Did Roosevelt die of Cancer?

[KitemanSA]

Old Soviet Riddle:

Q: "What is the most dangerous job in the USSR?"
A: "Historian, because it is impossible to predict the past!"

Keep dreaming the impossible dream, folks!

[Diogenes]

Actually, I allege that a League of Nations as conceived by Wilson would have greatly reduced the severity of WWII. But because the US did not participate it was led by countries that had daily reminders of the war. Had the US been there to lead the League of Nations we would not be as likely to be as harsh to Germany and would be less concerned about standing up to Hitler (or the like) when he came to power. By refusing to participate the Repubs made sure we had no influence on the world stage.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the league of Nations could have taken decisive action and compelled several major military powers to do it's bidding. You know, the way the Modern U.N. is constantly standing up against aggressive Nations and Human rights violators like China, North Korea, Sudan, Iran, etc.

Given all the wonderful successes of the United Nations past achievements, it is axiomatic that it's predecessor could have prevented World War II by making the winning allies be nice to their defeated foe.


*I* on the other hand, think that if Woodrow Wilson had kept his campaign pledge, (you know, the stuff he said to get elected like "He kept us out of war." ) then Britain and France would have been unable to achieve anything more than a stalemate, and Germany would never have gone into the social upheaval that produced the Third Reich.

Actually, essentially all the BASIC research for every major advance was financed by the government. Polywell is an EXCELLENT example. It is a concept with a huge upside. However the only funding EMC2 seems to get is Navy.

Centrally planned economies (which is different than socialism) is exceptional at accomplishing specific, relatively short term goals...including Rocket development or Manhattan projects or even killing people...Centrally planned economies have the issue of not having the long term resources since they aren't dynamic enough. Capitalism suffers from permanent indecision which can be just as detrimental to advancement.

Not sure what to make of what you have written here. Capitalism and indecision are simply two concepts I wouldn't have put together. Markets move quickly, and entrepreneurs are anything but indecisive. I would put the not making up your mind meme onto the government.


In any case, in the test tube of history, the migration of people seem to be in the direction of Capitalism, and away from the direction of Stat-ism. (except here in the USA. We're so spoiled we're becoming silly.) I just read an article yesterday about a man who has spent the last year touring China, and notices that he can't find a communist anywhere. (by that, he means a true believer.)

[D Tibbets]

Concerning M. Simon's responce to my post. . Yes there was a widely based impression that Saddam had WMD stockpiled, and he may have. If so they have been very well hidden, because there was an intense effort to find them. I suspect that if there were any, they are now resting in Syria. But, I speculate tha Sadam dismantled or destroyed them, excepy for some carefully hidden biologicals if he ever had them. It would only take a few weeks to start building up stockpiles. Afterall, once you have the recipies, it would not take much in terms of hospital/ university labs and chemical plants (convient insecticide plants) to recover the capacity. But the claimes of yellowcake aquasition was a fabrication, and there was suppresion of opposing views- smear campain against the ambassadors wife, and and elimination of the Phil Donahue show that did not toe the line. I remember the televised testimony that Colan Powell made to Congress. I was surprised that the only evidence of current WMD activity was the bulldozing of some dirt around a bunker, and possibly the mention of the fradulant yellowcake aquisition. The implications that Sadam was linked to Al Queada were convient , but unproven claims. And yes, the Congress failed in it's oversight responsibilities, and the media especially failed in it's role.

I believe (an openion) that the Bush White House was determined to finish the job against Sadam, and used the outrage against Al Queada as the excuse. I personally have mixed feelings about the need to take out Sadam. But, I'm unhappey that the needed effort to take out Al Queada was put on the back burner while the adventure in Iraq was persued.

Dan Tibbets

[Diogenes]

Sorry. Double Post. My internet failed as I was saving, and I wasn't sure if it saved. So I saved again, just to be sure. (wouldn't want to lose any of my words of wisdom you know. )

[Diogenes]

Are you saying they should have meddled in Europe's affairs to undo the damage caused by Wilson's meddling ? And because they didn't They are to blame ?

Had the Euros been amenable it would have been good for the US to get involved. And yes. The withdrawal from the world was a big error.

Proof of that is that since the USA began peacekeeping in the world the world has become a more peaceful place overall.

Well I suppose that assessment would depend on whether or not you view it as the Duty of Americans to poke their noses into other nations business.

What part of the United States constitution urges us to meddle in the affairs of other countries ?
Yeah, I understand the Military benefit of having allies, and helping allies, and making allies etc. I likewise understand that the USA has interests in the goings on in other countries, but it often looks to me that some of the Global Military advocates are stretching the "Provide for the common defense" clause, Just as badly as the liberals stretch the "Promote the General Welfare" clause.

On first look, it appears to me that if we had stayed out of World War I, Germany, France, and Britain would have fought to a stalemate. Then what ? Armistice anyways?

As much as I regret the losses of human lives which would have been the results of a prolonged war, I believe our first duty is to our own countrymen, and not those of Foreign nations.

The European Belligerents started that war themselves, the USA had nothing to do with it. All we did was make it possible for one side to beat and then punish the other.

As the aftermath and subsequent result was World War II, and the horrors unleashed as a result. (Atomic Bombs, ICBMs, MAD, etc.) I cannot see how anyone would think not taking the opposite approach (not intervening.) could possibly have created a worse result.

What could have been worse than what we ended up with?

[MSimon]

But the claimes of yellowcake aquasition was a fabrication, and there was suppresion of opposing views- smear campain against the ambassadors wife, and and elimination of the Phil Donahue show that did not toe the line.

Joe Wilson lied. Flat. Out. Lied. There were discussions. Nothing came of it. There were other countries in Africa.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110006955

And Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/ ... ellow.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/12/ ... again.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

Who knew the colored glass business was that big in Iraq under Saddam?

===

Phil Donahue ratings were tanking. No advertising = no show.

But I loved his interview with Ayn Rand. He was shocked at the thought that people should run their own lives. Gave me a good larf.

[D Tibbets]

...
Phil Donahue ratings were tanking. No advertising = no show...

Not quite the situation, but closer than my impression. A link that (perhaps) sheds some light on the process-

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... _donahue_1

Dan Tibbets

[MSimon]

...
Phil Donahue ratings were tanking. No advertising = no show...

Not quite the situation, but closer than my impression. A link that (perhaps) sheds some light on the process-

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... _donahue_1

Dan Tibbets

Interesting that the networks were trying to appeal to their market. Too bad they were so inept. As soon as the war started to go bad they were working a new demographic. For three years they have been cheer leading for Dr. Utopia. Now that the polls are shifting to the right the Nets will follow. How do you get an audience to trust you if you are always blowing in the wind?