Block Out Another Member's Posts?

[Pat Speer]

Now here we've got side-tracked onto WW2. While its obvious U.S. financial prowess played a role in both defeating Hitler and re-building Europe, it's also obvious the U.S. was less than noble in its behavior. Many recent historians, revisionists I suppose, have asserted that the U.S. deliberately delayed D-Day while the Eastern front was raging, in hopes not only that the Germans would weaken themselves, but that the Soviets would pay a heavy price, and be less likely to parade across Europe after the war. Similar arguments have been raised about the U.S.' dropping of the bomb-that it wasn't done to force a Japanese surrender as much as it was done to scare the Russians. In the world of realpolitik, the motivations and actions of super powers are far from noble, and rarely understood on a wide level. As I said, Tim watched too many episodes of Death Valley Days and The Lone Ranger, but he's not alone. I'd wager that 75% of Americans believe the U.S. "saved the day" in both WW1 and WW2, and that as a result Europeans should kiss our butts and support our invasions, no matter how unnecessary.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

At the risk of repeating my polemic to the Lancer forum, I say the following I would support the removal of Tim Gratz from this forum. The reason is simply that I am convinced that Tim has no interest in solving the asassination of JFK. I offer the following from C.S. Peirce:

§4. The First Rule of Reason1

135. Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:

Do not block the way of inquiry.

136. Although it is better to be methodical in our investigations, and to consider the economics of research, yet there is no positive sin against logic in trying any theory which may come into our heads, so long as it is adopted in such a sense as to permit the investigation to go on unimpeded and undiscouraged. On the other hand, to set up a philosophy which barricades the road of further advance toward the truth is the one unpardonable offence in reasoning, as it is also the one to which metaphysicians have in all ages shown themselves the most addicted.

Let me call your attention to four familiar shapes in which this venomous error assails our knowledge:

137. The first is the shape of absolute assertion. That we can be sure of nothing

[Tim Gratz]

Responding to Mark's Post #30, I agree almost entirely with what he said.

My point is that it was through capitalism that the United States had produced the industrial plants, etc. that could be quickly converted to wartime use and the production of planes, ships, etc. Great Britain did not have that capacity. But Mark is right that when the United States military purchased planes and ships from the builders thereof that was not capitalism in the sense the products were not being sold to private consumers. But my point was that it was capitalism that put the US into the position to produce the ships and planes.

And I also agree with Anders that the Soviet military and with Robert that the Soviet population paid a heavy price and assisted in the defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front. But I do not think anyone can deny that the Nazis might not have been defeated but for the involvement of the United States of America.

Re Robert's point about what took the United States so long to get involved in the war, well I am sure he knows the history of the isolationist movement in the United States. One of the leading isolationists was, of course, Joseph P. Kennedy. I am not sure, however, what the issue of the internal US debate about entry into the war has to do with the point I made that it was capitalism that put the US in the position to supply the military equipment necessary to defeat the Nazis.

[David G. Healy]

Responding to Mark's Post #30, I agree almost entirely with what he said.

My point is that it was through capitalism that the United States had produced the industrial plants, etc. that could be quickly converted to wartime use and the production of planes, ships, etc.  Great Britain did not have that capacity.  But Mark is right that when the United States military purchased planes and ships from the builders thereof that was not capitalism in the sense the products were not being sold to private consumers.  But my point was that it was capitalism that put the US into the position to produce the ships and planes.

And I also agree with Anders that the Soviet military and with Robert that the Soviet population paid a heavy price and assisted in the defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front.  But I do not think anyone can deny that the Nazis might not have been defeated but for the involvement of the United States of America.

Re Robert's point about what took the United States so long to get involved in the war, well I am sure he knows the history of the isolationist movement in the United States.  One of the leading isolationists was, of course, Joseph P. Kennedy. I am not sure, however, what the issue of the internal US debate about entry into the war has to do with the point I made that it was capitalism that put the US in the position to supply the military equipment necessary to defeat the Nazis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was also capitalism that created the atmosphere in which Henry Ford became quite a backer for, who else? Aldolph Hitler -- Why does Fascism always come in ther flavor of MONEY? I suspect Joe Kennedy knew more than any other American as to what winds were blowing in Europe -- less of course William Dodd our ambassador to Berlin in the '30s...

What the Russians lose? 20+ million during WW2? I can just hear Truman calling Einsenhower-- "Dwight, the Red's earned the right - let Stalin do as he wishes with Berlin, we'll clean up the mess afterwards. Now, about the bomb...."

Edited August 1, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

A day or two ago John asked me:

Are you imposing a republic or democracy on Iraq?

From Yahoo news August 1, 2005:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Framers of Iraq's new constitution said Sunday they need more time to finish the document, a move that threatens the political momentum on which Washington has staked its strategy for drawing down forces from the country next year.

Well, John, I guess that definitively answers your question. The United States is letting the Iraquis frame their own constitution, which is of course the way it ought to be done.

Edited August 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Anders MacGregor-Thunell]

The United States is letting the Iraquis frame their own constitution, which is of course the way it ought to be done.

That would be the day. It would be very hard for the US capitalistic enterprises to get what they want in this region without a close US monitored Iraq government. You know that, but I do agree with you in your last comment - this is the way it should be done.

[Shanet Clark]

If you go to

My Controls

and then "click" on

Manage Ignored Users,

you can write in the name of a member.

Then that member's posts will all read only :

""You have chosen to ignore JOHN DOE View this post · Un-ignore JOHN DOE""

I have saved a lot of time today, and the make-up of this fine group

has a much better balance from this new perspective.

Hijacked threads, inane frustrating argumentation and escalating

difficulties are all now A THING OF THE PAST

and the ED FORUM is a joy to work with again.

SHANET CLARK

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Carroll wrote:

At the risk of repeating my polemic to the Lancer forum, I say the following I would support the removal of Tim Gratz from this forum. The reason is simply that I am convinced that Tim has no interest in solving the asassination of JFK.

How presumptuous. Because I do not follow the vast internal conspiracy favored by the majority of Forum members, I must not be interested in solving the assassination!

Well, if I think Fidel did it and would like to attempt to marshall evidence to prove that, that certainly means that I am interested in solving the assassination, even if the scenario I favor might not be correct. I mean, I could easily use turn-about and argue that those who propose a theory or scenario that I feel is not supported by the evidence must not be interested in solving the assassination.

Moreover, I have certainly indicated a willingness to pursue alternative theories.

There must be a reason why proponents of a vast conspiracy are so quick to make judgments about the sincerity of those holding opposing views. I have on this Forum occasionally questioned the judgment, logic or intelligence of some of the postings, but I do not recall ever impugning the sincerity of the person or persons posting arguments I consider weak.

As I have commented in another thread, Vincent Salandria has even accused those who disagree with him of engaging in criminal conduct, and no one but I seem to find such an argument "beyond the pale". But it surely is.

[Shanet Clark]

""You have chosen to ignore JOHN DOE View this post · Un-ignore JOHN DOE""

It is so SWEET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tim Gratz]

I've never even encountered any postings by a John Doe! I thought Forum members had to give their real name. John Doe must be John Deere.

[John Simkin]

I have collected up all these interesting comments about the United States and the Second World War and posted them on a new thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4577

This is now part of our History Debates section. This is used by students from all over the world. It helps them understand how history can be interpreted in different ways. I hope JFK members will participate in this and other debates in this section.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=202

Hopefully, I can persuade some of our Russian members to join in this discussion.

[Tim Gratz]

Good suggestion, John.

The history of the isolationist movement in the United States would, I suggest, make an interesting line of inquiry.

[Tim Gratz]

John asked me:

Are you imposing a republic or democracy on Iraq?

I found an article right on point!

Liberty, Not Democracy, In Iraq

by Robert Garmong (May 12, 2003)

Summary: America Should Insist on a Free Society, Not a Tyranny of the Majority

[www.CapMag.com] The bromide, often quoted today, that we have won the war but now we have to "win the peace," is meant to remind us that we have to turn from achieving our military goals to achieving our political goals in Iraq. But what if our political goals were such that accomplishing them would obliterate the meaning of our military victory? Such is the nature of the Bush administration's stated goal of bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

What Iraq needs is not democracy, but liberty.

"Democracy" is the most dangerous term in the American political lexicon. It has become a vague, warm-and-fuzzy label used to evoke the whole American system of government. Yet when America's Founders overthrew tyranny in this country, they emphatically rejected the notion of replacing it with another form of tyranny. For this reason, they expressly rejected democracy.

"Democracy," they recognized, actually means unlimited majority rule. If two men on a desert island vote to cannibalize the third, that is democracy. So it was when citizens of Athens, history's first democracy, voted to execute Socrates. And so it was when the German public voted for the Nazi Party. Democracy is not a system of liberty, but a form of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority.

Our Founders called the American system a "republic": a representative government limited by a constitution that protects the rights of the individual. Although the citizens of a republic vote for their leaders, voting is just a means to the end of protecting liberty. No matter what the people may wish their government to do, the Constitution is clear: Congress may pass no law that violates the rights of the individual. Such restrictions are codified in the Bill of Rights, the wall that protects our liberty from the whims of the majority.

Yet the tyranny of the majority is precisely what the Bush administration is pledging to leave behind in Iraq. Speaking to a group of Iraqi exiles, President Bush insisted that "America has no intention of imposing our form of government or culture" on Iraq. Administration officials have repeatedly stressed that the form of Iraq's new government is to be determined by the Iraqi people, with the only goal being that it is "democratic." Whatever the Iraqi majority demands, it will get.

A hallmark of democracy is pressure-group warfare, as each group seeks to claim the status of a majority and exploit all the rest. Iraqis have already begun forming up into ethnic and religious groups, each struggling to displace other groups from its traditional territory, each demanding the right to a share of "the people's" oil money. And every day, Iranian-backed religious leaders--with support from Iraqi Shiites--are extending their power and influence, positioning themselves to control the new, "democratic" Iraq.

It is too soon to predict the details, but we can already see in outline what form of tyranny Iraq's Shiite majority might choose. Clerics have begun strident calls for an Islamic state, and in a grim reminder of what that means, art studios and theaters have received warnings from Shiite clerics that they are to be shut down and converted to religious schools.

Some commentators argue that the relatively secular Iraqi culture will not opt for a full-fledged theocracy like Iran's. Perhaps--but leaving the issue to be decided by unlimited majority rule could be America's most deadly mistake. Yet 62 percent of respondents to a recent ABC News poll said America should support an Islamic fundamentalist state in Iraq, if it gains power by "democratic" vote.

Leaving such a democracy in Iraq would be a betrayal of every value we sought to gain in this war. The essential evil of Saddam's Baathist ideology was its collectivism, the view that the "Arab Nation" is supreme and that the rights and interests of the individual may be sacrificed in service to its dictates. It makes no difference, in principle, if this "collective will" is divined by the edicts of a dictator or by majority vote--so long as the rights of the individual may still be sacrificed.

Anything-goes democracy in Iraq could be an even greater threat to American interests than the regime we have spent so much blood and money to topple. It is vitally important that our leaders make clear that they are attempting to leave behind a system of liberty, not democracy, in Iraq. It would be obscene to spend American lives to establish such a profoundly anti-American idea as the tyranny of the majority.

About the Author: Robert Garmong, Ph.D. is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA.

Edited August 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[David G. Healy]

[...]

As I have commented in another thread, Vincent Salandria has even accused those who disagree with him of engaging in criminal conduct, and no one but I seem to find such an argument "beyond the pale".  But it surely is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"...engaging in criminal activity...", now why did Vince say that? Perhaps its true? Why are YOU so sure, it's "beyond the pale"...

You know, Confusious once said: "if one is going to step on ones dick - one might want to take off ones 'golf shoes'." They do have golf courses in the keyes don't they?

Edited August 1, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

David wrote:

You know, Confusious once said: "if one is going to step on ones dick - one might want to take off ones 'golf shoes'." They do have golf courses in the keyes don't they?

The Lun Yu contains the 499 wise sayings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who was born about 550 BC. The above quote is not in the Lun Yu.

I have no idea who this Confusious character is whom you claim to quote. Nor do I care to imagine the contortions a man would have to go through to step on his male organ.

As to the "Nation" being criminal, perhaps you are right. I think Victor Navasky did it! JFK was far too conservative for Navasky and his fellow lefties at "The Nation". It is no wonder they still support the cover-up!

Edited August 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz