Churchill said it best.....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What was the first government funded health service which came about a decade after independance and was deemed neccesary for the good of the nations finances and business interests.

My favourite war It fits in nicely as it involves the same business interests which saw the benefits of government funded healthcare.

For all my resources I'm not finding what you mean. Reference please?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won". The United States tried to capture Canada, and failed miserably. Not really relevant, but what I said then I think ties in:

That, I think, sums it up quite nicely and underlines the very strong American belief of 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' having grown up and out from an oppressive force to become a nation. Obviously, there are other factors as well, I think having rather passive neighbours for the past hundred years or so has also helped the American culture grow as well as perhaps polarise America and Europe where we've spent the past couple of centuries fine tuning new and exciting ways to kill each other. Britain has been lucky in a sense that we have not been the subject of an invasion since the last visits from Dowly and friends although we have had a few try, and as such, we do not know that feeling of subjugation and of state control, on the contrary, we've usually been the ones dishing it out, well, up until relatively recently anyway.
American culture fascinates me because it is all so new, America is a very young nation and it's perhaps like a slice of our own history in a modern setting.

For all my resources I'm not finding what you mean. Reference please?

!798, 5th congress.
Take a look at the name you use here

[Sailor Steve]

Ah, the Act for Disabled Seamen. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that particular one.

Of course it could be argued that that was the begining of the Veterans Administration, and the VA has been used as an example of why we should not have government-run healthcare. It has also been argued that veterans deserve such benefits because of their service. I don't take either side on that one, since I'm in the middle of it. On the other hand here in Utah we have a pretty good VA system.

I'm also up in the air on the current arguments. My own belief is that the American federal government was originally created just to deal with foreign policy, and I like the idea of social programs being run at a lower level, where abuses can be addressed more easily. I like the idea of keeping the federal government as small and powerless as possible. Of course that's a losing battle all around, but one must try.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Not an arse, sure he liked his booze, so what, still the best Brit leader .Funny thing is he was defeated after the war then elected again in the 50's You guys were lucky to have had him, he had guts, America could use him now.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Easy to see we are nearing war...not armed uprising or anything, but a war indeed for the future of the US from Obamunism and othe progressive dangers.

Churchill had a brain AND guts and saved the Brits, America could use him now because he would get the RIGHT things done and save this country.Hell Brits could use him again, maybe tackle the nasty muslim problem you guys have

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I fail to see what was wrong with Churchill's leadership, apart from his sometimes poor ideas for grand strategy. Surely it can't be worse than Chamberlain's, whose appeasement policy miserably failed at preventing the war, right?

Good points guys

[Ducimus]

Cracked.com ( i love this site).

The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bull****)

Churchhill ranks number 4. Satire site though it may be, they do cite references.

[Bubblehead1980]

duci, you and usually agree but if you believe most of what this site says, then I am shocked.The site tended to downplay America's role in the war against Hitler.True I think it's a bad myth that some believe we won the war all by ourselves but that site downplays the huge role American played in Europe and does not even mention the the Pacific.You know the history.

Site is also rather wrong about Churchill, if he was so bad, why was he elected again in the 50's? I honestly think we should have turned against stalin after WW II was over before he had the bomb and couldve prob avoided two proxy wars with the soviets(korea and vietnam) and saved millions of people from living under decades of soviet rule.Sacrificed more then for a better future.However, it did not happen and thinks worked out well anyway because Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union.Churchill did not have a bloodlust, he just wanted to rid the world of the virus called communisim.

I am pretty sure Churchill did not call the Labour party leaders Gestapo but he said they may have to use methods like the Gestapo to enforce their views and programs.Could not have been too wrong, he was elected again in next election.Brits figured out the Lefty promises of gumdrop rain showers in the new British utopia are just not possible.All these years later I hear from every Brit I meet and have met(quite a few in my area believe it or not) the NHS sucks outloud.Looks like Winston was correct. You did say it was satire but guess i am missing the satire on this one.

With some reforms, India etc would have been better off to stay part of the Empire.Look at India etc today, not exactly places you want to stay.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want.

Do you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers? Who would be paying for that?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Site is also rather wrong about Churchill, if he was so bad, why was he elected again in the 50's? I honestly think we should have turned against stalin after WW II was over before he had the bomb and couldve prob avoided two proxy wars with the soviets(korea and vietnam) and saved millions of people from living under decades of soviet rule.

...by killing millions in Western Europe in 45, which btw would soon be under Soviet control, as they would have beaten us hands down.

[Onkel Neal]

Churchill was awesome. He was half-American, you know. Just think how great he would have been if he had been a full-blooded Yank!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Churchill was awesome. He was half-American, you know. Just think how great he would have been if he had been a full-blooded Yank!

He would have been...what?? Cherokee? Sioux?

[Raptor1]

It doesn't really say anything about Churchill's wartime leadership, does it?

As I stated before, Churchill had some pretty aweful ideas when it came to grand strategy and Unthinkable was one of them. I've argued before, somewhere, that an Allied attack on Russia in 1945 was doomed to fail horribly. The Russians had more men, tanks, guns, planes; better equipment, especially tanks which far outclassed the Allies' and more experienced troops which fought the Germans for years.

Other than that, it's main point is that the Indians didn't like him, and that's rather moot considering they probably didn't like any of their other colonial rulers much more either.

As I stated before, Churchill had some pretty aweful ideas when it came to grand strategy

Yes, Churchill was famous for having lots and lots of ideas on how to win the war, the military and war cabinet had great difficulty getting some of the craziest ideas stopped and on many occasions were unable to stop his military "genius" coming to fruition.

Site is also rather wrong about Churchill, if he was so bad, why was he elected again in the 50's?

Thats easy, the government had made a huge raft of promises. When it got to power it found the coffers empty and the line of credit withdrawn.
That problem affected their vote.
Though as I am sure you understand given your knowledge of politics over in Britain Bubblehead, Churchill won his victory by getting less votes than the sitting government.
Which isn't bad going, three times he stood for election to the job of prime minister, and the only time he won an election for that job he did so by getting less votes that the government he stood against.

[Oberon]

Churchill was a great character, definitely my favourite PM, and I think if he had not taken control of Britain during the Second World War then Britain would have had an even harder struggle than it had. He had some fantastic ideas, but he also had some complete howlers. Operation Unthinkable being one of them.
He was an excellent wartime leader, however he was not such a great peacetime leader, and his re-election in the 1950s I think was more to do with the burnt out Labour party facing the spectre of the legacy of Churchill.
If he had been a US President, I suspect he would have been comparable to another favourite leader of mine, Ronald Reagan.

And a quote for Neal:

"I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been an American and my mother British, instead of the other way round, I might have got here on my own."
- Churchill addressing the US Congress, December 1941

I have a book of Churchill quotes in front of me which I enjoy reading through from time to time, 'The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill', a really good read if you want a good chuckle.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Churchill was a great character, definitely my favourite PM, and I think if he had not taken control of Britain during the Second World War then Britain would have had an even harder struggle than it had. He had some fantastic ideas, but he also had some complete howlers. Operation Unthinkable being one of them.
He was an excellent wartime leader, however he was not such a great peacetime leader, and his re-election in the 1950s I think was more to do with the burnt out Labour party facing the spectre of the legacy of Churchill.
If he had been a US President, I suspect he would have been comparable to another favourite leader of mine, Ronald Reagan.

And a quote for Neal:



I have a book of Churchill quotes in front of me which I enjoy reading through from time to time, 'The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill', a really good read if you want a good chuckle.

That pretty much sums it up in IMO....a great leader in times of war but not so great in times of peace.

The one undeniable fact being he kept the British peoples morale and refusal to be overawed during its darkest and most perilous moment.



or



take yer pick.

He did what no other of his generation could have achieved.

I thank God Roosevelt felt the same way about him.