Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
In American schools they emphasize the Battle of New Orleans, which incidently was fought after the war ended. Being rebuffed in Canada was more or less ignored. Every country has their own bias. I read some more about the war on the internet and indeed most of the sources give the victory to Canada. Ken --- Lyle Estill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting take. When I studied the war of 1812 in grade nine in Canada, this was exactly the view. The U.S. wanted territory, failed to take it, therefore lost the war--to Canada nonetheless. Studying the same war in 10th grade in the United States, the message was The U.S. has never lost a war. Korea and Vietnam did not count as they were police actions. On Jan 1, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Darryl McMahon wrote: I don't think the War of 1812 counts as a U.S. win either. IIRC my history correctly, that began as a European war (Napoleonic), and the U.S. decided to grab the North American British colonies while Britain was distracted on the continent, part of American expansionist desires (later known as Manifest Destiny). Yes, some British policies (impressing sailors from ships at sea, including some U.S. citizens, to man her ships) did provide a pretext for U.S. campaigns into British territories, but the desires to do so go back at least as far as 1810 in Congressional records. Instead, Washington D.C. was attacked, and the Executive Mansion - later the White House - was set afire by British troops in August 1814. In fact, this act was the basis for the name. The building was not completely destroyed by the fire, and in the subsequent hasty rebuilding, the structure (originally yellow IIRC) was painted white (as white paint was the easiest to obtain quickly). In the end, the U.S. gained no British territory after their campaigns north in 1812-1814. They did succeed in invading and occupying Spanish territories during this period, e.g. parts of what is now Florida, Louisiana and Texas. Actually, the U.S. ended up ceding the Passamaquoddy Islands and Grand Manan Island to the British as part of the war settlement (Treaty of Ghent and subsequent to 1817). In general, the British simply chose to hold their own territories in North America during this period. In those cases where they did take American territory, they withdrew shortly afterward. In fact, the British were distracted in Europe, and did not wish to put any more resources into N.A. than absolutely necessary. History certainly has its quirks. Darryl Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know of any war, except the civil war, were the American soldier has been the winner. Maybe Iraq will be the first, but I personally doubt it. You Brits seem to have a short memory - did you forget the American Revolution and the War of 1812? I can see why you might want to forget those. But why did you forget the Spanish-American War, The Mexican War and the first Gulf War? Ken -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Lyle Estill V.P. Stuff Piedmont Biofuels www.biofuels.coop 919-542-2900 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Quoting unproven controversial allegations as fact is bad form. Show me some anecdotal evidence that the Lusitania was carrying munitions. Show that explosive experts have calculated from the wreakage that anything but the topedo and the boilers blew up. That at least would to some extent explain the 1100+ deaths in some context other than the tired old excuse of Man's inhumanity...bla bla bla. As for the sinking being a Trigger... She was sunk in May 1915 US War entry April 1917...h Long fuse on that trigger, eh? Jonathan Original Message Follows From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:17:31 -0800 (PST) --- bmolloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Luc, (Snip) - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered The Lusitania was in fact heading to Liverpool from the US. It was loaded with munitions which is why the Germans sank it and why is sunk so fast claiming so many lives. Ken The trigger was the sinking of the Lusitania - an ocean liner heading for the United States with US citizens on board - by a German submarine. As it was, the US waited until the eleventh hour - April 1917, when the Central Powers were falling apart under Allied pressure - before entering the conflict. And only then because an increasingly desperate Germany had declared open season on all shipping, including US ships. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
I don't think the War of 1812 counts as a U.S. win either. IIRC my history correctly, that began as a European war (Napoleonic), and the U.S. decided to grab the North American British colonies while Britain was distracted on the continent, part of American expansionist desires (later known as Manifest Destiny). Yes, some British policies (impressing sailors from ships at sea, including some U.S. citizens, to man her ships) did provide a pretext for U.S. campaigns into British territories, but the desires to do so go back at least as far as 1810 in Congressional records. Instead, Washington D.C. was attacked, and the Executive Mansion - later the White House - was set afire by British troops in August 1814. In fact, this act was the basis for the name. The building was not completely destroyed by the fire, and in the subsequent hasty rebuilding, the structure (originally yellow IIRC) was painted white (as white paint was the easiest to obtain quickly). In the end, the U.S. gained no British territory after their campaigns north in 1812-1814. They did succeed in invading and occupying Spanish territories during this period, e.g. parts of what is now Florida, Louisiana and Texas. Actually, the U.S. ended up ceding the Passamaquoddy Islands and Grand Manan Island to the British as part of the war settlement (Treaty of Ghent and subsequent to 1817). In general, the British simply chose to hold their own territories in North America during this period. In those cases where they did take American territory, they withdrew shortly afterward. In fact, the British were distracted in Europe, and did not wish to put any more resources into N.A. than absolutely necessary. History certainly has its quirks. Darryl Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know of any war, except the civil war, were the American soldier has been the winner. Maybe Iraq will be the first, but I personally doubt it. You Brits seem to have a short memory - did you forget the American Revolution and the War of 1812? I can see why you might want to forget those. But why did you forget the Spanish-American War, The Mexican War and the first Gulf War? Ken -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
When I studied the war of 1812 in grade nine in Canada, this was exactly the view. The U.S. wanted territory, failed to take it, therefore lost the war--to Canada nonetheless. Studying the same war in 10th grade in the United States, the message was The U.S. has never lost a war. Korea and Vietnam did not count as they were police actions. On Jan 1, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Darryl McMahon wrote: I don't think the War of 1812 counts as a U.S. win either. IIRC my history correctly, that began as a European war (Napoleonic), and the U.S. decided to grab the North American British colonies while Britain was distracted on the continent, part of American expansionist desires (later known as Manifest Destiny). Yes, some British policies (impressing sailors from ships at sea, including some U.S. citizens, to man her ships) did provide a pretext for U.S. campaigns into British territories, but the desires to do so go back at least as far as 1810 in Congressional records. Instead, Washington D.C. was attacked, and the Executive Mansion - later the White House - was set afire by British troops in August 1814. In fact, this act was the basis for the name. The building was not completely destroyed by the fire, and in the subsequent hasty rebuilding, the structure (originally yellow IIRC) was painted white (as white paint was the easiest to obtain quickly). In the end, the U.S. gained no British territory after their campaigns north in 1812-1814. They did succeed in invading and occupying Spanish territories during this period, e.g. parts of what is now Florida, Louisiana and Texas. Actually, the U.S. ended up ceding the Passamaquoddy Islands and Grand Manan Island to the British as part of the war settlement (Treaty of Ghent and subsequent to 1817). In general, the British simply chose to hold their own territories in North America during this period. In those cases where they did take American territory, they withdrew shortly afterward. In fact, the British were distracted in Europe, and did not wish to put any more resources into N.A. than absolutely necessary. History certainly has its quirks. Darryl Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know of any war, except the civil war, were the American soldier has been the winner. Maybe Iraq will be the first, but I personally doubt it. You Brits seem to have a short memory - did you forget the American Revolution and the War of 1812? I can see why you might want to forget those. But why did you forget the Spanish-American War, The Mexican War and the first Gulf War? Ken -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Lyle Estill V.P. Stuff Piedmont Biofuels www.biofuels.coop 919-542-2900 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
--- bmolloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Luc, (Snip) - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered The Lusitania was in fact heading to Liverpool from the US. It was loaded with munitions which is why the Germans sank it and why is sunk so fast claiming so many lives. Ken The trigger was the sinking of the Lusitania - an ocean liner heading for the United States with US citizens on board - by a German submarine. As it was, the US waited until the eleventh hour - April 1917, when the Central Powers were falling apart under Allied pressure - before entering the conflict. And only then because an increasingly desperate Germany had declared open season on all shipping, including US ships. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
--- Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know of any war, except the civil war, were the American soldier has been the winner. Maybe Iraq will be the first, but I personally doubt it. You Brits seem to have a short memory - did you forget the American Revolution and the War of 1812? I can see why you might want to forget those. But why did you forget the Spanish-American War, The Mexican War and the first Gulf War? Ken __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Ken, I am not a Brit, but you maybe have something here anyway. American revolution was not by definition a war, but what US now seems to call a fight between colonial powers and foreign insurgents. The native American population lost long before that and was interned in miscellaneous temporary camps, until the situation could be made permanent around a century ago and the insurgents got it all. Was it not a war between the insurgents also? Wasn't the Spanish-American war about Cuba? Again a fight between colonial powers and foreign insurgents. US only kept a lawless piece of jail and because it is only rented, human right and laws are not applicable. I am not that familiar with the Mexican war and the first Gulf war was at least officially a liberation from Iraq's unlawful occupation of Kuweit (unofficially sanctioned by US), by a broad UN led coalition. Hakan At 07:34 PM 1/1/2005, you wrote: --- Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know of any war, except the civil war, were the American soldier has been the winner. Maybe Iraq will be the first, but I personally doubt it. You Brits seem to have a short memory - did you forget the American Revolution and the War of 1812? I can see why you might want to forget those. But why did you forget the Spanish-American War, The Mexican War and the first Gulf War? Ken ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Hi Luc, Sadly, like most of us at one time or another, you've been Url-ed. The url cited below in your posting is but one of many such trash sites on the internet which exist more to confuse than inform. The reason may be guessed at. I don't propose to spark off another conspiracy witch hunt so will not hazard a surmise as to the likely motivation. The facts are that the Express never printed such an article, nor in fact did it ever have such a layout for its front page (I speak from a lifetime's experience in journalism). Also, the Daily News was a fascist front until the advent of Pearl Harbour when it suddenly discovered Mom, Apple Pie and - yes, you guessed it - the nasty Nazis. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:37 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered And speaking of getting one's facts in order; http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html and there are a plethora of other supporting articles, but this subject has been more than adequately dealt and disposed with, enough. Luc - Original Message - From: bmolloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:02 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hi Luc, (Snip) - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hey Gustl; Few people know that Balfour was a reward for Zionists helping, through vast influence and money, to save Britain from a most humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. What is also not well known is that Germany had wanted,in victory, to call the whole thing off and return things to the way they were, having more than amply proven their point and then along come the ever so opportunistic Zionists and coersed Britain into sticking with the war and the Zionists would deliver the US into the fray. Nice argument. Again (see my reply to Gustl) s'pity we can't get the facts right. The ever so opportunistic Zionists (whoever they are) may indeed have promised Britain pie in the sky but that had no bearing on the decision by the United States to enter World War One against Germany. That was driven largely by the fact that a victorious Germany would have controlled the Middle East, then just coming of age as the world's primary oil producer. However, that alone would not have swung a very reluctant Congress behind the decision. The trigger was the sinking of the Lusitania - an ocean liner heading for the United States with US citizens on board - by a German submarine. As it was, the US waited until the eleventh hour - April 1917, when the Central Powers were falling apart under Allied pressure - before entering the conflict. And only then because an increasingly desperate Germany had declared open season on all shipping, including US ships. As for the Balfour Declaration, it was written on November 2, 1917, six months AFTER the US had declared for war. How does that stack up against the claim that it was intended as a bribe to American Zionists to bring the US into the war when they were already part of the conflict? We could of course extend this conspiracy theory further and see a Zionist hand in the decision by Germany to sink unarmed US ships. And while we are going on about the Balfour Declaration, it stated specifically that nothing shall be done which my prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Does that sound like a pro-Zionist standpoint? The Declaration was immediately endorsed by the principal Allied Powers and ratified four years after the war (1922) by the newly formed League of Nations, the fore-runner to UNO. It should be added that Britain altered its policy on Palestine in 1939 to limit the total intake to 75,000 refugees with a complete end to immigration in 1944. Within a year of that decision the appalling facts of the Nazi holocaust became known. This so horrified the civilized world that British concerns for the Palestinians were swept aside. By 1948 the United Nations had accepted the creation of the State of Israel. Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
A little historical nitpicking: The U.S. decision to enter World War I was determined by a number of factors; one was repeated German campaigns of unrestricted submarine warfare. Another which we tend to forget these days was American interception of the Zimmerman telegram (carefully enabled by the British) in which Germany offered Mexico U.S. territory if Mexico helped Germany against the U.S. I believe that the American people formed the impression in 1917 that the choice was not between fighting or not fighting, but between fighting Germany at once when they still had Britain and France as allies, or fighting Germany alone later when Britain and France had perhaps been defeated. At the time of the U.S. entry into the war, Russia was weakening and soon collapsed, and the Germans although tired and hungry were quite hopeful that the forces freed for redeployment would enable victory in the west. What put the Allies over the top against Germany was the defeat of the German spring offensive in 1918, militarily primarily by the British and French. The ability of Britain and France to pursue the war at that point was considerably helped by large American loans which enable Britain and France to buy American supplies. There was frequent incidents in the spring in which victorious but starving German soldiers would capture Allied supply dumps, and sit down and start eating instead of pursuing the retreating Allied forces. The counter-offensive from August 1918 was greatly helped by American soldiers and the growing American army in France contributed largely to German desperation and willingness to accept defeat - they knew that the future would get worse and that if they kept fighting long enough, Germany itself would be invaded. Allied tanks (invented independently by the British and the French) which Germany had not the military perspicacity or the industrial capacity to match were a crucial technological factor. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, bmolloy wrote: Hi Luc, (Snip) - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hey Gustl; Few people know that Balfour was a reward for Zionists helping, through vast influence and money, to save Britain from a most humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. What is also not well known is that Germany had wanted,in victory, to call the whole thing off and return things to the way they were, having more than amply proven their point and then along come the ever so opportunistic Zionists and coersed Britain into sticking with the war and the Zionists would deliver the US into the fray. Nice argument. Again (see my reply to Gustl) s'pity we can't get the facts right. The ever so opportunistic Zionists (whoever they are) may indeed have promised Britain pie in the sky but that had no bearing on the decision by the United States to enter World War One against Germany. That was driven largely by the fact that a victorious Germany would have controlled the Middle East, then just coming of age as the world's primary oil producer. However, that alone would not have swung a very reluctant Congress behind the decision. The trigger was the sinking of the Lusitania - an ocean liner heading for the United States with US citizens on board - by a German submarine. As it was, the US waited until the eleventh hour - April 1917, when the Central Powers were falling apart under Allied pressure - before entering the conflict. And only then because an increasingly desperate Germany had declared open season on all shipping, including US ships. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Hi Gustl, ( Snip) Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 6:20 AM Subject: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hallo Jay, Interesting but there are 2 small problems. Britain and France had effectively lost the war. The US saved their bacon so I suppose that the Brits should have given Palestine to the United States. Great piece of writing, s'pity that you lost your entire argument in your second sentence which claims (apropos of WW1) that Britain and France had effectively lost the war by the time the US entered it to save their bacon. My assumption is you live in the United States of America where the education system rewrites history to support that country's collective megalomania. There can be no other explanation of your statement. If you wish to have a potted version of that regrettable era look no further than your own (American-published) Encyclopaedia Brittanica - any edition from 1980 onwards - which states that United States forces did not arrive in Europe until late 1917 and did not reach peak use on the western front until September 1918 - two months before the surrender - and further that the position of the Central Powers i.e. the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany had already deteriorated rapidly as they were shaken by military defeats and by nationalist uprisings encouraged by the Russian Revolution. By 1918 they had virtually disintegrated. Ditto of course for the European theatre of operation in WW11 when American forces arrived (halfway through the war - March, 1942) to help attack an exhausted Germany and Italy which had already been defeated on three fronts - Eastern Front, Eritrea and North Africa - by the Brits and the Russians. In fact, the British Eighth Army was rolling the Afrika Corps up so fast that they ran into the American forces which had just landed in Tunisia. I could point to similar ops by Brit forces which minced the Japs in Burma and even today with successful support ops in Iraq but, hey, we are in agreement on the Balfour Declaration so your grasp of history can't be too jaundiced. Love, Bob. PS: And I do agree with your following points: If we are ever going to get things right as a species we at least have to disciplined, restrained, reasonable and responsible. We need all the facts and truth of the matter regardless of who we think it may hurt and we need to cooperate with one another to make this a better world for us all. If we are going to do this we are going to have to leave our bias at home when we deal with others and we are going to have to be honest and truthful and open. This takes a certain amount of respect for others and if we don't have that then how are we going to respect ourselves or expect others to respect us? Anything less leaves us a day late and a dollar short and puts us all in jeopardy. The world has gotten too small and dangerous. We no longer have time for this our side-their side business. We do now indeed have to think globally and act locally for the good of us all. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Hi Luc, (Snip) - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hey Gustl; Few people know that Balfour was a reward for Zionists helping, through vast influence and money, to save Britain from a most humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. What is also not well known is that Germany had wanted,in victory, to call the whole thing off and return things to the way they were, having more than amply proven their point and then along come the ever so opportunistic Zionists and coersed Britain into sticking with the war and the Zionists would deliver the US into the fray. Nice argument. Again (see my reply to Gustl) s'pity we can't get the facts right. The ever so opportunistic Zionists (whoever they are) may indeed have promised Britain pie in the sky but that had no bearing on the decision by the United States to enter World War One against Germany. That was driven largely by the fact that a victorious Germany would have controlled the Middle East, then just coming of age as the world's primary oil producer. However, that alone would not have swung a very reluctant Congress behind the decision. The trigger was the sinking of the Lusitania - an ocean liner heading for the United States with US citizens on board - by a German submarine. As it was, the US waited until the eleventh hour - April 1917, when the Central Powers were falling apart under Allied pressure - before entering the conflict. And only then because an increasingly desperate Germany had declared open season on all shipping, including US ships. As for the Balfour Declaration, it was written on November 2, 1917, six months AFTER the US had declared for war. How does that stack up against the claim that it was intended as a bribe to American Zionists to bring the US into the war when they were already part of the conflict? We could of course extend this conspiracy theory further and see a Zionist hand in the decision by Germany to sink unarmed US ships. And while we are going on about the Balfour Declaration, it stated specifically that nothing shall be done which my prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Does that sound like a pro-Zionist standpoint? The Declaration was immediately endorsed by the principal Allied Powers and ratified four years after the war (1922) by the newly formed League of Nations, the fore-runner to UNO. It should be added that Britain altered its policy on Palestine in 1939 to limit the total intake to 75,000 refugees with a complete end to immigration in 1944. Within a year of that decision the appalling facts of the Nazi holocaust became known. This so horrified the civilized world that British concerns for the Palestinians were swept aside. By 1948 the United Nations had accepted the creation of the State of Israel. Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html and there are a plethora of other supporting articles, but this subject has been more than adequately dealt and disposed with, enough. Luc - Original Message - From: bmolloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:02 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hi Luc, (Snip) - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hey Gustl; Few people know that Balfour was a reward for Zionists helping, through vast influence and money, to save Britain from a most humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. What is also not well known is that Germany had wanted,in victory, to call the whole thing off and return things to the way they were, having more than amply proven their point and then along come the ever so opportunistic Zionists and coersed Britain into sticking with the war and the Zionists would deliver the US into the fray. Nice argument. Again (see my reply to Gustl) s'pity we can't get the facts right. The ever so opportunistic Zionists (whoever they are) may indeed have promised Britain pie in the sky but that had no bearing on the decision by the United States to enter World War One against Germany. That was driven largely by the fact that a victorious Germany would have controlled the Middle East, then just coming of age as the world's primary oil producer. However, that alone would not have swung a very reluctant Congress behind the decision. The trigger was the sinking of the Lusitania - an ocean liner heading for the United States with US citizens on board - by a German submarine. As it was, the US waited until the eleventh hour - April 1917, when the Central Powers were falling apart under Allied pressure - before entering the conflict. And only then because an increasingly desperate Germany had declared open season on all shipping, including US ships. As for the Balfour Declaration, it was written on November 2, 1917, six months AFTER the US had declared for war. How does that stack up against the claim that it was intended as a bribe to American Zionists to bring the US into the war when they were already part of the conflict? We could of course extend this conspiracy theory further and see a Zionist hand in the decision by Germany to sink unarmed US ships. And while we are going on about the Balfour Declaration, it stated specifically that nothing shall be done which my prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Does that sound like a pro-Zionist standpoint? The Declaration was immediately endorsed by the principal Allied Powers and ratified four years after the war (1922) by the newly formed League of Nations, the fore-runner to UNO. It should be added that Britain altered its policy on Palestine in 1939 to limit the total intake to 75,000 refugees with a complete end to immigration in 1944. Within a year of that decision the appalling facts of the Nazi holocaust became known. This so horrified the civilized world that British concerns for the Palestinians were swept aside. By 1948 the United Nations had accepted the creation of the State of Israel. Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Interesting but there are 2 small problems. Britain and France had effectively lost the war. The US saved their bacon so I suppose that the Brits should have given Palestine to the United States. I do think with out the supplies from America the outcome of WW2 might have been a lot different, but I think most credit should go to the millions of Russians who died draining the resources of the German war machine. If Germany had ignored Russia we in the UK would have been overrun just weeks after France. Some historians think that if Germany had invaded early in the war we were in no state after Dunkirk to defend ourselves. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 26/11/2004 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Interesting but there are 2 small problems. Britain and France had effectively lost the war. The US saved their bacon so I suppose that the Brits should have given Palestine to the United States. I do think with out the supplies from America the outcome of WW2 might have been a lot different, but I think most credit should go to the millions of Russians who died draining the resources of the German war machine. 6,000,000 Russia 600,000 West total, included 50,00 from US, who according to many American movies and Americans, single handed won WWII. It was the American industrial worker and nuclear technology, who won the WWII (not the American soldier), it is no doubts about it. I do not know of any war, except the civil war, were the American soldier has been the winner. Maybe Iraq will be the first, but I personally doubt it. But without the supplies from US (at the beginning hidden from the US public), we probably all been speaking German today. If Germany had ignored Russia we in the UK would have been overrun just weeks after France. I think that it is no doubts about that. Germany was probably very surprised to find itself in war with the west and maybe the whole thing was a large misunderstanding between the financial powers behind it all. We have to remember that UK and France were the ones who declared war and attacked Germany first and Germany was very surprised that they stood by Poland. It is also a little confusing, since 2/3 of Poland was taken by Russia and the Germans only wanted the traditional German part of Poland. Many historians belive that Germany originally had no plans on France and UK, especially not the latter. After all, the common enemy was communism and the major goal, a roll back of the Russian revolution. Hakan Some historians think that if Germany had invaded early in the war we were in no state after Dunkirk to defend ourselves. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Few people know that Balfour was a reward for Zionists helping, through vast influence and money, to save Britain from a most humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. What is also not well known is that Germany had wanted,in victory, to call the whole thing off and return things to the way they were, having more than amply proven their point and then along come the ever so opportunistic Zionists and coersed Britain into sticking with the war and the Zionists would deliver the US into the fray.History has written much about the outcome of that mess. Britain had no more legal right to give away Palestine to the Zionists than you or I have of handing off Ukraine to the Argentinians, but that is what Britain did, and then the Zionists and Britain got the UN to sanction it thereby creating the political state of Israel in May of 1948. It has been a land grab and genocide ever since. There is a lot more to the story, as you can immagine, but I will only go off on another rant about the trickery and deceit used by certain parties to further a political goal, deceit and trickery which still goes on today, only with dire and dreadful circumstances. Luc - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:20 PM Subject: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hallo Jay, Interesting but there are 2 small problems. Britain and France had effectively lost the war. The US saved their bacon so I suppose that the Brits should have given Palestine to the United States. Seems only fair to me and who gives a rats ass about the Palestinians anyway, eh? And I also wonder how we would react if Britain had a Balfour 2 Declaration which gave anyone say, the states of Maine and Georgia, or Idaho or California or take your pick. Or how about if France decides to give Israel to Italy because of all their fine olive oil? Makes sense to me. Or how about if some foreign government just comes in and decides that they want to buy out and/or confiscate the property of you and all your relatives and in-laws and deed it over to some third party because a fourth party asked them to to repay some sort of favor they had done? Is that going to sit well with you and yours? While your portrayal of Weizman saying, Give my people a homeland. would make a nice stage play or movie it is hardly all there is to the events leading up to the actual decree. You simply call Weizman an ardent Zionist while in fact he was a leader in the Zionist movement with a personal and political interest in the situation. To simplify and romanticize the events to justify an evil act does not make for a good and unbiased understanding of not only history but of the present day events. This works not only for the Israeli/Arab conflict but for ANY event. A one-sided examination of any historical event is not good history. Particularly when used to justify evil. Here is an excerpt from an essay examining the events preceeding, during and following the Balfour declaration (by permission) which is much closer to the true facts of the matter but not all the facts of the matter: Early Jewish settlements had reached 20-25,000 Jews by 1880. These immigrants survived on Malukkah donations from Jews abroad of over 100,000 Pounds per year. There were also 45,000 Christians and approximately 375,000 Arabs in Southern Syria at this time. From 1883 to 1899 the Baron Edmond deRothschild of France invested 1,600,000 Pounds in Jewish settlements. Tel Aviv, the present capital of Israel was founded in 1909. By 1914 the number of Jews in Palestine had reached 85,000. With the advent of W.W.I the Jewish population, whose economy depended largely upon the transfer of funds from abroad, was hard hit. Turkey entered the war on the side of the Central Powers and all incoming funds from France, England, and America stopped. Zionist influences were brought to bear on the British. Alone of the Great Powers, Great Britain had before World War I shown in a practical form a sympathetic interest in the Zionist movement. This resulted in the Balfour Declaration, an official British declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations. This document was issued during the British offensive in which they drove the Turks from Palestine and occupied it: 31 Oct 1917 to 11 Dec 1917. The Balfour Declaration was dated 2 Nov 1917. The British occupied a territory that had been hit with a year of locusts, and famine was widespread. By September 1918, due to hardship, expulsion, and emigration, the Jewish population was down to 57,000. In the British O.E.T.A. (Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) which consisted of Palestinian and Transjordan, the Jewish Legion was prominent among the occupying forces. The 38th (London) and 39th (American) battalions
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
So then how about if we give the US to Vanuatu? They do at least have in common that they're both reported to be sinking (albeit in somewhat different waters), the one largely because of the other, so it seems fair to me. No need to ask Washington, but maybe we could ask the Amerinds. Very nice exposition Gustl. Regards Keith Hey Gustl; Few people know that Balfour was a reward for Zionists helping, through vast influence and money, to save Britain from a most humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. What is also not well known is that Germany had wanted,in victory, to call the whole thing off and return things to the way they were, having more than amply proven their point and then along come the ever so opportunistic Zionists and coersed Britain into sticking with the war and the Zionists would deliver the US into the fray.History has written much about the outcome of that mess. Britain had no more legal right to give away Palestine to the Zionists than you or I have of handing off Ukraine to the Argentinians, but that is what Britain did, and then the Zionists and Britain got the UN to sanction it thereby creating the political state of Israel in May of 1948. It has been a land grab and genocide ever since. There is a lot more to the story, as you can immagine, but I will only go off on another rant about the trickery and deceit used by certain parties to further a political goal, deceit and trickery which still goes on today, only with dire and dreadful circumstances. Luc - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:20 PM Subject: Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered Hallo Jay, Interesting but there are 2 small problems. Britain and France had effectively lost the war. The US saved their bacon so I suppose that the Brits should have given Palestine to the United States. Seems only fair to me and who gives a rats ass about the Palestinians anyway, eh? And I also wonder how we would react if Britain had a Balfour 2 Declaration which gave anyone say, the states of Maine and Georgia, or Idaho or California or take your pick. Or how about if France decides to give Israel to Italy because of all their fine olive oil? Makes sense to me. Or how about if some foreign government just comes in and decides that they want to buy out and/or confiscate the property of you and all your relatives and in-laws and deed it over to some third party because a fourth party asked them to to repay some sort of favor they had done? Is that going to sit well with you and yours? While your portrayal of Weizman saying, Give my people a homeland. would make a nice stage play or movie it is hardly all there is to the events leading up to the actual decree. You simply call Weizman an ardent Zionist while in fact he was a leader in the Zionist movement with a personal and political interest in the situation. To simplify and romanticize the events to justify an evil act does not make for a good and unbiased understanding of not only history but of the present day events. This works not only for the Israeli/Arab conflict but for ANY event. A one-sided examination of any historical event is not good history. Particularly when used to justify evil. Here is an excerpt from an essay examining the events preceeding, during and following the Balfour declaration (by permission) which is much closer to the true facts of the matter but not all the facts of the matter: Early Jewish settlements had reached 20-25,000 Jews by 1880. These immigrants survived on Malukkah donations from Jews abroad of over 100,000 Pounds per year. There were also 45,000 Christians and approximately 375,000 Arabs in Southern Syria at this time. From 1883 to 1899 the Baron Edmond deRothschild of France invested 1,600,000 Pounds in Jewish settlements. Tel Aviv, the present capital of Israel was founded in 1909. By 1914 the number of Jews in Palestine had reached 85,000. With the advent of W.W.I the Jewish population, whose economy depended largely upon the transfer of funds from abroad, was hard hit. Turkey entered the war on the side of the Central Powers and all incoming funds from France, England, and America stopped. Zionist influences were brought to bear on the British. Alone of the Great Powers, Great Britain had before World War I shown in a practical form a sympathetic interest in the Zionist movement. This resulted in the Balfour Declaration, an official British declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations. This document was issued during the British offensive in which they drove the Turks from Palestine and occupied it: 31 Oct 1917 to 11 Dec 1917. The Balfour Declaration was dated 2 Nov 1917. The British occupied a territory that had been hit with a year of locusts, and famine
Re[2]: [Biofuel] The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
Hallo Jay, Interesting but there are 2 small problems. Britain and France had effectively lost the war. The US saved their bacon so I suppose that the Brits should have given Palestine to the United States. Seems only fair to me and who gives a rats ass about the Palestinians anyway, eh? And I also wonder how we would react if Britain had a Balfour 2 Declaration which gave anyone say, the states of Maine and Georgia, or Idaho or California or take your pick. Or how about if France decides to give Israel to Italy because of all their fine olive oil? Makes sense to me. Or how about if some foreign government just comes in and decides that they want to buy out and/or confiscate the property of you and all your relatives and in-laws and deed it over to some third party because a fourth party asked them to to repay some sort of favor they had done? Is that going to sit well with you and yours? While your portrayal of Weizman saying, Give my people a homeland. would make a nice stage play or movie it is hardly all there is to the events leading up to the actual decree. You simply call Weizman an ardent Zionist while in fact he was a leader in the Zionist movement with a personal and political interest in the situation. To simplify and romanticize the events to justify an evil act does not make for a good and unbiased understanding of not only history but of the present day events. This works not only for the Israeli/Arab conflict but for ANY event. A one-sided examination of any historical event is not good history. Particularly when used to justify evil. Here is an excerpt from an essay examining the events preceeding, during and following the Balfour declaration (by permission) which is much closer to the true facts of the matter but not all the facts of the matter: Early Jewish settlements had reached 20-25,000 Jews by 1880. These immigrants survived on Malukkah donations from Jews abroad of over 100,000 Pounds per year. There were also 45,000 Christians and approximately 375,000 Arabs in Southern Syria at this time. From 1883 to 1899 the Baron Edmond deRothschild of France invested 1,600,000 Pounds in Jewish settlements. Tel Aviv, the present capital of Israel was founded in 1909. By 1914 the number of Jews in Palestine had reached 85,000. With the advent of W.W.I the Jewish population, whose economy depended largely upon the transfer of funds from abroad, was hard hit. Turkey entered the war on the side of the Central Powers and all incoming funds from France, England, and America stopped. Zionist influences were brought to bear on the British. Alone of the Great Powers, Great Britain had before World War I shown in a practical form a sympathetic interest in the Zionist movement. This resulted in the Balfour Declaration, an official British declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations. This document was issued during the British offensive in which they drove the Turks from Palestine and occupied it: 31 Oct 1917 to 11 Dec 1917. The Balfour Declaration was dated 2 Nov 1917. The British occupied a territory that had been hit with a year of locusts, and famine was widespread. By September 1918, due to hardship, expulsion, and emigration, the Jewish population was down to 57,000. In the British O.E.T.A. (Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) which consisted of Palestinian and Transjordan, the Jewish Legion was prominent among the occupying forces. The 38th (London) and 39th (American) battalions of the Royal Fusiliers made up this Legion. In June 1918 a third, the Palestinian battalion was formed. During 1918 and 1919 the Balfour Declaration was not officially published or referred to in Palestine for fear of Arab reaction. On 3 Jan 1919, Chaim Weizmann, a Zionist leader, and Emir Faisal, current head of the Arab movement, signed an agreement to settle Jews in Palestine. When the Arab nationalists learned of these developments, disturbances soon followed. The first being against Jewish settlements in Upper Galilee in April 1920. In June 1920, rather than depend on the British for protection, the Jewish vigilante group Hagannah was formed. On 24 April 1920 the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference at San Remo resolved that the mandate over Palestine be conferred on Britain, in order that she may fulfill the promise made in the Balfour Declaration. The O.E.T.A. was abolished and Herbert Samuel, a Jew and a Zionist, was appointed high commissioner, arriving on 1 July 1920. In early 1923 Abdullah, a brother of Faisal, invaded the territory of Transjordan. On 27 March he was recognized by Winston Churchill as Emir with a British advisor and a subvention from Britain. This action resulted in excluding Transjordan from the Balfour Declaration and therefore it was closed to Jewish settlement. In the reporting of history the sins of
