Bush Speech Thread

[TheStinger]

Peter the Greats personal qualities included torture, murder and other acts which shocked comtemporaries(who were hardly squeaky clen themselves) Oh well he had a city named after to him so he must be alright.

What is with Russain dictators and naming cities.

[SlowwHand]

Dictators name cities what they want to name them.

[Spiffor]

The Russians rename their cities more easily than other it seems. But St Petersbourg was founded by German settlers and christened after St Peter, not Peter the Great.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The Russians rename their cities more easily than other it seems. But St Petersbourg was founded by German settlers and christened after St Peter, not Peter the Great.

Well I never knew that. cheers.
Do russians realise this

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The Russians rename their cities more easily than other it seems. But St Petersbourg was founded by German settlers and christened after St Peter, not Peter the Great.

Darn, I've been five years in that city and didn't know this. But it explains the name (Burg = castle in German, without meaning in Russian). Was it taken or did it flip? <Coracle>Damn culture flipping ! </Coracle>

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think that's right. Peter the Great founded the city, after all...

[KrazyHorse]

I'm pretty sure it's named after him...

[Spiffor]

There are plenty of former German settlements in Easern Europe including Russia. I don't know if they have been consuered or if they culture flipped. But the German government will consider people from these settlements German, should they migrate to Germany, because they share a "common blood" since several centuries
I don't know if the recent Schröder laws changed this stupidity though.

[Harovan]

Well, the Russians renamed it often. Besides the name Leningrad (which was its name when I lived there) it had the name Petrograd (Peter's town in Russian, while the name Petersburg is clearly German). The Peterburgians themselves call it "Piter".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There are plenty of former German settlements in Easern Europe including Russia. I don't know if they have been consuered or if they culture flipped. But the German government will consider people from these settlements German, should they migrate to Germany, because they share a "common blood" since several centuries
I don't know if the recent Schröder laws changed this stupidity though.

St. Petersburg was founded by Peter the Great as a fort in 1703. There were lots of Germans there, IIRC, due to its position as Russia's "international" city, but it was never a German colony.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.cityvision2000.com/history/whenandhow.htm

[Spiffor]

OK, I was wrong about St. Petersbourg :

St.Petersburg was founded on the 16th of May 1703. That day the six-bastion fortress was ceremonially laid on the Zayachy Island in the broadest part of the Neva estuary. The laying of the Fortress became a culmination in the succession of events that lasted several centuries. The Finnish Gulf, the Ladoga Lake, the Onega Lake and the surrounding regi-on became the arena of fight between Novgorod, and later the centralized Rus-sian State and the neighboring states, especially Sweden.

In 1240 Duke Alexander Nevsky Alexander Nevskywho headed the troops of Novgorod defeated the Swede at the place where the Izhora River fell into the Neva River. However, in 1617 during the reign of Michael III when the Times of Troubles had just been over, Russia was forced to conclude a peace treaty with Sweden giving up the Izhora grounds. The vast country was deprived of the natural outlet to the Baltic Sea.

In 1699 during the reign of Peter the Great Russia started its preparation for the war with Sweden. In 1700 the Northern War of Russia with Sweden broke out. It lasted 21 year and resolved finally the controversy of centuries. In the fall of 1702 Russian troops seized Noteburg. Peter the Great called this fortress Schluesselburg (Key Town), which marked that the route to Neva was cleared. In May 1703 Peter and Paul fortress was laid in the Zayachy Island with the church in name of Saints Peter and Paul in the middle. The house of wooden logs known as "the House of Peter the Great" was constructed on the Right Bank of the Neva River not far from the Peter and Paul fortress. May 16 1703 is deemed to be the date of St.Petersburg foundation. In May 1704 the construction of the first sea fortress, Kronstadt, was completed in the Finnish Gulf. The location of these three fortresses outlined the borders of the future Russian Capital and its suburbs.

In 1710 the Capital of Russia was transferred to St. Petersburg from Moscow, while in 1712 the Tsar Family and households together with the major Governmental Bodies moved to St.Petersburg. On the 27th of July 1714 Russia fleet headed by Peter the Great scored the decisive victory at Gangut cape in the Baltic Sea that made Russia an equal partner among the European states and determined the outcome of the Northern War.Peter I

Peter the Great conceived the idea of a regularly planned city with well-defined layout developed to clear designs. Domenico Tresini was the first architect who made the General Layout of the city center. His designs were used for construction of the Summer Palace of Peter the Great, the Building of the Twelve Boards, and the laying of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, that appeared to be of the prime importance for the city development and the ideology. It was Peter the Great's intention to move the Relics of Saint Alexander Nevsky from Vladimir City to this monastery to make a memorial that would always remind of the glory of Russian troops.

Jean Batist Leblon was the architect who developed the General Layout of St.Peters-burg. During that period such buildings as the Menshikov Palace, and the Kunstamera were constructed; the outstanding sculptor and architect B.F. Rastrelli worked in the city. The combined efforts of these architects lead to the specific style of St.Petersburg baroque.

A tragic pause in the city development followed the death of Peter the Great (January 28 1725). The opponents of Peter the Great's reforms brought the Capital back to Moscow and the City of Peter began to decay. In 1730 Empress Ann ascended the throne and the status of Russian Capital came back to St.Petersburg again. The Empress tried to be seen as the follower of Peter's ideas. During her reign the city was carefully divided into five part, the center being moved to the Admiralty Island. Three thoroughfares that stemmed from the Admiralty were completed - Nevsky Prospect, Median Prospect (now Gorokhovaya street), and Voznesensky Prospect.

It appears he conveniently have a St. Peter's church in his capitol. I wonder how I got the idea it was founded by Germans

[TheStinger]

Well I thought I'd learn't something new, apparently I haven't.

Anyway Peter the Great was a 1st class bastard

[Harovan]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Well I thought I'd learn't something new, apparently I haven't.

Anyway Peter the Great was a 1st class bastard

The Russians would disagree.

[TheStinger]

Russians are impressivley Myopic about there past leaders

[Sava]

I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here.

Saddam is bad and I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in his brain. But he isn't going to threaten the US in a military fashion. And if it's even remotely possible that he'll supply terrorists, we need to beef up internal security because attacking Saddam won't stop other confirmed terrorists. This war is a gross misallocation of military, economic, and human resources. While we're off fighting a war in some stupid country that can't threaten us, a terrorist cell is operating somewhere in the US. And going after Iraq will no doubt inflame future terrorists. And by going after Iraq without UN approval, the US will shoulder all of the blame if something goes wrong. At least with UN approval and cooperation, we could have a scapegoat. But noooo, Bush is wagering what little credibility the US has on his stupid little war. I just hope that our troops succeed quickly and with minimal casualties.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr. Fun, you cannot seriously be against the basic principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." After all, we allied with Stalin, Mao and Chang, all in their own way despicable, to defeat a larger menace. Surely you understand this from the WWII context?

Americans are sometime sickened by the company we have to keep. So sickened that in 1975, Senator Church lead the charge to forbid the CIA from using unsavory characters for intelligence. All this did was lead to 9/11 due to lack of human intelligence. In retrospect, what Church did harmed United States.

I don't know what would happen in the world had we not conducted our foreign-policy the way we did. But the fear at the time was that the Communists would take over the entire world and kill us. An overly particular foreign-policy with respect to allies surely would have contributed to a Communist victory.

But simply saying that we supported unsavory characters without placing it fully in context is unfair. But the left could care less about being fair when it comes to United States.

How close were we allied with Stalin's Soviet Union during World War II? We ended up racing against him for control over parts of Germany, and we nuked Japan so we could defeat Japan before the Soviet Union could force surrendure over Japan.

In almost all cases, I really cannot see the justification for allying ourselves with dictators who have committed crimes against humanity to achieve our goals.

[KrazyHorse]

and we nuked Japan so we could defeat Japan before the Soviet Union could force surrendure over Japan

What history books have you been reading?

[muxec]

Nuking Japan saved the world. It showed to the world the nuclear danger and prevented Soviet-USA war at 1965.

[carnide_]

I dont like Bush, but the speech was excellent!
Anyone has a clue about who actually wrote it?

[Ned]

Frogger, MrFun's statement is very typical of Americans who have grown up and were educated in America's public school system, where propaganda is often taught instead of history. I don't know the particulars of MrFun's education. But I believe, from reading this post that he was educated in our public school system.

A good percentage of the American population actively hates the United States because of its "evil" deeds. If even half what they believe in were actually true, I too would be anti-American. However, I actually lived through much of the history they know only from history books and know the truth.

In the war against communism, we often looked the other way when our "boy" turned out to be a brutal, killing dictator. The Shah of Iran as a good example. He was our "boy," but he killed thousands of Iranians to stay in power. But, what were we to do? Force him out of office? That is exactly what we ended up doing.

It is good that their forums like Apolyton for people of both the left and right to debate issues. At times, I find myself educated about what I read here. I only hope the left feels the same way about some of the things I and other conservatives say in these debates.

[KrazyHorse]

Your grasp of historical facts is much lower than Mr Fun's, so don't try to take the opportunity to jab at the "liberal" public education system

I highly doubt this is what he was taught in public school.

[Sava]

Well said Frogger.

[KrazyHorse]

For Mr. Fun:

The Russians weren't about to conquer the Japanese islands. They'd had to be bribed into declaring war on them in the first place, and only did so in 1945. They fought a few minor engagements, but nothing of a scale to bring the Pacific War to a close.

Nuking Japan might have had something to do with the Russians, but it wasn't to prevent them from capturing Japan. More like a warning...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Frogger
For Mr. Fun:

The Russians weren't about to conquer the Japanese islands. They'd had to be bribed into declaring war on them in the first place, and only did so in 1945. They fought a few minor engagements, but nothing of a scale to bring the Pacific War to a close.

Nuking Japan might have had something to do with the Russians, but it wasn't to prevent them from capturing Japan. More like a warning...

Wasn't nuking Japan about Truman not wanting to risk a half-million American casualties in an invasion of the mainland?

[Lord Merciless]

Americans should stop self-loathing and being masochist.

[KrazyHorse]

"might have had something to do with", not "was motivated entirely by"

Ending the war relatively painlessly for the US was, of course, the primary concern.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by muxec
Nuking Japan saved the world. It showed to the world the nuclear danger and prevented Soviet-USA war at 1965.

This is true. If it werent for nuclear weapons, ironically, I believe there WOULD have been a 3rd world war. But the fear of nuclear reprisal kept open and direct hostilities between the major enemies at bay. As a consequence, tho, more covert hostilities took place and the subsequent US backing of bastard governments for the sole sake of influence.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Muxec, pres.Bush also have WoMD and should be sanctioned by UN and its weapons inspector. Hmm, why does it never happen?!


In fact pres.Truman ordered their use of nukes in 1945. More than 200.000 civilians killed and many more mutilated for generations. See that old footage of burnt babies and cry.
Truman and his US-generals was responsible for mass genocide!
He should been captured and prosecuted just as we did to Milosevic. But no suprise... neither did that happen.

The only nation who did ever nuke another is still USA.
Has the japanese prime minister forgotten the sad parts of his nation's history? What is this world thinking about allowing the unpredictable USA to carry WoMD?

Bush doesnt have WoMD, the US does. We can have them because we are a stable democracy that has a stated national doctrine to never preempt the use of nukes. Kim Jong Il, who controsl the WoMD in his country doesnt have such a doctrine, nor does Saddam Hussein. They are unstable, and potentially as is their regimes. Also they are our enemies, and if they can potentially prempt a strike against us or an ally, then that makes them a grave and dire threat, that must be dealt with.

Comparing the US's use of nukes in WWII to genocide is the ramblings of an utter moron. This has been said a million times, but I will say it again. Japan's cultural mentality was not to surrender. The Japanese populace vowed to fight to the death for their emperor. That was 90 million Japsanese at the time. Estimates are around 500,000 US casualties for an invasion. However the use of 2 nukes saved all those American lives, and broke the Japanese spirit to fight, saving practically the entire populace of Japan from dying in a horribbly bloody and drawn out war.

[Alexander's Horse]

I always find his speeches unconvincing. The reason is he looks like he doesn't understand what he's reading out, like he's never seen it before, like he was just some guy dragged off the street to read out a speech prepared by others.