Another Blow (or two) for Freedom ?

[zoomy]

...in 1942.

[Pabmusic]

Ho ho yes teamsaint, wasn't Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather) on the board of a bank whose assets were seized under 'trading with the enemy' laws in the United States ?

Yes, that's true.

*** [There now follows a story that's very much off topic. Viewer discretion is advised.] ***

Prescott Bush had attended Yale, where he was a Bonesman, a member of the Skull & Bones secret society (it dates back to the 1830s and is still going today). They have a reputation for "crooking" or stealing momentoes and it is rumoured that many interesting objects are kept in the Skull & Bones crypt at New Haven, Connecticut. One of the more plausible claims is that they (specifically Prescott Bush and five others) stole the skull of Geronimo from his grave in 1916, although the Skull & Bones consistently deny this. The Apaches did ask George W to help them get the skull back, but he (another Bonesman) denied any knowledge of it. Or perhaps he just denied any knowledge.

Well, in 1926, the head of the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa disappeared from his grave in Chihuahua (I have to point out that Villa is buried in Mexico City as well, but the body in Chihuahua may well be the real one - or may not, as the case may be) and it is rumoured that it passed to Prescott Bush and is also in the Skull & Bones crypt at Yale. There is less evidence for this claim than there is for the Geronimo one, but secret societies do attract conspiracy theories.

Pancho Villa was another colourful character. In 1916 he invaded the USA with an army of about 100 and laid siege to Columbus, New Mexico, which he eventually burnt. He was accompanied by a Hollywood film crew, and the attack on Columbus had to be timed to coincide with the best lighting conditions - the first known example of Hollywood dictating the progress of a war.

*** [End of digression.] ***

[Resurrection Man]

......

I don't want to diminish in the least the real achievements of real people in awful situations, but talk of wars fought 'for freedom' over-simplifies some very complicated political situations.

....

I can't even begin to comprehend where you are coming from.

Country A invades Country B.
Country B therefore loses its freedom.
Country C declares war on Country A to restore Country B....and its freedom.

What is 'over-complicated' about that?

It is no different from your proposed scenario in stationing ships off the Azores....on the off-chance.

Or us having Typhoons based down in the Falklands.

[Pabmusic]

I can't even begin to comprehend where you are coming from...

Ah well. I see a difference; you don't. I take it then that you see WW1 as a war for freedom? Perhaps it was (Woodrow Wilson might have called it a 'war for self-determination'). But that leaves 'freedom' meaning nothing more that 'non-interference by another country', which as I said is a very narrow definition of 'freedom'. And in any case, saying that a war is 'for freedom' is an idea we usually apply in hindsight. A person who is mugged does not usually see the struggle as one 'for' anything at the time - except to stop the mugger carrying on the attack.