Working Class Hero.. [Archive]

View Full Version : Working Class Hero..

vittoria

Mar 22, 2009, 9:11 PM

..is something to be? John Lennon said so ( in his rather snarky way...). Here's Eugene Deb's take on it...

Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace....They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.—Eugene V. Debs

Any thought(s)?

MarieDelta

Mar 22, 2009, 9:41 PM

As someone who has done their term in the trenches (ok it wasnt a shooting war.)

I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. Mixxed emotions I suppose, I was part of the 'economic draft' my parents were working class, the jobs in the town were non existant. So whats a kid to do?

So I did my time, and went to school after. Got a job where I didnt have to worry about being laid off.

TaylorMade

Mar 22, 2009, 11:50 PM

I knew kids with money who decided to join the service. . .most soldiers I met were middle class as well, FWIW.

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Mar 23, 2009, 7:37 AM

MarieDelta

Mar 23, 2009, 10:27 AM

darkeyes

Mar 23, 2009, 1:14 PM

A few (more ) thoughts-

When the working class have declared a war it is usually termed a "riot" or a "rebelion" or a "revolt."

There have been a few riots which have made changes in government-

the Whiskey Rebelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion), Comptons Cafeteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton's_Cafeteria_Riot), Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots), White Night Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Night_riots).

There have also been wars, in which both parties were pasionate about the outcome (down to the common soldier.)

Most notable The American Civil War (http://www.civilwar.org/?gclid=CPDS4KyguZkCFRo-awodsAcW6g), but also other wars as well.
Think ya'd find that mosta the working class such as they r wer fitin not for themsels an ther cause.. but for the rich slave owners in case a the south.. an the rich elite a the north Marie.. the wishes an wonts a the workin peeps wosn much cared bout.. so that luffly word "patriotism" came inta play.. an not a lil racist prejudice..

TaylorMade

Mar 23, 2009, 2:44 PM

Methinks its a spot on assessment V.. is the workin classes who r the cannon fodder.. an Taylor?? Wot r middle class peeps cept well educated (mosly) relatively prosperous (mosly) workin class peeps? They r employed (mosly) espesh in the case a the yung who r a military age...

I've heard some socialists say the middle class isn't part of the working class, they're the "Boosh-wah", others say, like you, that they are. Depends on where you want to put the tax lines, really.

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Mar 23, 2009, 2:57 PM

I've heard some socialists say the middle class isn't part of the working class, they're the "Boosh-wah", others say, like you, that they are. Depends on where you want to put the tax lines, really.

*Taylor*
Tee hee.. me dad wud b dead impressed u callin me "boosh-wah"..u go on call me wotya like..don worry me.. don change the reality..:tong:

.. an Arthur Scargill wud luffya callin 'im that even more..:bigrin:

allbimyself

Mar 23, 2009, 4:57 PM

The term "working class" is usually relative... anyone that makes/has more money than the person using the term isn't.

Bi-Zarro

Mar 23, 2009, 5:02 PM

It depends on how you define "middle class." Socialists define social class in terms of work relations (power/production relations), not income. If you're an ordinary employee, you're working class, even if you're a well paid ordinary employee.

TaylorMade

Mar 23, 2009, 5:07 PM

The term "working class" is usually relative... anyone that makes/has more money than the person using the term isn't.

That's what I am thinking . . .

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Mar 23, 2009, 5:12 PM

That's what I am thinking . . .

*Taylor*
... thinkin???:tong:

TaylorMade

Mar 23, 2009, 5:14 PM

... thinkin???:tong:

Learn to spell in English first, then criticize my mental faculties.

*Taylor*

FalconAngel

Mar 24, 2009, 2:03 AM

Most notable The American Civil War (http://www.civilwar.org/?gclid=CPDS4KyguZkCFRo-awodsAcW6g), but also other wars as well.

The Civil War was not a "working class uprising", but an effort, by the Confederate States to re-establish states rights. They had their organized armies made up of state militias from each of the Confederate States.

In a related vein, the flag that we tend to associate with the Confederacy is actually the Confederate Battle flag, not the flag of the confederacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America ).

totchune

Mar 24, 2009, 3:31 AM

totchune

Mar 24, 2009, 3:35 AM

I've heard some socialists say the middle class isn't part of the working class, they're the "Boosh-wah", others say, like you, that they are. Depends on where you want to put the tax lines, really.

*Taylor*

That would be "bourgeois"...speaking of spelling, don't use a foreign word if you can't spell it!
Bourgeois actually means upper middle class. The idea of the bourgeoisie rose long after the French revolution. The "bourgeois" were top professionals like doctors or lawyers or engaged in commerce or business owners. Generally they were not wage earners. They became more powerful after the revolutionaries got rid of the aristocrats and cut the clergy down to size.

Under the monarchy, there were three classes of people in Europe: the commoners, the aristocracy (by birth) and the clergy. Neither the aristocracy nor the clergy paid any taxes or were conscripted to go to war. Under this system, doctors and lawyers were commoners.

So under kings and queens anyone who wasn't of the top "elite" was potential canon fodder. But people with more money (like doctors, lawyers, shopkeepers) could buy their way out of the military, so it was still the poor who bled for the rich.

When the rich bleeds, it's a revolution, not war.

totchune

Mar 24, 2009, 3:38 AM

Speaking of war, terrorism is the war of the poor, and war the terrorism of the rich.

totchune

Mar 24, 2009, 3:47 AM

I knew kids with money who decided to join the service. . .most soldiers I met were middle class as well, FWIW.

*Taylor*

You cannot assess the situation by the few people you meet...perhaps you don't frequent ghettos, and you might not have many "lower class" acquaintances!

Military recruiters do not have stations in Beverly Hills, the Hampton or Manhattan. They target people who don't have other options, and they are so desperate that they even lower their standards to find more people.

Look at the statistics about Vietnam...rich kids avoided the draft.
Rich kids and middle class kids would rather go to college than join the military. Many who join the military do so to go to college, because they can't afford the obscene cost of higher education in the US. The problem is, education through the military still costs you and arm and a leg these days, literally speaking.

A question of class is also why not too many rich kids become street cops.

MetaSexual2

Mar 24, 2009, 4:50 AM

There is a quite a bit of difference of what people in the US call middle class, to what people in the UK do. Seems like almost everyone in the US calls themselves middle class these days. The trend is also in that direction here in the UK, but I think its a little behind. This mainly has to do with the death of the unions and the movement of the manufacturing base offshore. Also to do with the increasing gap between rich and poor. Will be interesting to see what the current economic troubles does to those stats though.

The class system seems to be more stratified here in the UK though. The middle class here are typically considered to be small business owners or educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) As an example, in the US I would be solidly middle class, but here in the UK I would probably be considered on the borderline between working and middle - sort of working class professional.

The quote applies more to the older class system here in the UK, where the working class have always gone off to die for "queen and country", but of course Vietnam and Iraq took a far heavier toll on those with low income in the US. The difference between the two wars is interesting though, in that the working class population in the US was much more significantly brainwashed during the last eight years by the blind patriotism argument than during Vietnam. Fear of the "outgroup" (Commies, Muslims, Jews, etc.) is a powerful motivator.

darkeyes

Mar 24, 2009, 5:36 AM

Learn to spell in English first, then criticize my mental faculties.

*Taylor*

An educated fool will always be a fool and an uneducated genius remains a genius..

..as me keeps harpin on bout hun.. me not English.. tee hee.. kissie..:tong:

vittoria

Mar 24, 2009, 6:16 AM

WOW!

A lot of very interesting points brought to bear here. Only those who love the idea of 'sending their sons and daughters to Molech' are bitter I see...

@ Frannie...

you rock, I dont care where you hail from!

@MetaSexual...

"outgroup" = anyone that isnt of Anglo-Saxon appearance or 'unadulterated' descent you mean... damn rest of the planet inflitrating the Anglo paradise... LMAO!

@totchune...

<<Quelle Dommage!>> Well thought out points... your "francais" is quite impeccable I might add..And it is very true... it would be blatant conceit to base every situation and circumstance just on those near and dear to us.. too biased, and not true to life. If we as humans based everything merely on those people/things that agree with us then we will never stop killing each other ( or is it that certain humans who are modern day worshippers of 'Aries' just dont want to stop?! Its like a 'how dare you question us' mentality...) Maybe some folks just need to travel out of their constituencies a bit more instead of watching television and believing/regurgitating the tripe, I mean the hype.

Fascinating, too, is the thought process lately that kings/premiers/Presidents arent/dont go to war with the modern day 'warrior' as well... when the hell did THAT stop? I know I wasnt there personally, but back in the day before ANY of us was born, of ANY country or culture, the head of the tribe, country, kingdom, et cetera were on the front lines doing their thing..in order to be king one had to be a warrior also, taught the way of the blade and the bow..WTF happened to all of that...did the blood get too 'blue'? Did they bruise too easily because of incestual marriage (cousins marrying cousins, et al)? Or did they say "Hey dummy you cant lead a country if youre DEAD!"

Just some randomness...

MarieDelta

Mar 24, 2009, 9:34 AM

WOW!

Fascinating, too, is the thought process lately that kings/premiers/Presidents arent/dont go to war with the modern day 'warrior' as well... when the hell did THAT stop? I know I wasnt there personally, but back in the day before ANY of us was born, of ANY country or culture, the head of the tribe, country, kingdom, et cetera were on the front lines doing their thing..in order to be king one had to be a warrior also, taught the way of the blade and the bow..WTF happened to all of that...did the blood get too 'blue'? Did they bruise too easily because of incestual marriage (cousins marrying cousins, et al)? Or did they say "Hey dummy you cant lead a country if youre DEAD!"

Just some randomness...

The rest of us didnt want them there - why have a bunch of f-ups on the front line, when you can keep them in the rear.

Here's a true life story for ya-

I was crewing aircraft in South Carolina. We had an eager beaver Lieutenant, one who thought the degree he had conferred wisdom or something. He was going to demonstrate his worthiness by showing us how to change a tire by the book.

The problem is that the book requires you to wear rubber gloves while putting grease on the bearings. It can be done, I suppose, but why would you want to make your life hell?

At any rate the rest of us had a good laugh at Mr Lieutenant's expense.

FalconAngel

Mar 24, 2009, 12:35 PM

The first and second world wars were both declared at a time when very strong international workers solidarity movements where spreading rapidly...NOT A COINCIDENCE!

What better way to stop these movements than get the working class of several nations to massacre itself!

Divide and conquer. It still works today.

International solidarity against the rulers and war makers is still the most dangerous idea out there.

The causes for a war of the magnitude of either WWI or WWII are rarely as simple as you are implying.

There were a number of factors that are behind both World Wars and why they became wars of the magnitude that they were.

In WWI, there were a number of border issues, economic and trade issues that were very big with the initial combatants. Also, you have to take into account the fact that there were treaties of mutual assistance between some of the combatant nations as well as age old hostilities between some of them.

WWII had nothing to do with "workers solidarity". It came about because Germany managed to skirt the limits set by the Versaille Treaty (as well as some unchecked violations) which allowed Hitler to build a ready made army and air force that was very impressive.
Add to the fact that Hitler broke almost all of the treaties that he signed and invaded his neighbors using the Blitzkreig tactics, enraged a lot of people and nations. In addition to that, there were also treaties of mutual defense, like in WWI, which obligated some nations to join in on one side or the other.

The War in the Pacific was simply fighting against Japanese expansionism, due to the belief that the Americans and Australians would be a softer target than they were. There were a lot of other, diplomacy factors as well, but some of that was smokescreen on the part of the Japanese in the months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

totchune

Mar 25, 2009, 6:02 AM

The causes for a war of the magnitude of either WWI or WWII are rarely as simple as you are implying.

There were a number of factors that are behind both World Wars and why they became wars of the magnitude that they were.

In WWI, there were a number of border issues, economic and trade issues that were very big with the initial combatants. Also, you have to take into account the fact that there were treaties of mutual assistance between some of the combatant nations as well as age old hostilities between some of them.

WWII had nothing to do with "workers solidarity". It came about because Germany managed to skirt the limits set by the Versaille Treaty (as well as some unchecked violations) which allowed Hitler to build a ready made army and air force that was very impressive.
Add to the fact that Hitler broke almost all of the treaties that he signed and invaded his neighbors using the Blitzkreig tactics, enraged a lot of people and nations. In addition to that, there were also treaties of mutual defense, like in WWI, which obligated some nations to join in on one side or the other.

The War in the Pacific was simply fighting against Japanese expansionism, due to the belief that the Americans and Australians would be a softer target than they were. There were a lot of other, diplomacy factors as well, but some of that was smokescreen on the part of the Japanese in the months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hitler was founded by western nations and western banks...Germany did not build this aggressive military power out of thin air, coming out of its economic collapse when a loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow of cash.
He was America's best friend for quite a while, because of his anti-communist stance. The fact that he was committing mass genocide against the Jews didn't seem to bother anyone, only when he attacked western nations was he called the greatest threat to civilization.
You will notice that he did not attack Switzerland, the financial center of the world, and a prime target.

There is not one single cause to anything...but it was extremely effective for western nations to eliminate international solidarity movements among workers by engaging in war...it worked every time.

There was no valid reasons for WW1, except to crush this solidarity movement. Trade and border issues do not justify a world war today, and did not in 1914. That's where we have to make the difference between official agenda and hidden agenda.

It would be extremely naive to think no hidden agenda existed in WW1 or WW2.

About Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred partly to shock and frighten the Soviets, who had become quite arrogant and ballsy...It was America flexing its muscles and showing the world what it could do.
The Japanese were ready to talk and surrender before these bombings.

darkeyes

Mar 25, 2009, 8:02 AM

.. in the end ww1 or 2.. both wer jus powerful shitty peeps connin the workin classes inta winnin and/or defendin ther interests.. jus like every otha bloody conflict..

FalconAngel

Mar 25, 2009, 12:16 PM

Hitler was founded by western nations and western banks...Germany did not build this aggressive military power out of thin air, coming out of its economic collapse when a loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow of cash.
He was America's best friend for quite a while, because of his anti-communist stance. The fact that he was committing mass genocide against the Jews didn't seem to bother anyone, only when he attacked western nations was he called the greatest threat to civilization.
You will notice that he did not attack Switzerland, the financial center of the world, and a prime target.

There is not one single cause to anything...but it was extremely effective for western nations to eliminate international solidarity movements among workers by engaging in war...it worked every time.

There was no valid reasons for WW1, except to crush this solidarity movement. Trade and border issues do not justify a world war today, and did not in 1914. That's where we have to make the difference between official agenda and hidden agenda.

It would be extremely naive to think no hidden agenda existed in WW1 or WW2.

About Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred partly to shock and frighten the Soviets, who had become quite arrogant and ballsy...It was America flexing its muscles and showing the world what it could do.
The Japanese were ready to talk and surrender before these bombings.

If the funding that you are talking about for Hitler was the banks run under George Bush's Grandfather, then yes, western banks did funnel money to Hitler, but those same banks were shut down by the Fed when it was discovered that they were funneling that money.

As far as us supporting Hitler because he was opposed to Communism, would those be the same Communists that we were allied with during the war?

Remember that, outside of treaty alliances, we had no vested interest in the war in Europe. We were out of range for Germany to mount any semblance of a successful invasion, even if Hitler had all of Europe. He couldn't even mount a successful invasion of England.

Yes, the atomic bombings of Japan were done to intimidate Stalin and Japan had been suing for peace for 2 weeks beforehand, but part of the reason that we did it was to give them a taste of their own medicine; remember that they had been in negotiations with us right up until just a few hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What started WWI was, as I said, a number of factors, but the real spark was the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand.

By laying the cause of a global conflict on only one factor, you are completely ignoring international political dynamics, geographic relationships and boundaries and it does a severe disservice to the truth.

There are always going to be some hidden agenda or another, but that is almost never an exclusive cause. (the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are two of those rare cases)

In Hitler's case, the real plan was to expand his people's population and their land. Room to expand, then populate to fill the room, then expand again and fill the room (lather, rinse, repeat). That information was gleaned from an unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, which was found in the safe of a publisher's office in Berlin after the war.

They built an air force by building fighter aircraft under the guise of export to other nations, Like Spain. They trained pilots under the guise of "flying clubs" and at the beginning of the war, the bombers that they used were all converted JU-87's, which were commercial transports which were designed to be easily converted to bombers.
Once Hitler had made his first attacks, all guises were tossed aside and his aircraft industry made purpose built bombers (which had already been on the drawing board, ready to build) to compliment the fighters that were never "delivered", augmented by many of the fighters that they had loaned, under the guise of having sold them, to Fransisco Franco.

totchune

Mar 25, 2009, 1:40 PM

FalconAngel

Mar 26, 2009, 12:23 AM

The American business community supported Hitler (Hearst for example) because he was anti-communist. Ford, IBM and other corporations supplied the Germans with technology and products right through the war.
The alliance with the Soviets was not a matter of ideological choice but a strategic choice.

There is a difference between an unjustified yet limited attack on military targets at Pearl Harbor and the large scale massacre of innocent civilians at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the fire-bombing of Tokyo...those are two different "medicines". Yet the Japanese military massacred several hundred Chinese civilians, so the Chinese would have been justified in retaliating in kind if they had had the means.

I agree with you that there is not one single cause to anything. But the assassination of the Arch Duke was a pretext, not a true cause for WW1.
The only things that interest me are hidden agendas, not what we learn in school, not the official version, but what we are not told.

Everything else is a show of political theater that insults our intelligence.

Have you read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen? Try that book as well as "A Bright Shining Lie" by Niel Sheehan. Those are some very informative books on American History and on Vietnam, respectively.

Yes, the fire-bombing of Tokyo. March 10th, 1945. 10,000 B-29's from bases all throughout the Pacific theater; dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of incindieries on the city. That one raid did more destruction that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
It is well covered in a number of books, particularly for those of us who have done specialty study on the air war in WWII. the book "A Torch to the Enemy" by the late Martin Caiden does a particularly detailed examination of the raid and the events leading up to it.

There are any number of non-whitewashed books on WWII both in regards to the war in Europe, as well as the Pacific, that are also available as well.

Japan was interested in expansion and part of that expansion was all the way to Hawaii. They fully expected a capitulation of some sort from the US after the Attack, which Yamamoto, who devised the attack plan, had even advised to the Emperor against it. After the attack he said the immortal and prophetic words "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping tiger". The Japanese had not counted on how quickly our industry could switch from building refrigerators to building bombs, planes and ships.

I never said that the assassination of Ferdinand was the pretextual cause of WWI, but I did say that it was the spark that ignited the war.

Like lighting a fuse to a bomb. There are a lot of things in the bomb that, by themselves will do nothing, but when you place them together can be volatile when ignited. Ferdinand's assassination was the fuse that ignited the bomb. Not a pretext, but a catalytic event.

The straw that broke the camel's back, if you will.

You need to understand all of the things going on in order to truly understand the causes of both World Wars. And please do not imply that I am insulting anyone's intelligence. I am stating facts. Well documented historical facts.

If information is insulting to anyone's intelligence, then they would not learn anything.

TaylorMade

Mar 26, 2009, 1:15 AM

You cannot assess the situation by the few people you meet...perhaps you don't frequent ghettos, and you might not have many "lower class" acquaintances!

I went to middle school and currently attend college in some of the rougher areas of Miami. I don't live too far from rumored MS-13 territory. It's not exactly Compton, but there are no picket fences here.

Don't assume anything about anyone.

I can spell Bourgeois quite well, actually.The quotations around the word should imply that I was making some sort of facetious statement, right?

Right?

*Taylor*

totchune

Mar 26, 2009, 3:57 AM

You need to understand all of the things going on in order to truly understand the causes of both World Wars. And please do not imply that I am insulting anyone's intelligence. I am stating facts. Well documented historical facts.

I don't think you and I disagree, and I didn't mean to say that you were insulting anyone's intelligence, but that the official version of history such as learned in school or through the media is insulting.

I don't think we will ever fully understand the cause for anything, because beyond obvious and superficial "official" causes, beyond hidden agendas (which take some serious investigation to uncover), there are mass movements and events born of our global consciousness and materialized on the world stage in subsequent dramas, the nature and meaning of which we cannot fully grasp...and there are spiritual causes that have to do with our evolution as individuals and as a specie.

There is always a cause behind a cause...the universe is multi-dimensional.

The world is as a mirror of our consciousness. Everything out there, from what we desire and love to what we fear and hate the most, is part of who we are, of our individual psyche.

So in a greater reality there are no victims and no villains, only people who have forgotten their own spiritual power to create meaningfully and imagine themselves lost in the wheels of karma, tossed around by circumstances, in turn victims, in turn victimizers, as if unconscious, asleep, spiritually speaking...

totchune

Mar 26, 2009, 4:07 AM

I went to middle school and currently attend college in some of the rougher areas of Miami. I don't live too far from rumored MS-13 territory. It's not exactly Compton, but there are no picket fences here.

Don't assume anything about anyone.

I can spell Bourgeois quite well, actually.The quotations around the word should imply that I was making some sort of facetious statement, right?

Right?

*Taylor*

If your perception (is it?) is that rich and middle class people today are represented in military personnel in the US in proportions equal to that of the general population, and that the poor has never, historically speaking, been canon fodder for the rich in any significant manner, then it must be a perception or world view that serves your purposes at this time in your life.

Whatever works for you...I mean it.

darkeyes

Mar 26, 2009, 6:22 AM

The true working class heroes are not those who fought and died in defence of an elite or nation, but those who fought and died for their own people.. and fought and struggled against the oppression and tyranny of the ruling classes of their land.. the people who fought for, within those nations, the rights and freedoms we have today, the rights and freedoms which the ruling elites and governments are currently eroding at a rate of knots.. we need a few more of those working class heroes here.. now.. before the big brother state allows us no freedom and no privacy and the oppression begins once again..

FalconAngel

Mar 26, 2009, 12:41 PM

I don't think you and I disagree, and I didn't mean to say that you were insulting anyone's intelligence, but that the official version of history such as learned in school or through the media is insulting.

I don't think we will ever fully understand the cause for anything, because beyond obvious and superficial "official" causes, beyond hidden agendas (which take some serious investigation to uncover), there are mass movements and events born of our global consciousness and materialized on the world stage in subsequent dramas, the nature and meaning of which we cannot fully grasp...and there are spiritual causes that have to do with our evolution as individuals and as a specie.

There is always a cause behind a cause...the universe is multi-dimensional.

The world is as a mirror of our consciousness. Everything out there, from what we desire and love to what we fear and hate the most, is part of who we are, of our individual psyche.

So in a greater reality there are no victims and no villains, only people who have forgotten their own spiritual power to create meaningfully and imagine themselves lost in the wheels of karma, tossed around by circumstances, in turn victims, in turn victimizers, as if unconscious, asleep, spiritually speaking...

I see where you are coming from.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, we didn't cover Either world war very much in school. Being an avid reader, I spent much of my childhood in the library reading up about everything that I could on both wars.

After I got sent overseas, by the military, I had the opportunity to learn about the war in Europe from a first hand perspective, since I was fortunate enough to meet people who were there. I got to meet a couple of people who were in the military then as well as one gentleman that was in our equivilant of middle school during the Blitz.

If you listen well enough, I've found that some of the stories can be quite telling of both the perceptions of what is happening as well as the truths that are harder to see.

Did you know that MI-6 knew that the Japanese were heading to attack Pearl harbor, but not when, while our naval intelligence knew that the Japanese were up to something but had no idea where?

It is interesting to consider what the final outcome would have been if the British had shared that information with us.
Would we have entered the war in Europe (out of gratitude for the information) or would we have focused on the Pacific, thus fighting on only one front, entering the war in Europe after finishing off the Japanese?

Interesting thing to look at.

TaylorMade

Mar 26, 2009, 9:11 PM

If your perception (is it?) is that rich and middle class people today are represented in military personnel in the US in proportions equal to that of the general population, and that the poor has never, historically speaking, been canon fodder for the rich in any significant manner, then it must be a perception or world view that serves your purposes at this time in your life.

Whatever works for you...I mean it.

I never said anything like that, and you know it.

*Taylor*