasn't the Roughriders who took San Juan Hill; it was the Buffalo Soldiers who did that), and WWI, the sense was in the military that the black soldier couldn't fight and wouldn't fight. When WWII began, black soldiers were mostly relegated to materials handling and kitchen detail.

Gen Dwight Eisenhower was sort of a different breed in that it appeared to be his wish that the black soldier be utilized more in combat situations and not only that, he wanted to see the military racially integrated. The Battle of the Bulge gave Eisenhower the chance to do just that. Needing all the manpower that could be mustered, the military offered black soldiers to volunteer for combat duty which they did in droves. Many black soldiers gave up higher rank so they could fight as privates. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the black soldiers' performance was outstanding. Slowly but steadily, military units became more racially integrated. One white U.S. Marine officer is reported to have said something to the effect, "There is no more Negro Marine. There is just a Marine." His was not the prevailing sentiment however.

Black soldiers during WWII were still discriminated against because of their race. A white officer and a few of his black soldiers went to a cafe for a bite to eat and were refused service, the white officer refusing to leave his men declined to be seated inside. The soldiers were told they could go around back and there, they would be given sandwiches and coffee. Not long afterward, white American soldiers accompanied by German soldiers arrived at this same cafe and were observed being cordially greeted, enjoying a fine meal and pleasant company.

It wasn't until 1997 that many WWII era black soldiers were awarded their Medals of Honor. So no, there was no "shattering of the traditional social structure". There was a fissure that opened during the Revolutionary War and then sealed itself not to reappear until the Battle of the Bulge in WWII and which widened during the Korean Conflict. My Father served in an integrated unit during that time and saw combat. I wanted to make sure that I corrected myself. While black soldiers may have been attached to military units representing European nations during WWII, it was during WWI that black soldiers did most of their fighting attached to French military units.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 07:43:22 pm »
Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we've been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

"Other than as a mere pretense"?

What I meant is that some folks who have an agenda to support Hamas, who in their hearts of hearts would like to see the Hamas agenda fully implemented, who would love to see Israel purged from the Middle East, may try to justify their position by citing Israel's relationship with S. Africa decades ago, in an attempt to demonize Israel today. 

You, of course, have not advocated support for Hamas, so I would not count you as one of those folks.

Cool  ;)

I have to run, but would like to respond to the remainder of your post tomorrow.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 07:41:08 pm »
 :o Gadzooks!!!!  

Ah well, "Once more unto the breach..." and all that.  :D

Your problem is you think you get to determine what "legitimate" means. You don't.

Where did you get the idea that it was I who got to determine what "legitimate means"? It wasn't I who determined that the Shah of Iran should be admitted to the U.S. It wasn't I who decided to grant asylum Salvadorans escaping the aftermath of a civil war in their nation to U.S. As many of them were likely in life threatening situations, I would have done so. It isn't I who gets to decide that Cubans who leave their nation and make it to the U.S. are granted asylum but Haitians who leave their nation and make it to the U.S. for the same reasons are sent back. Don't try to blame the Mariel Boatlift on me. I had nothing to do with Castro sending his mental patients and convicts here. They were economic refugees. Had it been my decision to make, there wouldn't have been a "boatlift". Those people were not in a life-threatening situation until they took it upon themselves to travel to the U.S. in overcrowded, rickety boats. Those Jews seeking to escape persecution and the death camps had what I believe was and is a legitimate case and should have been granted asylum. Had it been my decision to make, they would have been granted asylum.

In your world perhaps. Not in mine. It's a mistake to grant asylum to economic refugees from Cuba, but not grant asylum to economic refugees from Haiti. It's a mistake to grant asylum to economic refugees over refugees fleeing their nations in fear for their lives. It's always a mistake to allow such things as oil and other strategic interests to factor into the determination of what humans are suffering the most. That's the shameful mistake this nation has been making. Has granting asylum to Southeast Asian boat people made worse the situation of Native Americans and Black Americans? Do you believe those people usurped our place "in line"? In MY world, if I see children starving whether it be in Haiti, in Somalia or here in our own nation, I'm going to do what I can to end that human suffering as quickly as possible only the logistics in providing necessary aid would determine who would receive it first. I wouldn't rate such human suffering on any scale of severity unless one group is on the very brink of the point of no return. But no, I wouldn't have such a line as you suggest, Native Americans first, Black Americans second, and so forth.  

One, that's not invariably true.

You're right. We did send Elian Gonzalez back, didn't we? But only because his father demanded his return. I believe most of the mental patients and convicts who came over on the Mariel Boatlift are still here however.

Two, the Cuban model is not representative and is, at the very least, considered somewhat controversial. Three, you are conflating modern behaviors with past ones again; that doesn't work.  Four, the US deals differently with different nations and in different situations. That is our right and we are under no obligation to let anyone stay just because someone else got to.

In other words, the "Cuban model" is still in effect. Maybe that will change now that Fidel has stepped down and his brother is now running things.

"Should be" is your determination. You don't speak for the US.

But I still have the right to express my opinion. I stand by what I've been saying. And, I do hope the young Iranian was able to manage some sort of extension and will be granted asylum. I will never understand a culture that executes a person because of sexual orientation and stones or beheads or imprisons a woman who has been raped while those who assaulted her receive a slap on the wrist. That's almost as messed up as your "get in line" policy.

Some. Not all. And, again, one size doesn't fit all.

Yes, many Irish escaping the potato famine were allowed to emigrate to the U.S. Cuban economic refugees were allowed to remain in the U.S. This resembles your own "get in line" stance. Because this nation believes it needed to make a point against Cuba and communism, mental patients and convicts were able to "move up in line" over many individuals who were perhaps more worthy of asylum.

Some. Not all. There were strict regulations as to who got in and why and even under those regs not everyone who "technially qualified" got in.  Lots and lots and lots got and get turned away. Also, there is a "we broke it, we bought it" undercurrent in the South Asian and Iraqi cases that was not present in WW2.

In other words, Yes; the U.S. did grant asylum to Southeast Asians. But there was a time when this nation turned back Jews fleeing from their lives from the nazi regime determined to wipe them from the face of the earth. Not good.

It's rough. No one's saying it's not. But using a tough immigration policy to link the US in responsibility to the WW2 holocaust is too big a stretch. It's just not true.

The decision to turn those Jews away was abominable and remains a stain on American history as far as I am concerned. The U.S. is directly responsible for the death of Anne Frank. If she was among those Jews who the U.S. sent back when she could have been granted asylum in this nation, then it follows that the U.S. is directly responsible for that young girl's death. Had the U.S. not turned her party away, she and her family would not have been captured in that attic hideaway and sent to nazi concentration camps.

Zounds... and it goes on and on and on. Unfortunately as much as I'd like to do so, I haven't time to respond to the remainder of your comments. And as our discourse has taken this thread far afield, it's probably best that I don't. That is not to say that I don't believe my position to be correct. I stand by everything I've said from the U.S. responsibility as far as the Holocaust is concerned, its stated vow that "never again" should such a thing happen anywhere as hypocritical as that might seem. I would not doubt that the U.S. knew about the nazi death camps before you seem to believe they Rev Wright said; "Governments lie!"  :D The nation did pin its hopes on Joe Louis and Jesse Owens to take hitler down a peg and to this point:

Oh, I'd say it was shattered the first time a nigger suited up to fly a fighter. Or the first time a woman became a factory foreman. Shattered is appropriate. It was those very same niggers, back from the war, who planted their feet and said "This sh*t is over as of now" when it came to their unequal treatment. That generation did the foundational work for the peace talkers like King to come in and solidify.

You think that qualifies as the "traditional social structure" being "shattered"? Look. Peter Salem, Salem Poor, Crispus Attucks, all black men who took up arms and fought for the U.S. before it WAS the U.S. Crispus Attucks was reputed to be the first or second American to die in what would become this nation's Revolutionary War. Black slaves were allowed to take up arms and fight for this nation believing that at wars end, they too would be as "free" as their white countrymen would be. Now there was a moment that the "traditional social structure" was so-called "shattered" a black slave with a gun that could actually fire balls capable of ending a white man's life and what did it get the blacks in the newly-formed America? It got them back to the plantation picking cotton, that's where it got them. And when our soldiers returned from WWII battlefields they were still the same ol' n-----. This nation didn't even recognize black soldiers from that era with the medals they deserved until fairly recently. Any medals awarded black troops from America were given them by their foreign commanders. No. the "traditional social structure" was far from "shattered".

And now in the interests of getting this thread back to the topic it was intended to discuss, these will be my final words regarding our exchange. It was stimulating  ;)

Black Panther / Re: Storm rejoins the X-men
« on: March 26, 2008, 01:23:22 pm »
Willing to give Ellis a chance....his Thunderbolts is nothing short of spectacular (and violent).

"Violent" I can take, as long as it isn't too over the top or too far beneath the gory bottom. I'd rather the violence than the gratuitous sex which could potentially ensnare Queen Ororo being so far away from her husband as she is.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 12:31:22 pm »

My father, for nearly twenty years, worked as an officer in the United Nations High Commission for refugees. Before that he worked for various NGOs in Africa, India and Vietnam. I split my time between life with him and life with my mom who, until recently, taught school in the so-called inner city. When I need a lecture about the US's policy toward refugees, it won't be you I call. I grew up with the refugee situation as part of everyday life.

 :D Well then, it's a good thing for me that I didn't attempt to lecture you about the U.S. policy toward refugees isn't it? What I did do is give you the straight facts about how this nation turned away german Jews who were fleeing for their lives and sent them back to a godless regime which slaughtered them. Today, if a refugee from any war torn part of the world is fortunate enough to make it to the U.S. and present a legitimate case for why they should be allowed to remain in this nation, they are offered asylum.

Like many descendants of those who faced horrible adversity in their home countries, you seem to be of the opinion that what happened to your particular group was in some way unique or that the United States owes yours or any group, automatic safe haven if things are awful at home. That isn't the case. It's never been the case. It's never going to be the case and, as Americans, you shouldn't want it to be the case.

You must have missed (or overlooked), the part where I said rather emphatically I might add, that human suffering is human suffering. Period. All human suffering should be addressed. There needn't be a system created to rank "holocausts" by degree of suffering and who the sufferers were. I see human suffering as a UNIVERSAL EVIL. Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that the Jews, the Slavs, the homosexuals, etc....are trying to trump the suffering of black people and that they "need to get in line". No, I don't agree with that attitude.

There is simply too much crap going on the rest of the world for the "come one, come all" policy to be effective or even sound. It's a good place to come from emotionally but, in practice, it's not workable. IOW: the US routinely turns away hundreds of thousands of people who "deserve" asylum here. We always have and we always will and those who don't get in have to eat it. It's tough. It's horrible in fact, but they still have to eat it because we can't take them all.

As far as I know, Cubans who are fortunate enough to escape Cuba, survive the 90 mile journey over open water from Cuba to Florida, and who are able to put their foot on U.S. soil are allowed to stay. Feel free to enlighten me if you find that the policy toward Cuban refugees has been changed. Any refugee who is absolute danger of facing death upon their return home should be granted asylum. Recently, I heard a report about an Iranian youth who happens to be a homosexual. He learned while studying in Britain, that his partner had been executed in Iran for the crime of sodomy and that upon his return, he would face that same fate. The youth left Great Britain and applied for asylum in Scandanavia I believe. It was not granted due to some red tape situation existing between the workings of asylum between Britain and Scandanavia. Meanwhile, the youth's visa or whatever they call it over there, is expiring; in fact, it should have expired by now. Either Britain was able to work out a way which would allow the young homosexual Iranian to be granted asylum in their country or the youth is heading home to keep a date with the gallows. I see what you're saying, but the U.S. took in Irish escaping the potato famine didn't they? In more recent times, the U.S.opened the doors for Southeast Asians, didn't they? Discussions are now underway to formulate a plan which would allow Iraqi refugees to come to America. The fact remains, what happened to those german Jews who came here to escape a slaughter in their homeland was nothing short of abominable.

Like a lot of people, you are conveniently leaving out those facts that don't support your assertions and conflating unconnected events in an effort to support them. That stops right now.

Okay, let's see what you've got  :)

In the period leading up to the 2nd World War, America was looking inward. Our economy was destroyed, millions were displaced, there was racial, ethnic and class strife on a scale that most can't imagine today who didn't live through it. Meanwhile, in Europe, the democratically elected leader of a nation is being cruel to his own people. NO ONE here knew about the death camps because, unsurprisingly, they hadn't been built yet. Mass deportation is cruel but it is not, in itself, an automatic ticket into the US. Sorry. We have our own crap to deal with. Lots and lots and lots of our own crap.

The U.S. had no money, but could somehow find the means to print WWII versions of the Beat Back the Hun posters. This nation knew enough about "the democratically elected leader" and his attrocious aspirations and hatreds for Jews and other "sub-cultures". Before WWII began in earnest, the U.S. sought to shove that "democratically elected leader's" words about his "super race" down his throat pinning their hopes on the athletic prowess of two black Americans, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens. The U.S. knew at that time that hitler was bad news getting worse. And as Clinton said in his address: "Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.” Those Jews seeking refuge in the U.S. weren't all deaf mutes. They could communicate and could tell whomever it concerned, what was happening in their home country. Sorry. Because of the position this nation finds itself in these days and based upon how we've cast ourselves and comported ourselves, the world expects the U.S. to be there to aid stricken nations after every natural disaster. The world expects the U.S. to exercise the "power of our position" to assist in slowing or stopping nation-on-nation aggression. The world expects us to deal with "our own crap" and their "crap" too. And why not? That's what we've been trying to do for decades is it not?

In the build-up to our entry into the war England repeatedly warned us of Hitler's megalomania and desire for conquest and repeatedly begged for us to get in before things got really dire. We did not. America had no real military at the time, our munitions were substandard and in many cases antiquated. After Lindbergh got a look at the German air force his opinion was they would crush us in a straight out fight and, at that time, he was absolutely right. yes, he was a racist. Doesn't mean the report was false. It wasn't and everybody concerned knew it.

The U.S. military began girding for war as early as 1939. Isolationist or not, these preparations were being made because the government KNEW that at some point, the U.S. was going to enter the war. It had to be prepared to defend our bases in places like the Phillipines. When the german aggression began and war in Europe broke out, President Roosevelt put our military forces - meager in some places, but quite strong in others, the air force being one - on alert. So though America was "isolationist" and far removed from Europe, our President put our military forces on alert. Why? Well, I'm sure you know why. Our military was already drawing up battle plans as the President put forward a plan to increase the size of our army and equipping them. By 1940, our forces were participating in war games preparing for entry into the war. During this time, we were ACTIVELY SENDING MUNITIONS TO BRITAIN AND FRANCE. But we weren't in the war  ::) By 1941, France had been defeated and America's war prep had achieved its goal. During that time we had amassed an army not yet capable of waging war, but very close to being able to do so. Why? Because we were destined to enter the war notwithstanding the urgent urgings of Great Britain. By 1941 congress passed laws which enabled the U.S. to drop its neutrality stance and already the plan was not "if", but "when" the U.S. entered the war, it would attack germany. hitler didn't wait for us though. Angered because we had been supplying Britain and France with munitions, germany declared war on U.S. (that's us).

(Side note: American multinational corporations, sadly, have never cared about local evils as long as there's a buck to be made. Hell, they often assist or create those evils to stretch buck farther. Incidentally, I also lived in and around South Africa for several of the Apartheid years and I think the importance you place on the participation of American corporations in the fall of apartheid would come a sever and insulting shock to many there. It wasn't sanctions that turned that tide, bunky.  It was a LOT of black people writing on the wall: "We will win this eventually. It can be with blood or you can give up the ghost. LOTS of people left rather than stay and forge the new nation.)

"Bunky"? I haven't called you out of your name. If you must address me, sinjection will do. Thank you very much. The Sullivan Principles were very effective in putting tremendous economic pressure on South Africa. Don't sell the sanctions short. Without them, those black people writing on the wall would have been writhing against the wall after having been shot or beaten by emboldened racist policemen serving a government not having to worry about international sanctions against them.

We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD.

 :) Oh, so melodramatic. The U.S. played a large part in saving the world, this is true. Do not forget about our Russian ally. Without their withering assault on germany, forcing her to fight a war on two fronts, the Eastern front being the most damaging because the Russians weren't playing. The U.S. was able to do its part in saving the war with our Russian and British allies. And why is it that after winning those "civil rights victories", german prisoners of war were treated better and accorded more respect than black American soldiers who were attached to French and British units because white American soldiers didn't want to fight beside them. When black soldiers returned home from WWII, they quickly discovered that they were still n_____ as far as white Americans were concerned. "The traditional social structure was shattered"? Tell that to the black American soldier who in fighting for the U.S. had to do so attached to French or British units because white American soldiers didn't want to serve alongside a black American soldier. Tell Dr. Charles Drew who through his work with blood transfusions was put in charge of that function during the war, but left in disgust when told he was to be sure "white blood" didn't mix with "black blood". Can we say the "traditional social structure" was maybe cracked just a little? Because "shattered" it certainly was not.

Within that saving we and the other allies freed from hideous bondage the victims of the Nazi death camp system and the world was given a glimpse of the sort of horror that most would rather think only exists in novels about hell. The camps were never the point.  Even after we did know about them. Even after escapees and spies brought out photos and testimony. The camps were INCIDENTAL to the overall war effort. They were a small subset of the whole. Just as the Japanese labor camps were.

We did not know what we didn't know and can't be held accountable for that ignorance.

I say again, the U.S. government could not have been "that ignorant" of the fact that the nazis had death camps and were mass murdering Jews and others in those camps. The camps were built beginning in 1940. The Allies had reliable information about these camps as early as 1941. They had aerial photos of the camps. The allies had a Polish plant within one of those camps and he was supplying the allies with accurate accounts of the horrors taking place in those camps. The allies and I'm sure the Americans as well, knew what was going on in those camps as early as 1941 and dismissed that information as exaggeration. Now if you believe the government is above lying about what it knows and when it knew it....what can I say?

Unfortunately, my time is running short and I cannot respond to your fine post in the manner it deserves. I will only reiterate what I've been saying all along. This nation chose to turn away people who were fleeing for their lives hoping to find safety and sanctuary in the nation who boasts, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...." I will always say because I will always believe that the U.S. fell far short of her lofty words when they sent those Jews back to Europe and to their deaths.

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 11:09:46 am »
Obama's pastor said nothing wrong. Obama himself doesn't need to pass some litmus on how he feels about Hamas or Israel or freaking Darfur for that matter. We elect presidents for what they will do for US, not what they can do for the world. Otherwise the world would get  a vote.

They don't.

But...but did he HAVE to say "garlic noses"?

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 09:27:06 am »
And so you quoted it in full. 
Perhaps just the beginning and some ... would have sufficed.


Getting back to the topic, HAMAS has engaged in suicide/homicide bombings. But after political successes it appeared HAMAS was prepared to change its tactics opting for a cease fire, a truce and talks with Israel. Their political opponents Fatah, were none too pleased with these developments. Fatah may have actively sought to undermine the HAMAS-led government. If I'm not mistaken, both Israel and the U.S. favored Fatah over HAMAS did they not? What part might Israel and the U.S. have played in destabilizing the HAMAS-led power structure? It's probably already been posted somewhere, but when exactly did Church of Trinity's endorsement of HAMAS come to light? How long has the Church endorsed HAMAS? Was it before or after HAMAS sought a cease fire and a truce with Israel?

I noticed in the article attached to the first link in the initial post of this thread, it states that Obama's Church's Newsletter referred to HAMAS as the "Islamic Resistance Movement", seeming to suggest that it was the Church's decision to refer to HAMAS by that title. But when I look up "HAMAS", I find that the name literally means "Islamic Resistance Movement."

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 07:53:17 am »
Aha.  :)

Having found what I was looking for in your posting:

You also raise South Africa. The Israeli arms trade with Apartheid South Africa is a flashback to the 1980s. It is troubling, I agree. However, Israel did reverse course in its relationship with that regime.

I can now go back and read your post in total. Well, I'll be able to do that as soon as you explain to me what you were getting at with the following statement:

Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we’ve been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

"Other than as a mere pretense"?

Vox Populi / Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« on: March 26, 2008, 07:15:21 am »
The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.

The rhetoric of recent presidents shows how accepted the Holocaust analogy is in American political life. “Out of our memory of the Holocaust,” Jimmy Carter enjoined, “we must forge an unshakable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” At the groundbreaking for the U.S. Holocaust Museum, George H.W. Bush admonished the audience, “Here we will learn that each of us bears responsibility for our actions and for our failure to act. Here we will learn that we must intervene when we see evil arise.” Finally, at the inauguration of the Holocaust Museum, Bill Clinton concurred: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”

So, you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But the facts are as I've stated them. This nation as illustrated by the foregoing quotes spoken by three of our Presidents disagrees with your point of view. Each of them believe that the U.S. did not respond properly to the Jewish Holocaust. Each of them have vowed that "never again" should we allow a similar attrocity to take place.

As you read through the article, if such is your desire, you will find that the author does seem to agree with your point of view, a point of view which is of course, at variance with my own.

Seems like the promise of "never again" only applies to either people with oil reserves or non-black skin.  The U.S. and UN's actions (inactions) in the Darfur Conflict is testament to that.  All the rhetoric that's been quoted here shows the hypocrisy this nation was built on and is fueled by.

And you are absolutely correct, Catch! I agree with you 100%. In fact, I may have alluded to this very observation in an earlier posting in this thread. I can't remember which one at the moment. But wait....I went back and looked and located my exact quote from that earlier posting. Here it be: Today, the U.S. has referred to its past mistake of turning Jews away in their time of need to justify military actions taken in Iraq and Bosnia. The only places where the U.S. seems reticent or disinterested in stopping genocidal slaughter is in Africa.

Please make no mistake. In pointing up the fact that the U.S. turned nazi german Jews away during a period of their mortal peril, I am in no way ignoring this nation's abominable inaction where African genocide is concerned. And as this is the case, it is easy for me to see why the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would exclaim, "goddamn America" in his sermon. They aren't black people, but "goddamn America" for allowing Gen amherst to give blankets laced with small pox to a tribe of Indians as a means of germ warfare.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 67