Author Topic: Episode 705  (Read 3035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15038
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2019, 05:16:06 PM »
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?

Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2019, 05:40:34 PM »
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?

Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

You haven’t read the counter arguments.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 06:45:55 PM by bachfiend »
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15038
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2019, 06:06:54 PM »
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?

Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

You have read the counter arguments.
I was raised with the counter arguments and rejected them as overly emotional. Then I started to look at the reasons the world is the way it is.
He was piss poor though. Just competent enough to do well in the war and thus hard for imperialists to criticise.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2019, 06:49:52 PM »
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?
H
Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

You have read the counter arguments.
I was raised with the counter arguments and rejected them as overly emotional. Then I started to look at the reasons the world is the way it is.
He was piss poor though. Just competent enough to do well in the war and thus hard for imperialists to criticise.

The world is the way it is because of the Great War, which was the defining disaster of the 20th century.  The Great War can’t be blamed on Churchill.  He was just reacting to events.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2019, 07:10:56 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2019, 07:34:14 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2019, 09:51:41 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2019, 10:15:54 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12918
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2019, 11:54:00 AM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?
My understanding is that that deal had already been agreed to by Churchill and Rosevelt, I good well be wrong but I thought at least Truman felt he was more or less forced into it. 

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2019, 03:28:58 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?
My understanding is that that deal had already been agreed to by Churchill and Rosevelt, I good well be wrong but I thought at least Truman felt he was more or less forced into it.

My understanding is that de Gaulle had decided in March, 1945 that he wanted France to retain French Indochina (there was some disagreement amongst the Free French about whether it should be retained or not), but the relationship between de Gaulle, and Churchill and Roosevelt were poisonous, with them hardly talking.  De Gaulle had a giant ego. 

After the Japanese capitulation, there had to be allied occupation of occupied colonies, for security reasons.  The British reoccupied Malaya and  Singapore and prepared them for independence, which happened quickly, along with India and Pakistan.  British and Indian troops also occupied Vietnam in October, 1945 and released the imprisoned Vichy French, who had been detained by the Japanese in 1944.  The French had never prepared the Vietnamese for self rule.  The British had been working along this process, including granting some degree of autonomy to India in the ‘30s (it’s one of the reasons why Churchill was out of favour in the ‘30s - the Wilderness Years - because he opposed home rule for India, and was an imperialist.

Clement Atlee and the Labour Party government decided to quickly dismantle the empire.  If Churchill had won the 1945 election, he undoubtedly would have attempted to retain the empire with its colonies.   But he wasn’t in power then for months. 

I think you’re not giving Truman credit (or blame) for the decisions made.  The Western allies quickly lost faith in their erstwhile Soviet allies.  The Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh were the obvious alternate government of Vietnam, and undoubtedly Truman wouldn’t have wanted a further country to fall to the communists.  Including unfortunately supporting the French in their war against the Vietminh for some 8 or so years.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2019, 07:44:59 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?

Everything just gets worse and worse. When Nixon was President I couldn’t imagine anything worse. Then Reagan waged a terrorist proxy war against the people of Nicaragua which included the cold-blooded murder of doctors and the rape and murder of nurses as a way to undermine the public health system; and he sold weapons to Iran (because they agreed to hold the hostages until his inauguration); and he apparently believed an all-out nuclear war was survivable if everybody just crawled into a hole in the ground. And then Bush Jr. made Reagan look good. And now we have a racist, rapist, baboon.

So, yes, Churchill was a saint compared to the filth we have now.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15038
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2019, 06:12:00 AM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?

Everything just gets worse and worse. When Nixon was President I couldn’t imagine anything worse. Then Reagan waged a terrorist proxy war against the people of Nicaragua which included the cold-blooded murder of doctors and the rape and murder of nurses as a way to undermine the public health system; and he sold weapons to Iran (because they agreed to hold the hostages until his inauguration); and he apparently believed an all-out nuclear war was survivable if everybody just crawled into a hole in the ground. And then Bush Jr. made Reagan look good. And now we have a racist, rapist, baboon.

So, yes, Churchill was a saint compared to the filth we have now.
No. He wasn't.
He was an open bigot and warhawk who either through malice or incompetence was a major part of the reason the Bengal famine claimed so many lives and why so many Irish people suffered such horrific brutalisation from the black and tans which fed directly into the bitterness that fueled the Troubles and all the lives lost and destroyed there.
We do still have many of those types of politicians(and many who model themselves on Churchill because-cigars and pithy quotes) but we have many more who are not even half that bad.
Bush and Blair would be comparable I suppose.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4360
  • mooh
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2019, 08:52:51 AM »
(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 08:56:54 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3968
  • I know you know I know
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2019, 01:42:03 PM »
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2019, 01:43:32 PM »
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?

Everything just gets worse and worse. When Nixon was President I couldn’t imagine anything worse. Then Reagan waged a terrorist proxy war against the people of Nicaragua which included the cold-blooded murder of doctors and the rape and murder of nurses as a way to undermine the public health system; and he sold weapons to Iran (because they agreed to hold the hostages until his inauguration); and he apparently believed an all-out nuclear war was survivable if everybody just crawled into a hole in the ground. And then Bush Jr. made Reagan look good. And now we have a racist, rapist, baboon.

So, yes, Churchill was a saint compared to the filth we have now.
No. He wasn't.
He was an open bigot and warhawk who either through malice or incompetence was a major part of the reason the Bengal famine claimed so many lives and why so many Irish people suffered such horrific brutalisation from the black and tans which fed directly into the bitterness that fueled the Troubles and all the lives lost and destroyed there.
We do still have many of those types of politicians(and many who model themselves on Churchill because-cigars and pithy quotes) but we have many more who are not even half that bad.
Bush and Blair would be comparable I suppose.

Well, no.  Churchill didn’t have absolute power.  Even when he was prime minister, he was only ‘first amongst equals,’ not an absolute ruler, as Hitler was.  Many people had their fingers in the Bengal famine and the post-war troubles in Ireland.  The Asquith government wanted to grant home rule Ireland, but there was a lot of opposition to it, and the Great War derailed the process.  And then there was the Easter uprising in 1916, so there was a lot of distrust on both sides.

India had some degree of autonomy since the ‘30s.  The Bengali government was slow to recognise the famine and seek help from the Indian government.  There was food in India but it wasn’t made available, and it was difficult to get the food to where it was needed owing to flooding.  The Bengal wasn’t self sufficient in food, importing a lot from Burma, a British possession until it was occupied by Japan.  Getting food from elsewhere was difficult, owing to shortage of ships and the threat of Japanese attack, and even if food reached the ports, the problem of getting it into the hinterland remained.

When Churchill became aware of the seriousness of the famine, he ordered food to be shipped there, so he actually saved lives.

Churchill wrote a lot, providing plenty of material for his detractors to mine and cherry pick.  He was a child of his times, with the attitudes and prejudices common to his era.  You can’t judge him by current standards.

I’m a little bemused that this argument had started just because someone noted that he’s trying to propagate monarch butterflies, and I noted that he’s in good company, with Churchill being a keen butterfly cultivator.

I’m still very grateful that Churchill did live.  He did much more good than bad.  The world would be a terrible place if not for him.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?