troubling

[PW2]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002267417_bush08.html <br /><br />Apparently Bush thinks that Yalta was a mistake...<br /><br />Interesting. I guess he sided with Patton and wanted to immediately at the conclusion of WW II attack Russia. Russia had gone thru a lot, fighting the Germans, lost millions of soldiers, and I seriously doubt they would have looked favorably on the notion of letting Roosevelt solely dictate the terms of the peace.<br /><br />It's nice to view history in the rear view mirror, knowing what the consequences would be for a specific course of action.<br /><br />I wonder what the reaction would have been in 1945 if Roosevelt, or any other politician, would have advocated attacking Russia?<br /><br />Mistake? Clearly it would have been better had Stalin chose a more democratic path, but how much are we to be held responsible for the choices other soverign nations choose.<br /><br />And their are times when we have had to deal with unsavory types--it would have been better if Reagan had not provided Saddam with WMD's...<br /><br />But this attitude smacks of a crusade to remake the world in our image, which to me is a bit troubling--especially from an administraation that cannot admit to any error at all.<br /><br />But I am curious. Does the majority think that Yalta was a mistake, given the choices that were available to FDR at the time?

 

[12Footer]

Re: troubling

Troubling? I thank God for real leadership every day.<br />God Bless America.

 

[dogsdad]

Re: troubling

I think that Churchill would say that allowing the Soviets to dominate eastern Europe was a mistake. Would you disagree with Winston Churchill?<br /><br />I think that to say Bush would side with Patton and would have advocated taking on the Russians at the end of the war may be a stretch. He may simply believe that Roosevelt was too willing to let the Soviets have what they wanted.<br /><br />Although the Russian contribution to the defeat of the Nazis was huge, I don't think that the world owed a thing to the Soviet Communist Party. If something could have been done to remove the communists from power, we should have done it and I think the Russian people would have appreciated it (but I would admit that maybe the Russian people at that time may not have been ready for liberty...their history is one of a people long oppressed by one faction or another). The communists were not interested in the welfare of the people, they were interested in dominating the world and crushing liberty underneath their boot heels and consolidating their own power.<br /><br />As far as arming Saddam goes...do you think it would have been better to allow Iran's Islamic extremists to sieze Iraq? Perhaps we should scrutinize the policies of Carter that allowed the same extremists to take control of Iran. Furthermore, when we back one side or another in foreign affairs, there is always a chance that things may not go the way we would wish. And sometimes doing nothing is simply not an option.<br /><br />Fidel Castro is a perfect example. We backed him, and he stabbed us in the back. Do you not have a problem with this? If not, would it be because he is a communist, and you espouse his ideals?<br /><br />And finally...your assertion that the Bush administration cannot admit error is based on the false premise that it was a mistake to take out Saddam. Contrary to to the liberals' whining and *****ing, Saddam was taken out because the face of the Middle East needed to be changed, and Iraq was the place to do it for several reasons. He is a monster. AND even if he did not have WMDs at the moment we toppled him, we know for a fact he was willing to use them on his own people, and that he would have been very likely to be a willing participant in a terrorist effort to use WMDs in an attack upon the USA. He did have WMDs and used them. He wanted more, and he wanted nuclear capability. He had programs working to devlop and produce them. And he was willing to use them---God knows where.<br /><br />If a man had fifty rounds of ammunition and went on a shooting rampage, but all his ammo was gone by the time you could get him, would you then say he must be turned loose because he has no ammunition??<br /><br />To directly answer your final question, it is my opinion that Roosevelt should have aligned himself more closely with Churchill. They might have reined in Soviet designs on Europe more effectively, and that would have been the right thing to do.<br /><br />One thing about it though: it might be difficult to assess the overall effect that Soviet domination of eastern Europe had on the Soviet Union itself. By that I mean that the Communist Party may have expended more energy governing certain countries, such as Poland, than they were able to extract. In other words, it may well have not been worth it to the Soviets in the long run. The same with Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. It may well be that the desire for freedom in those countries contributed heavily to the momentum of the Sovite collapse.<br /><br />It's always interesting to speculate about that fork in the road we did not take, but we can never really know what may have been...<br /><br /><br />-dd-

 

[62_Kiwi]

Re: troubling

You have to feel very sorry for the countries that were firstly overrun by Nazis and then later by the Soviets. I can't imagine any kind of nightmare much worse than that for the people of any country. <br /><br />I can however understand the desire that the allies must have had at that time to see an end to the fighting and bloodshed. It's just a shame that so much of the world was still left in the hands of the murderous Stalin and his cronies.<br /><br />Bush is quite justified in his comments IMHO.<br /><br />Edit: it's amazing how much damage has been done over the centuries by the common mistake of assuming that someone who has the same enemy as you, is therefore your friend...

 

[Perfidiajoe]

Re: troubling

When did we back Castro? As for Iraq, yes those were the the bad guys in power but who gave us the right to police them, we found no WMD's which is the reason we gave for going there. As for the 50 rounds you use as an analogy, that was desert storm & we doled out his punishment then, though meager it was! If we were to be the worlds Policeman what happened to N. Korea? They have rocks, Iraq has Oil. Saddam, yea I'm happy he's gone, should have happened years ago, but the way it happened now, was not right, by what I was brought up to believe were our standards. As for Stalin He made Hitler look like a Boy Scout, He killed millions of his own (gee like saddam), & you say we shouldn't have taken him out, he had his own wife killed, & his daugther, & grand children sent to Siberia, because his son in law, was wounded & captured! War is the most horrific Event there can be, which is what makes it something to be avoided until there is no other recourse, I've been there. JMHO Joe

 

[beniam]

Re: troubling

Ah,1945<br />US did not have the manpower<br />Did not have the supply lines<br />Did not have the public support<br />To beat the Stalin armies.<br />And had to face Japan-no certain thing untill the A bomb.<br />Reality was unpleasant back then.<br />Be happy you are free, enjoy life, boat lots. <br />Batavier

 

[PW2]

Re: troubling

I was just curious what others think.<br /><br />BTW we did indeed back Castro, when he overthrew Batista. And yes I have a problem with Castro, but its been 50 years, and sanctions simply don't work. I think it is time to try a different strategy.<br /><br />And the mistakes I was refering to was not the mistake of invading Iraq for while I do think it a mistake, one can argue that it was not. The mistakes I was refering to was in how we handled post war Iraq, who even members of the administration, excluding the president, of course, considered the lack of proper planning and execution of it a mistake.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: troubling

dogsdad<br /> I posted the link earlier and you did not respond. we toppled the democratically elected Iranian govt in 1958 or so due to the fact the democratically elected prime minister nationalized the oilfields and was going to sell to the commies. we installed the shah and armed him with the most powerful and advanced fighters of the era. they still have them only now the russians are upgrading them. some 74 F-14's. when the ayatolla took control back we trained and armed saddam, who had been friendly before and our CIA had used him many times as well as sheltered and paid him. we are currently in the wrong country bombing the wrong people. maybe i could buy into some of the current admins blatant lies had any of the 9-11 terrorists been from Iraq or at least connected to Iraq. saddam was so paranoid of his power base he would not allow terror cells to operate in Iraq. he was worried as well. seems the story has changed on why we are there so many times all I believe now is we are there. what I do find troubling is the reason we have no exit stratagy nor plan is cause the plan is we aint gonna leave. is it pure coiencedence that the 9, yes 9, air bases planned for afghanistan just happen to be along Bush and companies proposed oil pipeline ?<br />at this moment in history we have more convicted felons holding white house admin staff positions than any other point in history. some are holding the same posts they held the last time. and yes as late as 99 there were afghany oil pipeline workers being trained on the bush ranch in crawford TX.<br /> PW2<br /> yalta was a partial mistake. but at that moment in history had Eisenhower or FDR delcared war on the soviet union would have been a mass revolt both here and in europe. the soviet attacks on the japanese back door as our allies had as much to do with Hirohito's surrender as the atomic bomb.<br /> we all knew what stalin was. but for 3 years we armed trained and financed stalins war machine.<br /> had we attacked I am quite sure the russians would have used the russian winter and land mass to do to the US what it did to hitler and napolean as well as a few others over the centuries.<br /> what most non combantant type leaders fail to realize is that to conquer you must occupy. would be difficult even now to produce the manpower nessasary to occupy the former ussr. I do agree that stalin makes hitler and himmlerlook like alter boys, but he was doing it long before WWII. yet we still backed him.<br /> was right funny watching our president arse kiss a saudi business pardner though. maybe if they use hand signals when turning no necks will be broken. if you think the sauds are our friends I got 12 acres of swamp to sell ya. we have propped up the house of saud for over 50 years, in return they mostly keep the pipeline open.<br /> I have 2 predictions, one is now that Bush's handpicked puppet for Iraq has been dissmissed from parliment we will make sure the Iraqi situation is not allowed to stabilize until another puppet is in charge. number 2 is if number one fails and the Iraqis quit bickering among the parliment the first thing they will request, as a democratically elected govt, is that all US and coalition forces be withdrawn and the oil fields will be nationalized. <br /> here is the big question<br /> If the democratically elected govt of Iraq says you boys pack up the toys and leave what do we do ?

 

[dogsdad]

Re: troubling

So, rodbolt, you think we should have simply allowed the Soviets to expand their sphere of influence into the Middle East when the purpose was obviously to deprive the West of petroleum?<br /><br />Do I understand you to mean that once we back a certain individual, such as Saddam, we should back him indefinitely and unconditionally?<br /><br />So, the plan in Iraq is we are never going to leave, huh? I didn't know you were privy to such information, Mr. Secretary. Which department do you head up, anyway?<br /><br />You say "at this moment in history we have more convicted felons holding white house admin staff positions than any other point in history." Your source is---what, the Democratic Underground?? Provide CREDIBLE references, please.<br /><br />I am curious to know the lyrics to the anthem you surely sing or at least hum to yourself every morning. What are the words to "America, the Evil"?<br /><br />All you seem to be capable of is running America down. That kind of outlook and attitude sickens me.

 

[dogsdad]

Re: troubling

Besides, the topic is the Yalta Agreements and the end of World War II. How about sticking to the topic...or can you not open your mouth without barfing all your anti-American propaganda all over us?

 

[dogsdad]

Re: troubling

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> I was just curious what others think.<br /><br />BTW we did indeed back Castro, when he overthrew Batista. And yes I have a problem with Castro, but its been 50 years, and sanctions simply don't work. I think it is time to try a different strategy.<br /><br />And the mistakes I was refering to was not the mistake of invading Iraq for while I do think it a mistake, one can argue that it was not. The mistakes I was refering to was in how we handled post war Iraq, who even members of the administration, excluding the president, of course, considered the lack of proper planning and execution of it a mistake.

PW2, although I disagree with you in general, your comment is reasonable and defensible.<br /><br />I would respond that although there are admissions of mistakes in Iraq, we are still having successes and are achieving most objectives overall. Some campaigns are more successful than others, without a doubt, but we have rarely if ever mounted a flawless operation. Even Desert Storm, as spectacularly successful as it was, was flawed in that we had to go back a second time and finish the job (and I would blame that in part on our relaince upon and trust in the UN, and their failures, but that's another thread altogether).<br /><br /><br />-dd-

 

[Perfidiajoe]

Re: troubling

Almost 100% correct! Russia did not declare war on Japan until after the bomb. McCarther complained how they waited until after the war to declare, just to get in on the spoils. They tried to keep out of it w/ Japan, because they couldn't afford a two front war. They had no supply line to the east, only the trans siberian R.R., 6 day trip at best, & still they were remembering their defeat too Japan Before the War, where they lost their whole Eastern fleet save 1 ship! A forgone conclusion for the War w/ Japan, for us to be victorious, you bet. Until VE day we only devoted 10% of war resources to that theater of operation. After Germany fell, it would have been bloody, but there was no doubt we would win! & I still Don't remember us ever backing Castro

 

[MIKE F]

Re: troubling

I remember being in the 8th grade in a catholic school and praying for Castro. <br />I believe it wasn't very long after he took over that we found out about his brother Raoul (sp) and THEIR ties to communism.

 

[JB]

Re: troubling

Jeez!<br /><br />This thread started as just one more thin opportunity to take a cheap shot at W.<br /><br />Let him have his cheap shot. Churchill was right and he was wrong. We shoulda whipped them but we didn't have the resources to do it quick. <br /><br />Just one more left wing attempt to rewrite history.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: troubling

typical dogsdad<br /> lots of flame, blather, and drivel but he still has not answered a single question. I guess, like Hitler,Stalin and Mcarthy, its easier to rile the masses with rhetoric than discuss facts and look at past history. I am not priveledged to any info other than the history of the area and our govt in that area for the past 80 years or so. hasnt changed much and I suspect it wont. the soviets after the second surrender of germany, they were excluded from the first, had the japs very worried. the japanese did not want the russians anywhere near them and knew the end was at hand, the a bombs renfoced it but the russian threat finnished it off. <br /> as far as the Yalta agreements I think that churchill and Roovelt did what they could with what they had to work with. most nations had expended much of their raw materiels and manpower, the threat on the japanese front was still very real and we could not afford to attack the soviets at that point in history.<br /> the logistical nightmare of trying to conquer a land mass of that size was to great. to conquer you must occupy, it whooped Alexaanders arse and between that simple fact and the russiaan winters it most likly would have whooped the allieds arse. the aussies,canadians and most brits as well as the general american public did not want to prolong any war by attacking an ally. no matter how tenuous the alliegance. so I guess I will restate the question cause its along the same principle as the yalta agreement. if the democratically elected govt of a sovern nation asks the US to pack up its toys and leave do we leave or do we keep the region unstable until our installed puppet asks us to stay? a quite simple two part question. should not be a brain strain to answer.<br />if you want some eye opening reading look up Poindexter and abrhams to start with, then look up how many others that were either convicted or covered up after being implicated and you will see. its not democrats or republicans its public records but either way they now hold administrative positions.

 

[dogsdad]

Re: troubling

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> typical dogsdad<br /> lots of flame, blather, and drivel but he still has not answered a single question. I guess, like Hitler,Stalin and Mcarthy, its easier to rile the masses with rhetoric than discuss facts and look at past history. I am not priveledged to any info other than the history of the area and our govt in that area for the past 80 years or so. hasnt changed much and I suspect it wont. the soviets after the second surrender of germany, they were excluded from the first, had the japs very worried. the japanese did not want the russians anywhere near them and knew the end was at hand, the a bombs renfoced it but the russian threat finnished it off. <br /> as far as the Yalta agreements I think that churchill and Roovelt did what they could with what they had to work with. most nations had expended much of their raw materiels and manpower, the threat on the japanese front was still very real and we could not afford to attack the soviets at that point in history.<br /> the logistical nightmare of trying to conquer a land mass of that size was to great. to conquer you must occupy, it whooped Alexaanders arse and between that simple fact and the russiaan winters it most likly would have whooped the allieds arse. the aussies,canadians and most brits as well as the general american public did not want to prolong any war by attacking an ally. no matter how tenuous the alliegance. so I guess I will restate the question cause its along the same principle as the yalta agreement. if the democratically elected govt of a sovern nation asks the US to pack up its toys and leave do we leave or do we keep the region unstable until our installed puppet asks us to stay? a quite simple two part question. should not be a brain strain to answer.<br />if you want some eye opening reading look up Poindexter and abrhams to start with, then look up how many others that were either convicted or covered up after being implicated and you will see. its not democrats or republicans its public records but either way they now hold administrative positions.

Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />I'm sure all your sources are unbiased and credible since you are so willing to cite them. Yeah.

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: troubling

Hey hey...leave it to PW and Rodbolt to back Roosevelt and Stalin while trashing Churchill and W. They, like Roosevelt, call Stalin "Uncle Joe" and love Alger Hiss. McCarthy was right, the Venona Project proved that when it was released in the 1990's, but far be it for actual facts to have any impact the thoughts of these two luminaries.

 

[cbnoodles]

Re: troubling

Just try to do what I do when these guys (PW2 & Rodbolt) start yammering like this: stop reading.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: troubling

wow what a well thought out response. I bet my cats could do as well. I have posted the references. go look at the CIA sites on the library of congress. its public record. I never backed FDR nor stalin nor anyone else. some one apperently has a reading comprhension problem. thats ok the houston TX schools can fix it. and my question goes unanswed a third time. I guess I asked to deep a thought. churchill and FDR did what they could with what they had to work with at the time. with the war in Japan raging we could not afford a continued two front war. the brits would not, the aussies would not and the canadians would not. all were tired of the war in Europe. I personally think we should have kept going east but I understand the history of why we did not. unlike some I do enjoy reading thge historyt behind events rather than just the event. yet my simple question goes unanswered. I guess Ill try to break it down to a 3rd grade level

 

[dogsdad]

Re: troubling

I guess you're right, Noodles. However, I have been able to have a meaningful exchange with PW2 on occasion.<br /><br />But I will not give credence to the false premises of rodbolt's so called questions. There is a fencepost in my backyard that is a far more reasonable conversationalist.<br /><br /><br />-dd-