It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Trump returns bust of Churchill to Oval Office

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

The second world war should not be judged from the safety, comfort, and PEACE of modern times.

You and your people havent lost many loved ones and there is no real threat to your existance.

Be easy. The mofos fought and won a world war.....Thats in a league of its own.

Also, war has no rules. That is all BS. Its up to the ones fighting the actual war to do what they think they must. Maybe they show mercy, maybe they dont.


edit on 1 24 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal


Now I don't remember where I read this but Churchill refer non Anglo Saxon Europeans (French, Spanish, Eastern Europeans, Italians) as "dirty whites."


On the other hand, Churchill was passsionately pro-European and wrote about a federal united Europe.

Churchill, like Thatcher and Reagan, is a blank screen on which people project whatever they believe themselves. In reality, they were subtle, complex creatures, like most successful politicians.

Churchill was a great war leader but a walking disaster zone as a politician. His career before the war was chequered, to say the least, and during his tenure as Prime Minister in the 1950s he was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of Obama with a fairly meaningless legacy.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Can I suggest to the folks playing the "honourable / Dishonourable leaders and politicians" game that it could go on forever and really isn't relevant here, the point is that Trump is disinfecting the White House from his close ties to you know who and bringing it back to who history has decided were close to the US.

Views about if war is good or bad just take away from the ideal here...Trump wants America to be seen with its allies of old, its a smack in the face dig at Obama..

Trump likes strong leaders....(who of course do or have done the things HE likes liked)

edit on 24-1-2017 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




Also, war has no rules. That is all BS. Its up to the ones fighting the actual war to do what they think they must. Maybe they show mercy, maybe they dont.


You are correct in your observation.

In 1943 Nazi Germany declared TOTAL WAR. For those you are not aware with what Total War means then here is the definition.




A war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded


en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Those who bleat on about Dresden must realise that this was the kind of war Hitler and his henchmen wanted. All rules went out of the window. Sad as it was.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

I'm sorry to disturb you and your hero worship with my "bleating". Perhaps this is where the disconnect comes in.. when one imagines human beings he/she disagrees with to be animals, a callous attitude towards others' horrendous deaths may be a natural result. (Just a thought.)

I notice that nobody decided to touch upon Churchill's relationship to Crowley and the occult. Oh well.

I stand by my original assertion, though, that Churchill was NOT a good man worthy of admiration. I have, though, read very compelling arguments in favor of keeping the bust as a symbol of our continued relationship with our allies in the UK.

The other fallacious arguments that anyone fighting against evil men (Hitler) is therefore blemish free do not move me. I also know that before the words Total War were uttered by the Germans, Germany offered a peace agreement in the summer of 1940 that was roundly rejected by Churchill.

Just had a bit of a funny thought- pretty sure I'd catch less slack if I were to come out with negative comments about Jesus.


We sure love our human idols, don't we?
edit on 24-1-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: xuenchen

That is awesome! I never understood that blatantly biased...or should I say racist move by Obammy


Racist? How on Earth is replacing it with a Martin Luther King Jr bust "racist"?



Took out the white guy.

Racist.

Take out the black guy.

Racist.

See? Equality.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kryties

War is hell.

We are fortunate today that we can sit here and try to armchair quarterback those times rather than actually live them.

And there are times coming when we may have to see those responses again. We have a new enemy in this world who thinks nothing of hiding among the civilian population and using them as a shield, caching men and material among what we think of the most civilian of places: hospitals, schools, places of worship.

If we fight that war, and we are coming to a time when we may no choice, then you may have to think long and hard about whether you want to win or appear moral.



Like the old defensive driving commercials on TV said.

"you might be right, but you can be DEAD right"

Was Dresden as bad a Hiroshima?

lol, they call it WAR for a reason.

Now people are judging what people did to win a war?

F'kin serious?!

They firebombed Tokyo and Japan too. That's why no one batted an eye when the Enola Gay flew over by herself.

Big Badda Boom!

And this BS about giving # back to the losers is insane. Ala Israel.

Want war?

It's gonna hurt. Bad.






posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ketsuko

There's a HUGE difference between what the German and Jap MILITARY did, as opposed to how Churchill bombed a city full of CIVILIANS.

Military and Civilians are two separate things, you know this right?


Look up "London Blitz" and get back to us about who threw the first stone.


Please explain why a city full of German civilians had to be bombed when the Germans were in retreat and the war was almost won?

The London Blitz happened at the height of the war. Dresden happened when the Germans were nearly toast.



Yeah, that sucks.

What a bummer, eh?




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: alldaylong

ONE death by government sanctioned firebombing is reprehensible, let alone thousands.

Who is a more admirable human being: Stalin, Hitler or John Wayne Gacy?

Evil is evil whether it be in response of horrific actions or not. Moral relativity is a dangerous game to play.


The actions sanctioned by Churchill where a response to a war instigated by Hitler.

Did you expect Churchill to standby and not respond ?

Maybe Britain should have been like The French, and just let The Nazi's walk in. You would have been happy with that i do believe.



Please inform us how bombing a civilian city gave Britains a tactical advantage over their enemy.


You could ask the same question of Nazi Germany.

London
Birmingham
Coventry
Sheffield
Liverpool
Cardiff
Manchester

The list goes on.


No, I'm asking you! No one is here defending the actions of the Nazis, but there are people on here defending the actions of Churchill. So I'll ask again:

How did bombing the civilians of Germany give Britian a tactical advantage?

Or was the massacre done solely as revenge?



Was the F'n war over?!




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ketsuko

Mate WW2 has been scrutinized in minute detail for 81 years now. I don't need to have been there to know the Germans posed no more threat as they were hastily retreating and getting their asses kicked. Dresden was simply a "F**k you" bombing and thousands of civilians needlessly died.



Again, bummer, sucked to be them.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: alldaylong

ONE death by government sanctioned firebombing is reprehensible, let alone thousands.

Who is a more admirable human being: Stalin, Hitler or John Wayne Gacy?

Evil is evil whether it be in response of horrific actions or not. Moral relativity is a dangerous game to play.


The actions sanctioned by Churchill where a response to a war instigated by Hitler.

Did you expect Churchill to standby and not respond ?

Maybe Britain should have been like The French, and just let The Nazi's walk in. You would have been happy with that i do believe.



Please inform us how bombing a civilian city gave Britains a tactical advantage over their enemy.


You could ask the same question of Nazi Germany.

London
Birmingham
Coventry
Sheffield
Liverpool
Cardiff
Manchester

The list goes on.


No, I'm asking you! No one is here defending the actions of the Nazis, but there are people on here defending the actions of Churchill. So I'll ask again:

How did bombing the civilians of Germany give Britian a tactical advantage?

Or was the massacre done solely as revenge?



Was the F'n war over?!



Here's a little link about Dresden's importance to the German war effort both in manufacturing and as a transport hub to service the eastern front.

www.quora.com... ad-Germans
edit on 42pTue, 24 Jan 2017 09:05:42 -060020172017-01-24T09:05:42-06:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
Sounds like the people are content sitting back and allowing the world players to wage incessant war, and then to write the history about it as they see fit. There is no amount of noble rhetoric that can justify the actions of the psychopaths who deal death for a living.

But I can see this is the way of the world, and will never change. We will continue to kill and be killed at the behest of our masters, and when the smoke clears we will find ways to convince ourselves we have done the right thing.




Look, you make war so bad that no one will want to wage it or keep it up for long.

Ya think?!






posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

Lets put this is simple terms.

The type of war Nazi Germany wanted i.e Total War was exactly what Churchill gave Dresden ( as horrible as that was )

Do you understand ?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

1. Churchill rejected early peace treaty (1940).

My point? Many blunders were made resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths before the final victory. Time to look at these men for what they really were, rather than glossing over egregious crimes because the result was ultimately in our favor.

(Not as simple as you might think)




top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join