UPDATE: The magisterial Thomas Sowell has more serious criticisms of the Messiah. “What he proposes under the guise of change has been tried for more than two decades between the two world wars, and it failed –- disastrously! -- and helped to bring on the Second World War.” [Hat tip Jason Q]
10 comments:
Barack O'Prompter.
Ergo, the man does not speak per se, he merely relays information.
Watch that video.
Sowell is asked, what about the view that , oh, it's a good thing those leftists get in and in a couple of years discredit themselves then the Republicans can resume control. He says people said that about Hitler in the 30s. But there is such a thing as a point of no return. And clearly believes Obama is taking America there. A man who believes he can change the world is far, far more dangerous than a few crooked politicians.
If I wasn't already, now I am very, very worried about the States. The last sentence from Sowell is very sobering.
Whilst I found this story amusing and I am NO fan of Obama and definately agree that Lindsay's point is well taken, I have to concede that the man can orate.
Even with the words handy, most fail to to deliver an 'Obama' when they engage in public speaking.
It's patently stupid to draw comparisons between anything Obama might or might not propose and the onset of WWII.
WWII was caused by the fucking Nazis (nobody calls them 'Germans' any more do they?) and the Italians with their desire to take over Europe and probably the world, helped by the Japs who had the same aspirations fuelled by rabid psycho-religious mania.
Thomas Sowell. Idiot.
If you make any argument that requires the premise that Thomas Sowell is an idiot, then it's a clear sign you need to check your premises.
Dave
It is not patently stupid to draw such comparisons as Sowell is doing. You are right that the Nazis / Italian fascists/ imperial Japanese started WW2 but don't forget the massive role allied appesement played in aiding the process.
The point Sowell is making is that to appese Iran today as Obama seems to be doing is comprable to the craven cowardice shown by Chamberlain and the other european leaders appeseing Hitler right up to the point of handing him the Sudetenland while the Czech envoys were shut out of the meeting.
You may debate if this is a good comparison or not based on historical circumstance but I fail to see the justification to call it 'idiotic'.
The teleprompter thing really could have won the election for the republicans, it's that big a deal.
Dave Mann
Actually the Nazis did not start WW2 alone, so, strictly speaking, your statement is false. They WERE plannning to start a European war in 1945, but that isn't saying the same thing. Anyway, matters came to a head well before 1945. Nevertheless it was not the intent of the Nazi government to start the fighting until they were ready, which was to be during 1945.
There are several recent books available which review the actual causes of WW2. Also to be recommended are the recently published archive material from various European, US and UK governments. All worth reading, should you be interested in seeking out what the causes of the war really were.
In essence, elements within the British and the USA govts had interest in (and needed to have) hostilities breaking out far sooner than 1945. For example, they acted to frustrate negotiations being concluded between the Nazis and the Polish govt of the time. Their actions resulted a new Polish administration which negated the agreement already reached with the Nazis. This, in turn, resulted in the Nazis setting forth on an alternative plan; a plan to invade Poland.
The Nazis did a deal with the Soviets to partition Poland 50-50. The Nazis were relying on intelligence information that suggested the Brits and French would not come to the aid of Poland. This was erroneous. That information was provided to them from sources within MI5.
To cut a long story short, the Nazis AND the Soviets invaded Poland. The British Government declared War on the Nazi German government but not the Soviet Russian one (one wonders why that was). Similarly the French declared war and on it went from there. The point to understabnd is that the Nazis (while evil) were not THE cause of hostilities breaking out in WW2.
BTW the Italian Facist govt joined the war well after it had started. They did not cause it.
As for the Japanese: Their military attacked Pearl Harbour after a consistently applied US govt policy of provocation resulted in a situation where they had only a few months supply of steel and oil remaining. The policy was initiated at the instruction of the President, after he had been advised that it would indeed provoke Japan to hostilities. It worked exactly as intended.
The causes of WW2 are somewhat more involved than what you have represented on this occasion.
Conclusion: Rather than casting aspersions regarding Mr Sowell it would pay for your to get your facts straight.
LGM
LGM: The Japanese kicked off hostilities in China in 1933, well before the Americans had any chance to provoke anything. Pearl Harbour merely expanded a war that was already well underway.
TWR
"The Japanese kicked off hostilities in China in 1933, well before the Americans had any chance to provoke anything."
Not quite right. There is more to the story.
The USA govt had an agreement in place with the Japanese govt. Under the terms of that arrangement the Japanese govt had been granted a free hand in China and Mongolia. The provocations started when the US govt reneged on the arrangements previously agreed to.
A peace deal had been brokered between the Japanese and Russian Governments by none other than Teddy Roosevelt (ex-president of the USA). Teddy represented the US govt as envoy and received a Nobel Prize for his "efforts for peace".
Japan had been in occupation of Port Arthur, which was Russian territory. Although holding the advantage the Japanese did not want to continue to prosecute the war (it was expensive and draining of precious resources quickly, apart from which the Japanese couldn't possibly deliver a definative knock out blow against Russia- that would have probably required an invasion of Moscow!). There was an unstable stalemate.
Teddy's deal was that the Japanese should vacate Port Arthur and return it to the Russians. The Russians were to sign a peace treaty with the Japanese wherein neither side would invade the other's territory again. Henceforth each would respect the territoriality of the other. Now how would this be in the interests of the Japanese you may wonder. They would be giving up hard-won military gains for what? Goodwill? A promise?
Well, there was a side deal to sweaten things. The terms of that deal were that Japan would be granted a recognised "sphere of influence" within which they would be entitled to act without interference- China and Mongolia. At the insistence of the US the Russians agreed not to object or involve themselves in the Japanese "sphere". The US govt got a "commission" for setting the arrangement in place. They obtained a recognised "sphere of influence" as well- the Phillipines.
All parties to the agreements were pleased at the outcome. Russia regained lost territory from Japan and ended a difficult, expensive and unpopular war. Japan got security from Russia and gained an important strategic goal (a "living space" in the West). The US got a free hand to consolidate its interests in a colony. Pretty immoral stuff really, but much the normal behaviour to be expected from a gang of statist thugs carving up as loot other people's lives, resources, property and wealth.
You are corect that the Japanese invaded China (and initiated a series of sickening atrocities). The point is that they understood that they had an agreed right to so do, free of interference from outside. When the US govt reneged on their arrangement, objected to Japanese actions within the "sphere" and started applying sanctions, that was viewed as serious provocation, which is what it was intended to be. It worked. The Japanese responded.
LGM
Post a Comment