Europe is becoming NAZI

[Az]

What Germany experienced in the '30's seems the inevitable consequence of universal health care.

[BeBMan]

Universal health care makes teh NAZI?



Then it should be not only health care but HEALTH CARE!!!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Elok, I think we do things a little differently today. We get both Congressional and UN approval, then issue an ultimatum. That, BTW, is somewhat how WWI started, of course, without the UN part.

Ugh! What you'em mean by WE white man? Show me the UN approval behind the war in Iraq.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Saying someone likes the NAZI's implies that they like everything about them. That is the problem with the slur, of course.

But one thing is clear, conservatives like Limbaugh do not like the neo-NAZIsm of the Church of England.

I express concern that universal health care will inevitably lead to the same "cost saving" culture where cost to society is a factor in life and death decisions.

What I'm driving at is that the OP includes 2 seperate statements from the bishop about the role of cost consideration as a factor in making a decision on the continuation of medical support to deformed infants. On the one hand there is a refference to considering the question of the justice,or lack thereof, regarding the expenditure of X sums of money to continue one life. OTOH there is an admonition by the bishop about including cost as a factor to consider? Is one of those state,ments his true position and the other simply an arguemnt he put forth in the course of his argumewnt? Is this a case similar to the recent controversy over the Pope's speech in Germany, where something which offended a particular group was mentioned in the course of discussion then was ripped out of context by the media?

Is the relationship between liberal Christians and conservatives simlar to that between Christians and Islamic radical jihadists respectively?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You make it sound as though "quitting" the war in China would have been an easy thing for the Japanese to do. Surely an American should be freshly aquainted with just how difficult quitting a war can be...

Drake, how true this is. But there is more. It appears that negotiations had reached a point where there was going to be a 3-month halt in the embargo and further discussions about the Japanese status in Manchuria - Japan had apparently agreed to withdraw from China itself. But then FDR, on Nov. 26th, issued an edict that all but terminated negotiations. The Japanese interpreted this as a clear signal that FDR had decided on war.

"The U.S., alarmed by the march of Japan's Imperial Army through Asia, had imposed an oil embargo on the nation and told it to get out of China, among other things. Togo had sent a conciliatory rebuttal, known as the "Five Points Plan," offering some concessions and seeking to continue discussions.

Japan knew from the decoded cables that the U.S. had been seriously considering some of the compromises. But on Nov. 26, 1941, the Americans stunned Japan with a hard-line edict essentially ordering Tokyo's troops to get out of China and Indochina or face the consequences. This apparently convinced even Togo that the U.S. had decided on war.

Many historians have speculated that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was looking for an excuse to get into the war in Europe; they posit that he knew Japan would attack but thought the target might be American forces in the Philippines or instead perhaps Malaya, then a British colony, which would prompt the U.S. to come to the aid of its ally.

The newly revealed documents raise an interesting question, Minohara says. Had the American side accepted the compromises it was considering—lifting the oil embargo for three months, permitting Japanese troops to remain in Indochina and continuing discussions on Japan's occupation of Manchuria—would Tokyo have still gone through with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?

Japan's war vessels had long before set sail for the Pacific, and the command "Climb Mt. Itaka" meant for Japanese troops to go forward with the attack on Pearl Harbor; but there was also a lesser-known command, "Climb Mt. Tsukuba," which meant return.

"The big question is why the U.S. dropped the offer," says Minohara, 30, who did undergraduate work at UC Davis before moving to Japan for graduate school at Kobe University, where he now teaches.

Togo wrote in his memoirs that, when he read the edict from the U.S., "I was shocked to the point of dizziness. At this point, we had no choice but to take action."

Historians often wondered why he was so shocked. Minohara says Togo's raised expectations that a deal was in the offing led to his anger.

Thomas G. Mahnken, a strategy professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island who recently completed a book on U.S. intelligence on Japan in the years before World War II, says the knowledge that Japan was breaking the codes is "significant."

Then again, Mahnken notes, the U.S. diplomatic telegrams "were not tremendously sophisticated," and a number of countries had even broken those used by military attaches.

Neither Japan nor the U.S. had broken the other's military codes prior to Pearl Harbor, Minohara says.

Japanese historians often claim that the U.S. misinterpreted some of the country's telegrams—for instance, that Togo's "Five Points Plan" was translated as a "final offer" when Togo never said that.

Minohara says the Japanese "were doing the same thing. Even though there was no error in the translations, they were still misinterpreting the U.S.' intentions."

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/diploma4.htm

[Jon Miller]

Do you not like USes actions durring WW2 purely because FDR was democrat?

JM

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Ugh! What you'em mean by WE white man? Show me the UN approval behind the war in Iraq.

Reprhase: Attempt to get?

After all, Clinton ingored both the UN and the US Congress when it was clear that he could get neither to approve the war on Serbia. The difference between Clinton and Bush was that Bush at least tried with the UN and did get US Congressional approval.

But, of course, as we all know, Bush is always wrong and Clinton always right, by definintion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


What I'm driving at is that the OP includes 2 seperate statements from the bishop about the role of cost consideration as a factor in making a decision on the continuation of medical support to deformed infants. On the one hand there is a refference to considering the question of the justice,or lack thereof, regarding the expenditure of X sums of money to continue one life. OTOH there is an admonition by the bishop about including cost as a factor to consider? Is one of those state,ments his true position and the other simply an arguemnt he put forth in the course of his argumewnt? Is this a case similar to the recent controversy over the Pope's speech in Germany, where something which offended a particular group was mentioned in the course of discussion then was ripped out of context by the media?

Is the relationship between liberal Christians and conservatives simlar to that between Christians and Islamic radical jihadists respectively?

I am sure the cost argument is going to seem a little too "inhumane." So those who are concerned about cost are going to mask their arguments in more benign terms, such as "quality of life."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Do you not like USes actions durring WW2 purely because FDR was democrat?

JM

The victors write history, Jon. In the case of WWII, that history was written by the USSR, Britain and the US. It takes some time and disclosure of classified documents to uncover the truth.

In the last decade or so, there has been much disclosed that have give us cause to pause and reflect on WWII. What were its causes? Could it have been avoided? Etc.

We have taken a somewhat long view on WWI and have decided that that war was entirely avoidable, but that it was not avoided because of other factors, such as Germany's desire to equal England and France in the Imperialism game.

WWII today is still taught to us in a very propagandistic mode: The Germans and Japanese were the darkest of evils and the Brits and the Americans the whitest of white knights. But the truth lies elsewhere.

[Jon Miller]

Sure... looks at how asia still considers the Japanese... sure.

JM

[Ned]

Exactly. The Japanese behavior in China was beyond the pale. But one still has to consider that the Japanese were in China in the first place because the of the Treaty of Versailles. That Treaty laid the framework of future wars across the world. It still echoes today with the conflicts in the ME. Had that treaty not betrayed the Arabs by creating a British mandate in Palestine instead of allowing Palestine to be part of Arabia as earlier agreed, history in the region and today's history would be a lot different.

[Jon Miller]

So it is just the Nazi's that are being treated unfairly by history?

JM

[Ned]

Jon, in a way. I confine this thread's topic to their national health care system. What was condemned as barbaric at the close of WWII is now being actively considered by the Europeans. Are the Europeans becoming barbaric, or were the judgments of the NAZI's, at least in this particular, wrong?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Reprhase: Attempt to get?

After all, Clinton ingored both the UN and the US Congress when it was clear that he could get neither to approve the war on Serbia. The difference between Clinton and Bush was that Bush at least tried with the UN and did get US Congressional approval.

But, of course, as we all know, Bush is always wrong and Clinton always right, by definintion.

Old Lone Ranger joke-
Lone Ranger: "Tonto, it looks like we're surrounded by Indians."

Tonto: "What do you mean by we, white man."

My point is that your statement about the US government always getting approval from the Congress and the UN before making war is wrong. Furthermore, regarding this post I see little difference between doing something without permission and doing something after asking permision and being denied. SWomeday when you're a parent you'll understand that.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


I am sure the cost argument is going to seem a little too "inhumane." So those who are concerned about cost are going to mask their arguments in more benign terms, such as "quality of life."

Who cares if you're sure? My point is that the article referred to in the OP presents us with contradictory quotes regarding the bishop's paper and therefore we can't really determine what the paper really said. You may continue to make assumptions based on your well known prejudices, but I'm perfectly within my rights to point out the flaws in your arguments.