Terrorist attacks in London

[Evel_Penivel]

sourkraut said:

 

 

Justice for what?

In general terms relating to the holocaust, or specifically the despicable treatment of jewish refugees by the US during the war ...

 

I certainly agree the U.S. treatment of Jewish refugees was despicable, but it was still much better than the policies of many other countries. Can you tell me which country had a more generous policy towards Jewish refugees than the U.S.?

 

Between 1933 and 1939, about 300,000 Jews emigrated from Germany and roughly one third, or 95,000, were allowed into the U.S. Between the outbreak of WWII and U.S. entry into the war in Dec. 1941, another 30,000 were allowed in the U.S. After the war, between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. accepted 400,000 displaced persons, of which about 80,000 were Holocaust survivors.

 

There was a great deal of anti-semitism in the U.S. during those years, but that was true of all countries. While recognizing that anti-semitism was a problem in the U.S., Jewish organizations of the time considered the U.S. and U.K. to be among the least anti-semitic.

 

Prior to WWII, the U.S., like most other countries, had a quota on immigration. Prior to 1942, the quota on combined immigration from Germany and Austria was 27,500 a year. When Nazi oppression began, many thousands more Germans and Austrians, Jewish and non-Jewish, applied to enter the U.S. The famous incidents, such as the refusal of the U.S. to allow the German emigrants on the passenger ship St. Louis to disembark, was based on the belief they were trying to "jump the immigration queue." There was strong opposition in Congress and the State Department to increasing the quota - that was the tragic part. Because the Western democracies had failed collectively to protect European Jews, it pointed to the need for a Jewish homeland as the last line of defense against any future such attempts to wipe out Jews.

 

Truman was indeed ashamed of the U.S. record on Jewish emigration and reversed Roosevelt's stance on a Jewish homeland. He also stood against opposition from the U.S. State Dept. and military generals, as well as some influential politicians and business leaders, on the recognition of Israel. After WWII, mostly in response to the awful reality of the Holocaust, popular opinion in the U.S. strongly favored Israel.

[ALHOLK]

Hi!

 

For some strange reason, Bush thinks democracy is what the ME needs to become a stable region.

 

I tend to agree with you here. My problem is that the aforementioned democracy is not the kind that I live in. American democrasy to me is - do as we democratic Americans say or we will send in our soldiers to kill you. Do you remeber the school children that wer killed on the first days of occupation because they were demonstrating against the invasion forces.

 

I remeber the first invasion which was more justified than the second as Sadam had invaded Kuwait. There were intervues on TV with various American brass. The generals and politicians spoke lengthy rants about democracy. Basically a joke when it came to Kuwait. Then they intervied a colonel that was actually going there. His answer was - "If the Iraqi had brocolli instead of oil we wouldn't send a single American soldier there."

 

regards

 

ALHOLK

[ALHOLK]

The guy seems like a person who has given himself a religious mission of sorts.

 

Which is what makes him dangerous.

[Zorro]

"I remeber the first invasion which was more justified than the second as Sadam had invaded Kuwait. There were intervues on TV with various American brass. The generals and politicians spoke lengthy rants about democracy. Basically a joke when it came to Kuwait. Then they intervied a colonel that was actually going there. His answer was - "If the Iraqi had brocolli instead of oil we wouldn't send a single American soldier there."

 

 

100 percent on the money.....

 

Kuwait was a buffer state set up by the Brits i think and if you look at it historically was actually part of Iraq.

 

So Saddam had some legitimacy in invading Kuwait.

Again the Americans went in to safeguard their oil interests.

Saudi arabia was also threatened and the protection they recieved from the US again was to preserve US oil interests.

 

And Saudi and Kuwait are about as far as you can get from democracies by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You don't see the US rushing into the other say 140 countries in the world that don't have democracy because it is not in their political or more importantly economic interests to do so.

[Guest]

Evel_Penivel said:

 

 

Between 1933 and 1939, about 300,000 Jews emigrated from Germany and roughly one third, or 95,000, were allowed into the U.S. Between the outbreak of WWII and U.S. entry into the war in Dec. 1941, another 30,000 were allowed in the U.S. After the war, between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. accepted 400,000 displaced persons, of which about 80,000 were Holocaust survivors.

 

 

 

 

Rather accurate numers.

Between 1933 and 1945 roughly 320.000 people immigrated into the US from Europe, a bit more than 160.000 of them jews. From the whole of eastern Europe only 51 647 people were allowed to immigrate into the US.

In comparism Switzerland, about 100 times smaller than the US has taken a far larger pecentage of refugees, 40.000, out of which 20.000 were jewish.

In 1939 the magazine 'fortune' held an opinion poll - 83% of Americans were against allowing jewish refugees into the US.

 

Nevertheless, these numers still do not take into account the so far largely unpunished collaboration of US industrialists and bankers with the Nazi party starting from the '20s, and the arming of Nazi Germany, a far deeper and more active involvement than the often cited appeasement policy of Chamberlain.

 

The relevance to the topic of this discussion: US involvement with islamic terrorists based on Wahabitism, with dictators such as Saddham Hussain, with the Taleban went along very similar lines. As the Nazis were bankrolled out of the US, present terrorists were initially trained, armed and financed by the US (and their partner Saudi Arabia).

As the US has profited from its collaboration with the nazis, and then by winning the war against the nazis, it has profited by building up this particular brand of islamic terrorism and Saddham Hussain, and now from fighting that 'war against terror'.

As involvement of keyindustrialists and bankers with the nazis were swept under the table, similar involvement with 'terrorists' is hidden from the American masses by blatant propaganda.

 

The result: more than 2000 dead American soldiers (numbers growing), somewhere between 100.000 and 200.000 dead Iraqis and Afghanis (not counting the millions who died during the US support of Saddham and the islamic fighters in Afghanisthan, and spin off conflicts such as Kashmir). Rising profits of Halliburton and Carlyle Group.

Now, can you tell me when (and how) the slaughter will finally stop?

[AF16]

chocolat steve said:

ALHOLK said:

Hi!

 

 

Are you suggesting that Iraqi oil had nothing to do with it. If so why were the French and Russian oil comapanies not alowed to keep their perfectly legal contracts.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK

 

Very few wars are based on one sole thing, but I'm suggesting that oil wasn't the primary reason. It plays a part, no doubt. Its secondary or tertiary.

 

I don't think Bush and his cronies sat around and said 'hmm, we want to Iraqi oil. Lets make up a phoney excuse so we can invade it and take over the oil wells'. For some strange reason, Bush thinks democracy is what the ME needs to become a stable region. We can disagree with his perception but the point is I don't think oil is the reason he went in.

 

Again you can find the answers in the papers of the think thank 'project for a new Amercian century' where almost all importaint men behind Bush write that they should use military force to take controll over ME oil, the only threat to US survival in their estimate. Democracy is viewed as a handy tool in that regard.

 

It's easeir for the US to controll a democratic nation than a dictatorship. In the case that a dictatorship serves the interests better, like in Pakistan, that is prefered.

 

Oil is the direct reason, wars and democracy is the means. (read - PNAC documents - it's not a secret)

[MaiLuk]

ML said: The US insists on a multi lateral approach to the N Korean nuclear issue even though the N Koreans have repeatedly requested one on one talks. The US did enlist an assortment of allies in the iraq expedition including Norway. The US is working multilatterally on hundreds of issues worldwide.

 

AND the US has also acted unilatterally on SOME issues. So what would a reasonable person with an objective viewpoint conclude from this? Obviously that the US acts multilatterally on the vast majority of world issues but on some issues they have acted unilatterally.

 

What does an idealogue conclude? The US acts unilatterally. Period.

 

AL said: Not on some issues, on all major issues. The US can not afford taking on North Korea. They might have nukes, they are in Chinas back yard, and there is no oil. Then working with others are fine.

 

In Iraq, one wither was with the US or against, untill the war were a fact, then the US went multilateral and wanted everyone to share the bill, while the US controlled everyting. PS that's not mulilateral that's unilateralism.

 

 

 

Even if i were to accept your charecterization of the iraq coalition as being unilateral, that is only one example. One act of unilateralism does not a unilateral foreign policy make. The US State Dept is thoroughly busy i can assure you making unilateral agreements by the boat load. And the Korea approach is multilateral (and their being a good reason for it to be multilateral does not change it into unilateral, unless you are an idealogue ) I hope you don't think i'm flaming here i enjoy our debate tho we cannot agree.

 

But I still say you take the idealogical approach:

 

PS that's not mulilateral that's unilateralism.

 

::

[MaiLuk]

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Evel_Penivel said:

Truman told his cabinet, "I will handle this problem not in the light of oil, but in the light of justice."

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Justice for what?

In general terms relating to the holocaust, or specifically the despicable treatment of jewish refugees by the US during the war (many of them sent back into the camps, german-jewish bank accounts and assets frozen as money from enemy countries, later on used partly to give as reparation for war damages to companies such as Ford)?

 

 

Khun Krout: I will grant you that antisemitism was rampant. So you can say that the US was wrong because of its antisemitism. But when it is pointed out the US did the right thing being the first nation to recognize the new state of israel and you say "The US was wrong" by bringing up the prior antisemitism it becomes clear that you are not going to ever agree that the US did something that was right. Another black and white viewpoint, with the US always in the dark part?

[MaiLuk]

It's easeir for the US to controll a democratic nation than a dictatorship.

 

Ha Ha Ha!! I'm not laughing at you, i'm laughing because we are in complete agreement. I believe some people may be unaware of just how thoroughly special interests control a democracy especially in a large country where its not possible for voters to keep track of everytthing the national gov't is doing.

 

There is an interesting development in iraq however. The shiites, kurds and the US want power to be at the local level rather than the federal level. The sunnis want power to be at the federal level and this is the big divisive issue over how to draft the constitution.

 

I don't know why the US wants power at the local level i have not been keeping up with events.

[Guest]

MaiLuk said:

 

Khun Krout: I will grant you that antisemitism was rampant. So you can say that the US was wrong because of its antisemitism. But when it is pointed out the US did the right thing being the first nation to recognize the new state of israel and you say "The US was wrong" by bringing up the prior antisemitism it becomes clear that you are not going to ever agree that the US did something that was right. Another black and white viewpoint, with the US always in the dark part?

 

 

 

No need to "grant" me anything. I would prefer that instead of empty blather accusing me of simplistic anti-americanism you would support your not so challenging points with facts and numbers.