Dusty on July 28, 2008 at 9:16 PM
BTW, I watched “The Best Years of Our Lives” (1946) last night and even in that there were two scenes questioning the goodness of the war. And one was even a Troofer. A really great movie.16 PM

Amen to that.

Yes, there are two sides to every story but there is only one dark side of the moon.

Roger Waters on July 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM

I’ll grant you that.

Glynn, I agree. Gilmour is a great vocalist. He sings Roger’s songs very well. He is also a great guitarist. He just cant write songs or come up with any ideas. His wife, Polly Samson, has been the main writer of Gilmour’s latest solo project and the last fake Floyd album….proving that Yoko still lives.

Roger Waters on July 28, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Since I can guarantee there are two sides to every story, and that Gilmour’s talent is undeniable, we will have to agree to disagree. Much of what you say has been disputed by many people who played with David, so it becomes, a he said-he said. Doesn’t matter.

In fact, many historians (tenured, respected types) feel that the U.S. had a stake in Britain winning the war to avoid the defaults the banking industry would take on their loans to Britain had Germany won. So, American lives lost over a REAL stupid war to protect bankers and wall street types?? Not cool.

Look, I hate Germany as much as anybody, but in ww1 it wasnt like Britain and France was Batman and Germany was The Joker.

Glynn, I agree. Gilmour is a great vocalist. He sings Roger’s songs very well. He is also a great guitarist. He just cant write songs or come up with any ideas. His wife, Polly Samson, has been the main writer of Gilmour’s latest solo project and the last fake Floyd album….proving that Yoko still lives.

Anyway, AP, could you post up each link as it comes by this week? Horrible memory on my part and the NR site is a nightmare to surf.

“David Gilmour was always my favorite.”

Great guitarist…and utterly devoid of creativity as all PF albums after The Final Cut and those ghastly Gilmour solo albums testify.

Roger Waters on July 28, 2008 at 7:45 PM

That’s your opinion. I loved his vocals. PF has been my favorite band since the 60s. I’m telling my age. But this is off topic.

Well the Kaiser should have thought of that before sending a telegram to Mexico suggesting they could own the Southwest US again.

I saw that last Christmas with my oldest nephew, who is not political, when he told me about his friend who was constantly e-mailing him Troofer cr$p. He didn’t know the rebuttals and although was somewhat indifferent, said they seemed reasonable, but wanted to know if I thought they were.

BTW, I watched “The Best Years of Our Lives” (1946) last night and even in that there were two scenes questioning the goodness of the war. And one was even a Troofer. A really great movie.

Take it up with Harry Turtledove, nerds.

I needed that.

Whew, I was about to go out and buy some toy army action figures (or whatever they’re called).

What was I thinking…

Thanks for the link, AP!

agreed…wilson sucked

Roger Waters on July 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Even more than LBJ and he really sucked.

If we hadn’t intervened, the war would have dragged on much longer

Speculation.

and the victorious nations would have had an even greater incentive to hand out harsh penalties for the German aggressors.

They could not have been a lot harsher than they were and it is not at all a certainty that England and France could have defeated Germany by themselves, not even close, they could not have in WWII. The Germans were no more the aggressors in WWI than the English and French.

Additionally, without our involvement in the Versailles Treaty, the victors would have made even more demanding requirements on the Germans. Wilson was able to mitigate some of the more extremes demands by the French in particular.

Wilson should have told the French to go #uck themselves.

In any event, in my opinion whether we intervened or not, the French, British and Italians were going to exact revenge on the Germans for initiating the conflict.

The Germans did not initiate that “conflict” any more than the English and French did and they would have had to have defeated them first before the could have exacted their bloody revenge. Could they have without U.S. intervention. Unknown with certainty, but rather unlikely.

Revenge that would have helped – and did – usher in Hitler.

SteveMG on July 28, 2008 at 7:59 PM

The punitive “peace” after WWI lead to Hitler. Without it you would never even have heard of him.

Yes, at the time the Germans had the upper hand. But everything I’ve read said they couldn’t have sustained that momentum.

Let’s leave on a point of agreement: Wilson was the worst president in the history of this country.

Agreed?

Buchanan thinks Russia could have defeated Nazi Germany all by itself?

No, but they would have bloodied themselves terribly.

And during that time, Buchanan argues, the West could have re-armed and then taken on a weaker Hitler/Germany.

This is his argument, now; not mine.

If the U.S. hadnt intervened, they wouldve kept fighting and they would have eventually had a fair brokered peace.

Sorry, I disagree here (it’s all speculation of course).

If we hadn’t intervened, the war would have dragged on much longer and the victorious nations would have had an even greater incentive to hand out harsh penalties for the German aggressors.

Additionally, without our involvement in the Versailles Treaty, the victors would have made even more demanding requirements on the Germans. Wilson was able to mitigate some of the more extremes demands by the French in particular.

In any event, in my opinion whether we intervened or not, the French, British and Italians were going to exact revenge on the Germans for initiating the conflict.

Revenge that would have helped – and did – usher in Hitler.

I think that what Buchanan was saying, was that we should have let the Germans and Russians fight it out and they would have annihilated each other and hence no cold war.
Johan Klaus on July 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM

Buchanan thinks Russia could have defeated Nazi Germany all by itself? There is no rational reason to assume that. Without a contested Western Front, Germany would have rolled over Russia without missing a step. The only remaining question is: then what? What would Nazi Germany have done with the practically limitless slave labor and natural resources under their control?

After France fell to Germany in WW2, any lingering doubts anyone entertained that they might not be dealing with a complete lunatic were dispelled when Hitler demanded that they sign their Armistice in Compiègne, and actually went to the effort of hunting down the exact same railroad boxcar where the Germans had surrendered to France at the end of WW1.

Hey, who knew Adolph Hitler would be the type of fellow to hold a grudge?

Or, more to the point, what kind of idiot STILL doesn’t know that after all these years? I guess George Buchanon answered that question in his book.

I think that what Buchanan was saying, was that we should have let the Germans and Russians fight it out and they would have annihilated each other and hence no cold war.

Johan Klaus on July 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM

I think that George S. Patton could have lived with that.

After the surrender of May 8, 1945 eliminated the threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. He was concerned that some 25,000 American POWs had been liberated from POW camps by the Soviets, but were never returned to the US. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position.

It should be noted, however, that many of the controversial opinions he expressed were common (if not exactly popular) at the time and his outspoken opposition to post-surrender denazification is still widely debated today. Many still laud his generous treatment of his former German enemies and his early recognition of the Soviet threat, while detractors say his protests reflect the views of a bigoted elitist. Whatever the cause, Patton found himself once again in trouble with his superiors and the American people. While speaking to a group of reporters, he compared the Nazis to losers in American political elections, and that being a Nazi in Germany was just being a member of a political party, “like being a Democrat in the States.”

Sorry….no way. If the U.S. hadnt intervened, they wouldve kept fighting and they would have eventually had a fair brokered peace. Since the U.S. came, we offered a new steady never-ending stream of bodies to have killed thus prolonging the ability of the allies to hold out which meant the Germans were forced to accept horrible terms for ending the war.

If the U.S. had not intervened, there would have been no Hitler, no WW2, no Cold War, no Vietnam, no Korea, etc.

The U.S. entering ww1 was the biggest blunder in U.S. history and we can thank Wilson for that. If we just had listened to George Washington’s farewell adress, everything would have been much much better. Buchanan makes this point very well…another reason he is much smarter than Hitch and all these jackball neo-cons.

Great guitarist…and utterly devoid of creativity as all PF albums after The Final Cut and those ghastly Gilmour solo albums testify.

I think that the war that we should have stayed out of is WWl

Well, the Versailles Treaty, as some point out, simply set the scene for Hitler to appear. And without our involvement in its making (Wilson wanted it watered down), it would probably have been even harsher on Germany.

So, WWII would have happened anyway. Whether we intervened in WWI or not.

despite Hitch’s belief that he is the smartest man ever to live.

Roger Waters on July 28, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Hitchens is no Mark Twain. Not by a mile. He couldn’t even hold his cigar.