JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

lid (John Savard) wrote in
:

That China doesn't share America's democratic values is borne out by
the fate of Tibet. (That is, the democratic values of the America of
today and at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, before anyone makes
wisecracks about the fate of Native Americans...)

If Quebec had won the referendum years ago... do you think Ottawa would
have let them become independent?

Somehow I doubt it.
--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

If Quebec had won the referendum years ago... do you think Ottawa would
have let them become independent?

Somehow I doubt it.

Would they have fought a civil war to keep PQ in the confederation? I doubt
*that*.

The UN is hardly a neutral party.

Most convicted prisoners would hardly call the system a neutral party.

Find one that works and all will agree to. I'm sure they'd give you
the Nobel Peace Prise Rand.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

Applause!

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler. Whether
it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

In article , B. Isaksen wrote:
No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler.
Whether it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.

Well, I suppose a lot of the naval equipping in the Pacific was involved
with mantaining the rather expensive base there, but the US was
certainly "arming up" before anyone got round to paying it an
early-morning visit.

I commend the Lend-Lease Act (March 1941) to your attention,
specifically Section 3 (a) (1):

"To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their
jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds are
made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from time to time
by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the government of any
country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the
United States."

and meditate on which countries recieved "defense articles" under this
Act. It may be observed that many or most of them were, at the time,
engaged in shooting wars with a certain large Central European country.
I know you may have other definitions, but passing a bill which
allocates $16bn in current dollars to manufacturing war materials for
fighting Hitler may, just may, count as "arming up".

Even after Pearl Harbor, you may want to consider the "Germany First"
policy; I know it is hard for us enlightened modern students of history
to comprehend how flagrantly FDR could hoodwink the nation, sending
troops to Europe mere days after the country had been brutally attacked
in the Pacific, but we must face these demons.

--
-Andrew Gray

In article ,
B. Isaksen wrote:
No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler. Whether
it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.

You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.

The US oppinion did'nt want to interfere in the "European confict",
and only a "leasing deal" kept GB floating. In fact it has been
roumored that the ships were consentrated at PH to make it a tempting
carrot for the Japanese in order to turn public opinion.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

(B. Isaksen) wrote in message . com...

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.

The Selective Service Act was signed on September 16, 1940. Over a
year before the US entered the war they had started up the draft. They
were certainly arming up for someone.

Not that the US was particularly praiseworthy for doing so, it was
really more of a lucky geographical accident that the US was so
isolated from any serious danger (and no, Canada doesn't count). Other
countries had run drafts in peacetime as a matter of course (and still
do).

Chris Manteuffel

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
B. Isaksen wrote:

No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler. Whether
it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.


You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.



Even more indicative, the US had already adopted a "Hitler-First"
strategy by mid-June 1941 when it was quite apparent that the
US was going to be involved in the war.