Don't know the story there, maybe he was another Henry Ford? Decorated with the highest honour a non-German could get by Hitler..
EDIT: Ooops Ben, a quick Google search reveals this.....some shady dealings went on there...
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.
Good god CK.....that makes some pretty sick reading....
The Nazis extracted the fillings of its victims after being informed by Degussa that the company could refine it into marketable gold bullion. Degussa was awarded an exclusive contract with the Nazis to refine all gold. The company was also joint owners with I.G. Farben of Degesch, a firm that produced Zyklon-B cyanide tablets used in the gas chambers. Due to the hoard of gold fillings stacking up at Auschweitz, Degussa built a smelter there. The bullion was then shipped back to Berlin and commingled with the Nazis gold stash. Undoubtedly some of it made its way back to the banker in charge of United Steel Works, Prescott Bush
"Undoubtedly some of it made its way back to the banker in charge of United Steel Works, Prescott Bush"
Are you speculating, postulating or vilifying on the basis of the authors opinion? Relevance as well please. My father would rather spit on a Brit than talk to one, back in his youth I imagine he would have loved to line one up in the sites as did his uncles before him. Am I guilty of something because of it? Is guilt transferable through generations despite not sharing his feelings? Is GWB responsible for slavery as well? If you can conclusively link comments from GWB to show him as a Nazi sympathizer then you will have made a point.
Some of us have other things to do.....since when are you the one in a hurry to explain something you have said....but then you only offer opinions thus no explanation is required in your estimation I guess.
Being unhappy with the content....which source you using for that that...the Guardian or some other rag?
Ten Thousand deaths his fault for making a speech....how about all of the UN Resolutions....what about Saddam's actions that led to the invasion of Kuwait and all of the sanctions...and resolutions? I assume he is guilt free and less guilty than Bush and Powell in your estimation...afterall he was not a threat right?
Did not the World Famous and Most Great Bernard Law Montgomery....ignore intelligence at Market-Garden and launch an attack that failed.....killing thousands of Allied troops....I reckon you will give him a pass too?
You dear boy are the one that is selective in his application of blame.....and only find fault with those that are conservative take positions opposite to yours.
All you really do is snipe and make poor banter without presenting any viable ideas of your own.....you attack others but fail to take a stand yourself from what I have read.
With the news that the Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption and that Saddam had benefited to the tune of over Seven Billion Dollars in illegal transactions....does that change your view of the wonderful United Nations, Kofi Annan, and crowd?
Do you think Sanctions would ever have worked due to that corruption of the program?
Do you think the UN thus was the vehicle that delivered all manner of suffering to the Iraqi people and Saddam and his henchmen only benefited?
How would you have solved that situation LIMA?
Lets have a clear, definitive statement from you about it....list your actions like a Powerpoint Presentation....point by point...bullet by bullet display of exactly what you would have done?
You wouldn't need a great deal of imagination to suppose that some of the power and influence that GWB obviously has benefitted from (given that he seems to have very little on the ball himself) comes from his wealthy forebears making connections and piling up the moolah for the use of suceeding generations.
(Here, of course, I am assuming that GWB is simply what he appears to be, some sort of 'dud'. 'Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, a few sandwiches short of a picnic, lights on folks not home...' Call it what you will but much of what gets people such as West Coast exercised is the way that lots of folks have sublime contempt for GWB and his crowd. WC chooses to take this as anti-Americanism but believe me, it's just that GWB really does come across as some sort of shallow jerk to a lot of folks.)
Take two working assumptions, that Prescott Bush did very well by dealing with the Nazis, adding to his family fortune and that GWB has benefitted from this family fortune. Combine them and you can state that some of the present wealth of the Bush family, however indirectly or not, stems from Nazi sources. This is not a far-fetched or basically unfair thing to assume, is it?
That is not to say that GWB or even his grandaddy had Nazi sympaties. No, perhaps worse is that such folks choose to ignore the stench of death and just take the money. What is all the yadda-yadda about GWB and his links to the Bin Laden family but something similar? Non-ideological, shallow greed is what gets me a bit wound up in this. The sort of logic that states, 'Well, if I don't do it, someone else will come along and do it instead. So why not just take the money?' Hey, Prescott Bush took the money, didn't he? Along with a lot of others, yes, but please do not tell me this family embodies the highest values of American democracy or some such tosh.
Grand Idea there Lima....just like the EU dictating law to the UK...as has recently happened in criminal cases. What happens if the country being dictated to decides it doesn't care to play that game....as did Iraq? If the UK balks at this latest subordination of UK interests....will the EU be empowered to take action to force compliance? Hows that going to set with the boys down the pub?
Balkans, Darfur? These you claim as UN success stories? God help their failures.
The UN has never succeeded in peace making, only in peace keeping after both sides had reached the stage of compromise and needed an impartial force to patrol the ceasefire line. Even there every one of their operations has been dogged by corruption and incompetence.
Collective international bodies to solve disputes? No one would trust the UN to do that, too much corruption and partisanship. Thatīs why there are bodies such as:
The International Court of Justice The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea The International Court of Justice/ Court of First Instance The European Court of Human Rights The International Criminal Court The World Trade Organisation etc..
I was hoping you'd say that so I could quote former NZ PM David Lange when he debated at the Oxford Union in 1985 and he pointed out that post WWII with Nuclear Weapoins being claimed as a deterrent, 30 million had died in wars. He was challenged on this by someone making your point to which he replied,
Have you considered the proposition for one moment that that war, that cost those casualties might have entrenched within people the yearning for peace, the growth of democratic institutions, the accountability of political representatives, so that none wishes to wage in conventional or nuclear terms, any war? Why attribute to the presence of that awesome potential clash of firepower a stability which your politicians have been arguing they created?
He went on to say,
The appalling character of those weapons has robbed us of our right to determine our destiny and subordinates our humanity to their manic logic. They have subordinated reason to irrationality and placed our very will to live in hostage. Rejecting the logic of nuclear weapons does not mean surrendering to evil; evil must still be guarded against. Rejecting nuclear weapons is to assert what is human over the evil nature of the weapon; it is to restore to humanity the power of the decision; it is to allow a moral force to reign supreme. It stops the macho lurch into mutual madness.
Quite the contrary....that is why Iraq has a new government nowadays...Saddam finally got ousted for invading Kuwait after many long years.
But in response to my question....if the EU finally forces the UK to submit...or tries to force the UK to submit to EU law and the UK refuses.....are the other EU nations authorized to invade the UK to force compliance? Will you folks once again be fighting the French and Germans over some point of law if you refuse to capitulate to the demands of the EU?
Just to clarify your position, you think it's acceptable that countries can go round attacking others, answerable to no-one ?
As we all know, the decision by the President of the US to attack is answerable to the people of the United States, who will not support military action taken for imperialistic or any other reasons other than either a direct threat against the US or a moral imperative great enough to engage.
Bush II's Iraq decision weathered the electorate's purview in 2004 and will be tested again every even year from now to the end of our republic.
To say we go around attacking others as if it is solely at the whim of the President, without any accounting, is to misread what is really going on in these situations.
The UN has been uniformly ineffective in deterring or countering situations like Kuwait, Rwanda, Congo, and Darfur. Who carries the burden outside the US, Britain, Australia and their coalitions assembled to stand against the true imperialists and cruel tyrants such as Hussein?