Germany Lost the War... So What? [Archive]

View Full Version : Germany Lost the War... So What?

robert arndt

February 18th 04, 05:46 PM

The US postwar history:

Korea: stalemate
Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
Vietnam: LOST
Operation Eagle Claw (Iranian Hostage Rescue): Failure
Lebanon: Marines blown up- failure
Reagan-Bush years: a string of success shooting down a few Libyan MiGs
and attacking small puny nations with no AF- Victory?
Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
population suffer as a result.
The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave with
their armor and military/police units intact. International force
needed.
Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed
9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities
Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in 1998,
Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
isolating UN and certain European nations- failure

Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles in
the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and N
Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in China.
So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
everything to beat them.
The US in Vietnam was a Superpower giant with the greatest technology
on earth... and lost to peasants walking through the jungle at night
in pajamas armed with an AK-47, machetes, mines, grenades and RPGs.
The US may be the lone Superpower on paper but our track record
post-WW2 isn't that great.

Rob

Krztalizer

February 18th 04, 07:29 PM

Nazi German post war history:

<crickets>

Keith Willshaw

February 18th 04, 07:59 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> The US postwar history:
>

Facts arent your strong point are they ?

> Korea: stalemate

South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

> Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

> Vietnam: LOST
> Operation Eagle Claw (Iranian Hostage Rescue): Failure
> Lebanon: Marines blown up- failure

True enough

> Reagan-Bush years: a string of success shooting down a few Libyan MiGs
> and attacking small puny nations with no AF- Victory?

Then there's the little matter of the fall of communism, the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR

> Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
> nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
> population suffer as a result.

The war aims of expelling Iraq from Kuwait were achieved

> The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave with
> their armor and military/police units intact. International force
> needed.

The war aims of protecting the Kosovans from Serbian ethnic cleansing
were achieved

> Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed

Quite so, the ship was repaired and re-entered service

> 9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities
> Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.

Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups

> Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in 1998,
> Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
> Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
> reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
> isolating UN and certain European nations- failure
>

The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
about the going it alone bit.

> Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF.

Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....

> But
> we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
> threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
> defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles in
> the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and N
> Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
> stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
> twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
> invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in China.

The difference of course is the US knows that, your hero Adolf didnt.

> So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
> size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
> everything to beat them.

Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

Keith

B2431

February 18th 04, 08:20 PM

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>
>The US postwar history:
>
>Korea: stalemate
>Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
>Vietnam: LOST
>Operation Eagle Claw (Iranian Hostage Rescue): Failure
>Lebanon: Marines blown up- failure
>Reagan-Bush years: a string of success shooting down a few Libyan MiGs
>and attacking small puny nations with no AF- Victory?
>Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
>nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
>population suffer as a result.
>The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave with
>their armor and military/police units intact. International force
>needed.
>Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed
>9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities
>Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
>escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
>Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in 1998,
>Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
>Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
>reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
>isolating UN and certain European nations- failure
>
>Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
>submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
>we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
>threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
>defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles in
>the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and N
>Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
>stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
>twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
>invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in China.
>So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
>size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
>everything to beat them.
>The US in Vietnam was a Superpower giant with the greatest technology
>on earth... and lost to peasants walking through the jungle at night
>in pajamas armed with an AK-47, machetes, mines, grenades and RPGs.
>The US may be the lone Superpower on paper but our track record
>post-WW2 isn't that great.
>
>Rob
>

I'll let other people point out your many errors in that list. Even if
everything you said were true how does it change the fact that you lost WW2?
Other than the Nazi party you had everything going for you. Yet you started a
war you had no hope of winning.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

February 18th 04, 08:32 PM

In article >,
Krztalizer > wrote:
>Nazi German post war history:
>
><crickets>

Add: Occasional war criminals dancing the hemp fandango to general
approval.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Simon Robbins

February 18th 04, 10:00 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

I don't wish to appear to join the loony "good old days of the Reich" side
of this discussion, but the Cuban missile crisis was such a clear-cut US
victory, since Kennedy negotiated the removal of the Russian missiles by
offering to remove his own from Turkey.

Si

Keith Willshaw

February 18th 04, 11:14 PM

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>
> I don't wish to appear to join the loony "good old days of the Reich" side
> of this discussion, but the Cuban missile crisis was such a clear-cut US
> victory, since Kennedy negotiated the removal of the Russian missiles by
> offering to remove his own from Turkey.
>

Sure but they were early liquid fueled IRBM's (Jupiter IRC) that were
removed
from service worldwide by 1963 in any event.

Keith

Tuollaf43

February 18th 04, 11:56 PM

robert arndt

February 19th 04, 12:32 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
> > The US postwar history:
> >
>
> Facts arent your strong point are they ?
>
> > Korea: stalemate
>
> South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

We're talking war and power here. The Chinese human waves forced us
back until we eventually reached the starting point- the 38th
parallel. MacArthur could have defeated them in 1950 if he was allowed
to bomb the Yalu River bridges but was overruled by Washington. Later,
he was sacked. Big mistake.
>
> > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
>
> Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

Remember the failed "Bay of Pigs" and Washington's agreement with
Moscow to remove US missiles out of Turkey months later?
>
> > Vietnam: LOST
> > Operation Eagle Claw (Iranian Hostage Rescue): Failure
> > Lebanon: Marines blown up- failure
>
> True enough
>
> > Reagan-Bush years: a string of success shooting down a few Libyan MiGs
> > and attacking small puny nations with no AF- Victory?
>
> Then there's the little matter of the fall of communism, the
> dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR

Which is more due to Soviet citizens standing in line for bread 8 hrs
a day and the forever unattainable 5 year plans they made... not to
mention devoting almost all their resources to defense and the
corruption of the Communist Party elite. Then there was also the KGB
terror and its informer network. The fall was inevitable and without
the USSR the Warsaw Pact was nothing.
>
>
> > Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
> > nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
> > population suffer as a result.
>
> The war aims of expelling Iraq from Kuwait were achieved

After the nation was brutally raped, robbed, murdered, and
ecologically polluted. Saddam, meanwhile, was untouched and building
more palaces...
>
> > The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave with
> > their armor and military/police units intact. International force
> > needed.
>
> The war aims of protecting the Kosovans from Serbian ethnic cleansing
> were achieved

Oh please, too little too late. Serb soldiers insulted International
forces as they left Kosovo and threatened ethnic minorities right in
front the peacekeepers.
>
> > Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed
>
> Quite so, the ship was repaired and re-entered service

A US Naval warship which should have been adequately protected. Taken
out by a raft of explosives.
>
> > 9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities

Biggest disaster of them off and no comment? US the invincible brought
to agony by a few jet liners of terrorists?

> > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
>
> Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups

Are you insane? Try going there and leaving Kabul. The rest of the
nation is in the hands of warlords who shelter terrorists and hate the
US. My buddy is over there right now. He says its the same dirt
******** as ever.
>
> > Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in 1998,
> > Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
> > Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
> > reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
> > isolating UN and certain European nations- failure
> >
>
> The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
> about the going it alone bit.

Oh thank God for British token forces whose own weapons and gear are
****. I assume you're British, so don't you read your own papers for
God-save-the-Queen sakes!!! All you guys did was sit in the rear and
deliver humanitarian aid while the US drove downtown to Baghdad.
>
> > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF.
>
> Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
> a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....

4th largest army stat doesn't mean ****. They were pathetic fighting
soldiers. The Hitler Youth could have taken them out!!!
>
> > But
> > we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
> > threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
> > defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles in
> > the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and N
> > Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
> > stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
> > twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
> > invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in China.
>
> The difference of course is the US knows that, your hero Adolf didnt.

On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.
>
> > So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
> > size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
> > everything to beat them.
>
> Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> and couldnt even beat Britain.

I could only wish that the political decision to change direction
eastward would have never come and Sea Lion would have happened. What
would have Britain defended itself with then- the Home Guard with
pitch forks and shotguns? You should thank God a lone German bomber
ditched its bombs on London and saved your nation. Germany could have
kept fighting and by the winter of 1940 you would have ran out of
pilots and planes- had the Germans not diverted to civilian targets
like London.
>
> Keith

Keep dreaming on,
Rob

Kevin Brooks

February 19th 04, 01:12 AM

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The US postwar history:
> > >
> >
> > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> >
> > > Korea: stalemate
> >
> > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> >
> > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> >
> > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>
> And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
> that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

<snip>

> > > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> > > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> >
> > Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups
>
> Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
> Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.

Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--and that a few
other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other terrorist
operations.

<snip>

> >
> > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
>
> LOL! Tell us more.

Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the US
population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX, CA)
only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further if
you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.

www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html

>
> > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > and couldnt even beat Britain.
>
> Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
> Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
> Europe.

Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
> spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.

That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation; that it has
happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much a
product of common values than anything else. Reading anything further into
it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Germany might
> not have won,

No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?

> but Britain sure seems to have lost.

Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*? Now
France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...sorry if that all
upsets you, but them's the facts.

Brooks
>
> >
> > Keith

t_mark

February 19th 04, 01:28 AM

>
> Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
> we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China.

Probably because there's no need to, at least yet.

Here's 'underwhelming' for you in that same period of time.

1. US economy - 11 trillion
2. Japanese economy - 4.7 trillion
3. German economy 1.8 trillion
4 and on down - a bunch of smaller economies, including China at 1.3
trillion.

> The US may be the lone Superpower on paper but our track record
> post-WW2 isn't that great.

Probably because everyone is too scared ****less to screw with us, you
ignorant clue****.

t_mark

February 19th 04, 01:32 AM

You seem to conveniently be forgetting a basic fact: Germany unleashed a
vicious all-out war machine to win at all costs. The United States has yet
to fight a war without severe political constraints dictating what it can
and cannot do. If the US waged Nazi or Soviet-style war and simply employed
its capacity to lay waste to whatever it chose conventionally we would have
produced the sort of 'victories' you see to prize so greatly. Fortunately,
we don't do that since, unlike you, we're not Nazis.

David E. Powell

February 19th 04, 01:49 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The US postwar history:
> > >
> >
> > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> >
> > > Korea: stalemate
> >
> > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
>
> We're talking war and power here. The Chinese human waves forced us
> back until we eventually reached the starting point- the 38th
> parallel. MacArthur could have defeated them in 1950 if he was allowed
> to bomb the Yalu River bridges but was overruled by Washington. Later,
> he was sacked. Big mistake.
> >
> > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> >
> > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>
> Remember the failed "Bay of Pigs" and Washington's agreement with
> Moscow to remove US missiles out of Turkey months later?

Bay of Pigs failed because there was no air support by the US. The deal with
the Soviets was moot-ified by the US drawdown of the entire missile class
later, replacing them with weapons like advanced ICBMs ans later Polaris.

> > > Vietnam: LOST
> > > Operation Eagle Claw (Iranian Hostage Rescue): Failure
> > > Lebanon: Marines blown up- failure
> >
> > True enough
> >
> > > Reagan-Bush years: a string of success shooting down a few Libyan MiGs
> > > and attacking small puny nations with no AF- Victory?
> >
> > Then there's the little matter of the fall of communism, the
> > dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR
>
> Which is more due to Soviet citizens standing in line for bread 8 hrs
> a day and the forever unattainable 5 year plans they made... not to
> mention devoting almost all their resources to defense and the
> corruption of the Communist Party elite. Then there was also the KGB
> terror and its informer network. The fall was inevitable and without
> the USSR the Warsaw Pact was nothing.

Without the West forcing the USSR to spend itself into oblivion, and
supporting people like the rebels in Afghanistan, this would have gone
longer - and that loss of financial and political will on the USSR's point
also saved East Germany, and allowed the reunification. Standing up to
Communism in the Western Hemisphere/Central American helped as well.

> > > Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
> > > nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
> > > population suffer as a result.
> >
> > The war aims of expelling Iraq from Kuwait were achieved
>
> After the nation was brutally raped, robbed, murdered, and
> ecologically polluted. Saddam, meanwhile, was untouched and building
> more palaces...

Blame the UN, not the US. The UN resolution was only to free Kuwait. If
Saddam had pulled out when asked, the Coalition would not have had reason to
bomb him either. Heck, Saddam killed a lot of Kurds, a lot of Kuwaitis, a
lot of other Iraqis and a lot of Iranians. Eventually the US took your
advice and went all the way to Baghdad, and it was Continental Europe what
gave them hell for it.

> > > The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave with
> > > their armor and military/police units intact. International force
> > > needed.
> >
> > The war aims of protecting the Kosovans from Serbian ethnic cleansing
> > were achieved
>
> Oh please, too little too late. Serb soldiers insulted International
> forces as they left Kosovo and threatened ethnic minorities right in
> front the peacekeepers.

And now the Albanians kill Serbs and other minorities in front of them. And
the province has become a smuggling center where the vilest crimes go on
under UN supervision, and I suspect a little bit of sanction as well.

> > > Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed
> >
> > Quite so, the ship was repaired and re-entered service
>
> A US Naval warship which should have been adequately protected. Taken
> out by a raft of explosives.

Making the mistake of assuming they were making a port visit to a friendly
place. Terrorists often seek such weaknesses instead of fighting "fair." The
US is now camping out and rebuilding in the nation the Al Quaeda and their
buddies used to run.

> > > 9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities
>
> Biggest disaster of them off and no comment? US the invincible brought
> to agony by a few jet liners of terrorists?

Excuse me? Could have prevented? By how? Psychic hotline? Come on, this is
less believable than UFOs at Antartica or whatever.

And yes, killing thousands of people was a horrible thing. Yes a lot of men,
women, and children on planes and in buildings died. It is nothing to be
funny about. But it didn't paralyse the US, it had a different effect.
Personally the day after I wanted to get on an airliner to show we weren't
going to be pushed around, like the Israelis returning to bus stops after
bombings. Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack as well, and this had a similar
effect. People died and were injured horribly, and a nation grieved her
losses. Then went after those who did it. Were it your nation you would do
the same.

> > > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> > > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> >
> > Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups
>
> Are you insane? Try going there and leaving Kabul. The rest of the
> nation is in the hands of warlords who shelter terrorists and hate the
> US. My buddy is over there right now. He says its the same dirt
> ******** as ever.

I have a friend over there now as well, sir. He is proud of what they are
doing. They are clearing mines where he is at planted over 10 or so years of
war. Less kids will get blown up because of that. Do you think a nation
blown and beaten apart over 20 plus years will be rebuilt in a day? No. But
there is a beginning of a process there. And that counts for more than any
amount of griping.

> > > Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in 1998,
> > > Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
> > > Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
> > > reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
> > > isolating UN and certain European nations- failure
> > >
> >
> > The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
> > about the going it alone bit.
>
> Oh thank God for British token forces whose own weapons and gear are
> ****. I assume you're British, so don't you read your own papers for
> God-save-the-Queen sakes!!! All you guys did was sit in the rear and
> deliver humanitarian aid while the US drove downtown to Baghdad.

The battle for Basra was quite bloody. And the UK gets eternal credit from
the US for having our backs.

> > > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF.
> >
> > Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
> > a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....
>
> 4th largest army stat doesn't mean ****. They were pathetic fighting
> soldiers. The Hitler Youth could have taken them out!!!

Actually, they had fought a ten year war with Iran and wrecked Kuwait
handily. Saudi Arabia was also worried about them enough to call in half the
world to help them stand off against Iraq. They had one of the most advanced
air defense networks in the world, chemical weapons (Proof was in the ones
they blew up after 1991) and a heck of a lot of tanks. Their soldiers had
been in battles and were willing to fight. They had missiled a US ship
previously in a sneak attack with an Exocet. They were quite deadly to be
sure. The Hitler Youth comment is sad.

> > > But
> > > we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
> > > threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
> > > defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles in
> > > the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and N
> > > Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
> > > stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
> > > twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
> > > invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in China.
> >
> > The difference of course is the US knows that, your hero Adolf didnt.
>
> On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.

Not really. People used to say that about the USSR. And if China sees more
to gain in peace than war, plus the risks of war, peace is promising.

> > > So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
> > > size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
> > > everything to beat them.
> >
> > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > and couldnt even beat Britain.
>
> I could only wish that the political decision to change direction
> eastward would have never come and Sea Lion would have happened. What
> would have Britain defended itself with then- the Home Guard with
> pitch forks and shotguns?

Against what? Germany had virtually no landing craft. Their doctrine was not
intact and the UK had sea superiority with the Royal Navy. The smarter play
for Germany would have been to have a larger U-Boat force, but they were
behind the building curve on that at the war's start. Hitler had not planned
for a war with Britian and France in 1940.

You should thank God a lone German bomber
> ditched its bombs on London and saved your nation. Germany could have
> kept fighting and by the winter of 1940 you would have ran out of
> pilots and planes- had the Germans not diverted to civilian targets
> like London.

The Germans were against the first successful radar-equipped defense system,
and pilots from many nations were flocking to Britain. The German fighters
had very little time over Britain to protect the bombers due to fuel
constraints. Even had the Germans been able to secure some airspace over
southern England, the ability to land troops was not theirs.

Troops they tried to land would have faced stiff defenses, as well. The
Germans, to my knowledge, had no equivalent of the Allied UDTs that cleared
beach obstacles at Normandy. Things like flaming oil slicks, mines, and
obstacles would have been in their way. Plus the aforementioned Royal Navy.
And whatever the RAF had to throw at them.

> > Keith
>
> Keep dreaming on,
> Rob

t_mark

February 19th 04, 02:36 AM

> On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.

Hardly. China is dependent on the US, directly and indirectly, for the
majority of its annual growth and over 20% of its entire economy. That's
not going to change much in the future as the two become more and more
intertwined. To even get into a position to battle America in Asia, much
less elsewhere, would require decades of spending the Chinese can't even
afford to build up to, and have no reason to. It won't be smooth sailing,
but China has vastly more reasons to remain friends if not allies with the
United States than to plunge itself back into the middle of last century and
ruin decades of economic building by trying to fight it.

Peter Stickney

February 19th 04, 03:01 AM

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > writes:
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>
> I don't wish to appear to join the loony "good old days of the Reich" side
> of this discussion, but the Cuban missile crisis was such a clear-cut US
> victory, since Kennedy negotiated the removal of the Russian missiles by
> offering to remove his own from Turkey.

That seems to be the latest buzz, but its interesting to note that the
Jupiters in Turkey had been slated in 1961 to be retired in 1963-64, a year
before the missile Crisis.
Quite frankly, the Jupiters weren't good for much, anyway. (Despite
being designed by Wehrner von Braun's team at Redstone Arsenal). The
supposed mobility was worthless, they couldn't be based in a hardened
structure like a coffin or silo, and their reaction time (fuelling &
arming) was so long that they were vulnerable to airplanes from
Bulgaria.

Check out "The Other Missiles of October" if you get the chance.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Steve Hix

February 19th 04, 04:30 AM

In article >,
(Tuollaf43) wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The US postwar history:
> > >
> >
> > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> >
> > > Korea: stalemate
> >
> > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> >
> > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> >
> > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>
> And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
> that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

The Jupiters were out of service everywhere in any case within two years.
They were replaced...the Russian missiles in Cuba were not.

Kevin Brooks

February 19th 04, 07:47 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The US postwar history:
> > >
> >
> > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> >
> > > Korea: stalemate
> >
> > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
>
> We're talking war and power here. The Chinese human waves forced us
> back until we eventually reached the starting point- the 38th
> parallel.

Which was not the "starting point" for US forces--our troops did not enter
the fray until after the DPRK offensive was already steamrolling its way
down the Peninsula. In the end we maintained the ROK's border--sounds like a
win to me.

MacArthur could have defeated them in 1950 if he was allowed
> to bomb the Yalu River bridges but was overruled by Washington.

Bull****. The PLA was quite capable of using improvised bridging (and did do
so).

Later,
> he was sacked. Big mistake.

Actually, no, it was one of Truman's better moves. Dougie and his intel
weenies had ignored repeated indications of the intent of the PLA to enter
the conflict, and continued to press forward beyond their support capability
anyway--and his subordinate commanders (Almond, Smith, etc.) were none too
comfortable with the situation.

> >
> > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> >
> > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>
> Remember the failed "Bay of Pigs" and Washington's agreement with
> Moscow to remove US missiles out of Turkey months later?

You mean the missiles we ahd already planned to remove in rather short
order? You ever notice that the Thors that we and the Brits had under joint
control in the UK were also removed a year or so later (and they were not
part of the deal)? Wonder why?

<snip>

> >
> > Then there's the little matter of the fall of communism, the
> > dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR
>
> Which is more due to Soviet citizens standing in line for bread 8 hrs
> a day and the forever unattainable 5 year plans they made... not to
> mention devoting almost all their resources to defense and the
> corruption of the Communist Party elite. Then there was also the KGB
> terror and its informer network. The fall was inevitable and without
> the USSR the Warsaw Pact was nothing.

And why were those citizens having to stand in line? Why were they not
instead eating French bread and drinking (West) German wine? Becuase the US
and its NATO allies kept them out of Western Europe, and then engaged them
in a nifty little "spending war" that broke their feeble bank. Yup, that's a
win.

> >
> >
> > > Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
> > > nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
> > > population suffer as a result.
> >
> > The war aims of expelling Iraq from Kuwait were achieved
>
> After the nation was brutally raped, robbed, murdered, and
> ecologically polluted.

Kind of hard to stop the initial attack without our having forces on the
ground in the region, huh? But as Keith noted, in the end we kicked him back
into his own territory, so...another win.

Saddam, meanwhile, was untouched and building
> more palaces...

But his air force and army were sure as hell not "untouched". Made things
quite a bit easier when we went in for round two.

> >
> > > The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave with
> > > their armor and military/police units intact. International force
> > > needed.
> >
> > The war aims of protecting the Kosovans from Serbian ethnic cleansing
> > were achieved
>
> Oh please, too little too late. Serb soldiers insulted International
> forces as they left Kosovo and threatened ethnic minorities right in
> front the peacekeepers.

Threats they have not been able to carry out. And wouldn't you know it,
Milosevich is out of power, and the current Yugo Serb government is trying
to rebuild relations, right?

> >
> > > Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed
> >
> > Quite so, the ship was repaired and re-entered service
>
> A US Naval warship which should have been adequately protected. Taken
> out by a raft of explosives.

Hey, it happens. What your point to this would be is beyond me--it is not as
if, for example, we let bad guys into the Olympic Games to cause all sorts
of mayhem and murder...

> >
> > > 9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities
>
> Biggest disaster of them off and no comment? US the invincible brought
> to agony by a few jet liners of terrorists?

What is there to comment about? It happened--slimy terrorists murdered a lot
of innocent people. Unfortunately, it will not be the last time terrorists
murder people, and no nation on earth can assure the complete safety of its
citizens. The more amazing fact is that someone like you is too dimwitted to
realize that.

>
>
> > > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> > > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> >
> > Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups
>
> Are you insane? Try going there and leaving Kabul. The rest of the
> nation is in the hands of warlords who shelter terrorists and hate the
> US. My buddy is over there right now. He says its the same dirt
> ******** as ever.

Firstly, one wonders if you actually have any buddies; if you do, it is
likely only because the poor jerk has never read the crap you post in this
NG. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that AQ can not consider Afghanistan
as free parking any longer...not to mention that since we went in there we
have managed to derail subsequent AQ efforts. Much better to keep the little
devils on the run and looking back over their shoulders as opposed to
allowing them free reign to develop their nasty little plots.

> >
> > > Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in 1998,
> > > Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
> > > Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
> > > reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
> > > isolating UN and certain European nations- failure
> > >
> >
> > The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
> > about the going it alone bit.
>
> Oh thank God for British token forces

"Token forces"? You must not have ever read the ORBAT, huh?

> whose own weapons and gear are
> ****.

That would be "combat proven ****" to you, mister. Which is more than can be
said for the equipment produced by your favorite nation, huh?

I assume you're British, so don't you read your own papers for
> God-save-the-Queen sakes!!! All you guys did was sit in the rear and
> deliver humanitarian aid while the US drove downtown to Baghdad.

No, they also took Basra, and their SOF operators ranged throughout the
country, at least according to what Newsweek published.

> >
> > > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF.
> >
> > Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
> > a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....
>
> 4th largest army stat doesn't mean ****. They were pathetic fighting
> soldiers. The Hitler Youth could have taken them out!!!

Ah! Sieg Heil! Your true colors show once again, you pathetic little Nazi
sycophant/miscreant.

> >
> > > But
> > > we don't dare strike

What is this "we" ****, Kimosabe? You got a turd in your pocket? You make it
amply clear that you don't care for the US and much prefer the "good ol'
days" when hobnailed boots rang out in the kasernes. Tell you what, if the
good folks of this NG got together and started a collection to pay for your
transportation back to Germany, would you take us up on it? Please? Of
course, it appears that the real Germans may not take you in with loving
arms, based upon some of the responses you have garnered from them...

Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
> > > threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
> > > defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles in
> > > the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and N
> > > Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
> > > stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
> > > twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
> > > invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in China.
> >
> > The difference of course is the US knows that, your hero Adolf didnt.
>
> On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.
> >
> > > So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
> > > size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
> > > everything to beat them.
> >
> > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > and couldnt even beat Britain.
>
> I could only wish that the political decision to change direction
> eastward would have never come and Sea Lion would have happened. What
> would have Britain defended itself with then- the Home Guard with
> pitch forks and shotguns? You should thank God a lone German bomber
> ditched its bombs on London and saved your nation. Germany could have
> kept fighting and by the winter of 1940 you would have ran out of
> pilots and planes- had the Germans not diverted to civilian targets
> like London.

To your neverending lament, all of this is but a pipedream conjured up in
your feeble little Nazi loving mind. Normally using the N-word is an automat
ic argument loser in these environs--but in your case, given your obvious
(and repeated) demonstrations of admiration and dedication to the cause, it
is about the only descriptor applicable.

Brooks

> >
> > Keith
>
> Keep dreaming on,
> Rob

Keith Willshaw

February 19th 04, 08:04 AM

robert arndt

February 19th 04, 09:01 AM

"t_mark" > wrote in message news:<LjUYb.27752$Zt4.9307@okepread01>...
> >
> > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
> > we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China.
>
> Probably because there's no need to, at least yet.
>
> Here's 'underwhelming' for you in that same period of time.
>
> 1. US economy - 11 trillion
> 2. Japanese economy - 4.7 trillion
> 3. German economy 1.8 trillion
> 4 and on down - a bunch of smaller economies, including China at 1.3
> trillion.

According to the World Almanac 2004:

1. US economy= 10.4 trillion
2. Japanese economy= 3.5 trillion
3. German economy= 2.2 trillion

Notice unfair comparison. US equivalent to EU.

01. Austria= 226 billion
02. Belgium= 298 billion
03. Denmark= 156 billion
04. Finland= 1.5 trillion
05. France= 1.5 trillion
06. Germany= 2.2 trillion
07. Greece= 201 billion
08. Ireland= 119 billion
09. Italy= 1.4 trillion
10. Luxembourg= 20 billion
11. Netherlands= 434 billion
12. Portugal= 182 billion
13. Spain= 828 billion
14. Sweden= 227 billion
15. UK= 1.5 trillion

That's a total of 11.091 trillion, more than the US economy.
>
> > The US may be the lone Superpower on paper but our track record
> > post-WW2 isn't that great.
>
> Probably because everyone is too scared ****less to screw with us, you
> ignorant clue****.

Uh, let's see. China ****ed with us over the air collision with their
fighter in 2001 not releasing the crew or plane immediately. China
openly threatens the US with nuclear cruise missiles in the event a
carrier battlegroup ever attempts to block an invasion of Taiwan by
China in the Taiwan Straight (but I guess you don't read the Asian
news, do you?). Iran threatened to shoot down any US or Israeli
aircraft that would attempt to bomb its reactor (but I guesss you
don't read the Mideast news either) and finally N. Korea threatened
all-out war over the US attempting any military attack against its
nuclear weapons program. The US did say it would not tolerate a N
Korean nuclear bomb but they just laughed in our faces and produced 8
more in addition to the 2 they already had. We did nothing and still
do nothing. Furthermore we are moving our troops in S Korea back from
the northern border since we know in the event of war N Korea will
barrage the south with massive artillery and missiles before
attempting to cross with their 1 million man army. Our plans- let the
South Korean soldiers bite it while we sit back further south an await
the order to strike back. Seoul, meanwhile, would be history.
You are the ignorant clue****.

Rob

robert arndt

February 19th 04, 09:01 AM

robert arndt

February 19th 04, 09:01 AM

B2431

February 19th 04, 09:12 AM

>From: (robert arndt)

Furthermore we are moving our troops in S Korea back from
>the northern border since we know in the event of war N Korea will
>barrage the south with massive artillery and missiles before
>attempting to cross with their 1 million man army. Our plans- let the
>South Korean soldiers bite it while we sit back further south an await
>the order to strike back. Seoul, meanwhile, would be history.
>You are the ignorant clue****.
>
>Rob

Why do you say "our plans?" The Germans are not involved.

Go back to your UFOs. The Korean peninsula is a trigger point. If the North
invades or attacks the south the U.S. military doesn't have to wait for orders
from Washington.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Keith Willshaw

February 19th 04, 09:19 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The US postwar history:
> > >
>
> I could only wish that the political decision to change direction
> eastward would have never come and Sea Lion would have happened. What
> would have Britain defended itself with then- the Home Guard with
> pitch forks and shotguns? You should thank God a lone German bomber
> ditched its bombs on London and saved your nation. Germany could have
> kept fighting and by the winter of 1940 you would have ran out of
> pilots and planes- had the Germans not diverted to civilian targets
> like London.

You really are ignorant of the situation in 1940 arent you.

The simple reality is that by the end of August 1940 the RAF were STRONGER
than at the beginning of the BOB. Quite simply they were building aircraft
and training pilots faster than the luftwaffe and more than replacing their
losses. Dowdings idea of readiness meant that each squadron should have
15 operational arcraft and twice that number of pilots. There were aircraft
to spare and while the pilot situation was tighter there were still around
20 piots per squadron

Conversely when Milch surveyed the Luftwaffe front line units at the
same time he found that most Luftwaffe units were between 25 and 30%
under strength. It was the Luftwaffe that was losing the battle of
attrition.
The Ju-87's had already been withdrawn and the Me-110's were now
having to be escorted by 109's

As for Sealion that would have been one of the biggest disasters
of German arms

Setting aside the fact that Britain had 13 combat ready divisions
available in the SE of England there's the little matter of the
Royal Navy. The Kriegsmarine could field 1 BB, 1 CA and 10 Destroyers
The RN had available 5 BB's , 11 Cruisers and 76 Destroyers.

Then of course the RAF has several hundred bomber
tasked with repelling the invasion ready for action

The Invasion fleet consisted of Rhine barges towed at 4 knots
that would have taken 30 hours to make the crossing and would
sink in anything much more than flat calm. They of course had no
LCT's so there chosen method of moving heavy weapons
was to blow off the bows of the barge with HE.

Meanwhile the defences of the target chose, Dover , consisted
of heavy coastal artillery (14",9.2" 8" and 6" guns) augmented by
Army artillery units firing from gun pits behind the town and
in and around it were 2 divisions of the Territorial army,
1 Indian Brigade, 1 New Zealan Division, 1 Armoured division
equipped with Matilda II tanks that were impervious to anything
short of an 88, 1 Canadian division and a further armoured brigde

Can you say glug - glug

Keith

Bernardz

February 19th 04, 10:20 AM

In article <LjUYb.27752$Zt4.9307@okepread01>, says...
> > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
> > we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China.
>
> Probably because there's no need to, at least yet.
>

Actually in this, robert arndt is right. Its one thing to take on powers
like Iraq, Serbia and N Vietnam but its another to take on nuclear
powers. The situation with crazies like N Korea is very disturbing.

We have a situation now where there are countries that are safe to
attack and others where it is not.

--
How many public servants care enough about their department agenda that
they would be willing, if it received a budget cut to take a pay cut?

Observations of Bernard - No 46

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

February 19th 04, 10:33 AM

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>equipped with Matilda II tanks that were impervious to anything
>short of an 88, 1 Canadian division and a further armoured brigde

And unless they captured a port intact and could hold it then the
germans had no way of getting an 88 across the channel. And as they
had no way of holding the navy back (the luftwaffe couldn't even stop
the RN lifting troops off a beach at Dunkirk, so if they couldn;t
hit *stationary* ships often enough then they certainly wouldn't
stop destroyers carving into the invasion barges at 30+ knots,
nor the sloops from pouring 100+ shells a minute at the barges.
Oggle oggle.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

The Enlightenment

February 19th 04, 01:01 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...

Wars always have unintended consequences. Woodrow Wilson could have
let the idiotic Europeans exhaust themselves and make sense of their
own mess.

Germanys losses after WW2 were tragic for many people caught up in it
by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The physical size of
the nation became smaller as lands were annexed and latter as tens of
millions of ethnic Germans who over 1000 years had built the cities of
Eastern Europe were killed, starved, expelled and exterminated from
places as far afield as Romania and Russia.

Wars are extensions of ideas.

Ideologically it is of course not only Germany that was defeated but
all people of European ancestry everywhere and any sense of their
right to exist and any sense of a right to ethnic self determination.

German culture and history is now discredited to such an extent that
many Germans hate themselves. The results can be seen in the low
birth rate and the indifference of the people to their certain
demographic annihilation within the next 3 generations (60 years)

The same thing is however happening to the UK and USA.

The Americans are caught between and imbecile of a president who is
further destroying the middle classes and is engineering yet another
amnesty of the illegal Aileen dross (which will be a failure as the
1986 amnesty was) that now infests the country and drains its welfare
and hospital systems and doubles its crime rate. (It even increases is
diverse and underage mother rate). Their only alternative is an even
more despicable and treasonous democrat party who specializes in
cultivating ethnic resentments and agglomerating them for electoral
gain.

European Americans are between a rock and a hard place and they are
effectively toast.

The same or worse situation persists in the UK where a party of
ethno-marxist Quislings called NuLabour is dismantling England and
clearing its great cities of the people that the Lufwaffe never
cleared. The British who are proud of their fighting spirit in WW2
are really taking pride in the even that is anhilating their
descendents. Hitler may have been many things but not even he would
have detroyed Englands people as its present Government of politically
correct commisars is doing.

Nothing will change this insanity because their will always be a
Goldberg, Chavez or a Spielberg coating their ethnophobia in love or
some other such lie to make sure the dunderheads embrace their own
disgrace.

> The US postwar history:
>
> Korea: stalemate
> Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> Vietnam: LOST
> Operation Eagle Claw (Iranian Hostage Rescue): Failure
> Lebanon: Marines blown up- failure
> Reagan-Bush years: a string of success shooting down a few Libyan
MiGs
> and attacking small puny nations with no AF- Victory?
> Gulf War I: had to raise a coalition to fight another Third World
> nation, didn't finish the job which leads to Gulf War II. Kurds and
> population suffer as a result.
> The Balkans: another attack on an unworthy adversary. Serbs leave
with
> their armor and military/police units intact. International force
> needed.
> Terrorist attack on the USS Cole: failed
> 9/11: could prevent terrorist attack, 3000 fatalities
> Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> Iraq prewar: Fires at US aircraft for 7 years, US retaliates in
1998,
> Iraq resumes firing at US aircraft for 4 more years
> Gulf War II: US goes it alone, captures Saddam but cannot get real
> reconstruction support or troops needed to finish the job due to
> isolating UN and certain European nations- failure
>
> Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
> we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China. In fact China openly
> threatens the US over Taiwan and is militarily developing systems to
> defeat our stealth, satellites, and to attack the US with missiles
in
> the future. Iran has threatened the US over its nuclear reactor and
N
> Korea has done the same over its nuclear program which we failed to
> stop. BTW, try attacking the FSU even at its weakest... they have
> twice the nukes we have and we all know the history of those that
> invade Mother Russia. On their turf the US would lose, same in
China.
> So I don't care how many time you say Germany lost. Germany is the
> size of 1 US state and took on the world. It took everyone with
> everything to beat them.
> The US in Vietnam was a Superpower giant with the greatest
technology
> on earth... and lost to peasants walking through the jungle at night
> in pajamas armed with an AK-47, machetes, mines, grenades and RPGs.
> The US may be the lone Superpower on paper but our track record
> post-WW2 isn't that great.
>
> Rob

Keith Willshaw

February 19th 04, 01:17 PM

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> Wars always have unintended consequences. Woodrow Wilson could have
> let the idiotic Europeans exhaust themselves and make sense of their
> own mess.
>
> Germanys losses after WW2 were tragic for many people caught up in it
> by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The physical size of
> the nation became smaller as lands were annexed and latter as tens of
> millions of ethnic Germans who over 1000 years had built the cities of
> Eastern Europe were killed, starved, expelled and exterminated from
> places as far afield as Romania and Russia.
>

Thats what tends to happen when you start a genocidal war
based on notions of racial superiority and then lose.

> Wars are extensions of ideas.
>
> Ideologically it is of course not only Germany that was defeated but
> all people of European ancestry everywhere and any sense of their
> right to exist and any sense of a right to ethnic self determination.
>

This is nonsense. The vast majority of Europeans were VERY
happy to see Germany lose.

> German culture and history is now discredited to such an extent that
> many Germans hate themselves. The results can be seen in the low
> birth rate and the indifference of the people to their certain
> demographic annihilation within the next 3 generations (60 years)
>
> The same thing is however happening to the UK and USA.
>

And in Singapore , Japan and Taiwan. Its a function of the fact
that people no longer feel the need to have large families
to support them in their old age. In the period after the
war the German population boomed.

<remainder of racist nonsense snipped>

Keith

Kevin Brooks

February 19th 04, 02:17 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "t_mark" > wrote in message
news:<LjUYb.27752$Zt4.9307@okepread01>...
> > >
> > > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
> > > we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China.
> >
> > Probably because there's no need to, at least yet.
> >
> > Here's 'underwhelming' for you in that same period of time.
> >
> > 1. US economy - 11 trillion
> > 2. Japanese economy - 4.7 trillion
> > 3. German economy 1.8 trillion
> > 4 and on down - a bunch of smaller economies, including China at 1.3
> > trillion.
>
> According to the World Almanac 2004:
>
> 1. US economy= 10.4 trillion
> 2. Japanese economy= 3.5 trillion
> 3. German economy= 2.2 trillion
>
> Notice unfair comparison. US equivalent to EU.
>
> 01. Austria= 226 billion
> 02. Belgium= 298 billion
> 03. Denmark= 156 billion
> 04. Finland= 1.5 trillion
> 05. France= 1.5 trillion
> 06. Germany= 2.2 trillion
> 07. Greece= 201 billion
> 08. Ireland= 119 billion
> 09. Italy= 1.4 trillion
> 10. Luxembourg= 20 billion
> 11. Netherlands= 434 billion
> 12. Portugal= 182 billion
> 13. Spain= 828 billion
> 14. Sweden= 227 billion
> 15. UK= 1.5 trillion
>
> That's a total of 11.091 trillion, more than the US economy.

Wow. And it only took how many soveriegn nations to total up to the US?
Fifteen? Yeah, that really makes the US look weak... Given that the combined
populations of those fifteen nations was some 385 million people in 2000,
versus the US population of around 280 million, what does that indicate in
regards to per capita productivity and income?

> >
> > > The US may be the lone Superpower on paper but our track record
> > > post-WW2 isn't that great.
> >
> > Probably because everyone is too scared ****less to screw with us, you
> > ignorant clue****.
>
> Uh, let's see. China ****ed with us over the air collision with their
> fighter in 2001 not releasing the crew or plane immediately.

Did you really think we were going to go to war over that one? Neihter did
the Chinese. Idiot.

China
> openly threatens the US with nuclear cruise missiles in the event a
> carrier battlegroup ever attempts to block an invasion of Taiwan by
> China in the Taiwan Straight (but I guess you don't read the Asian
> news, do you?)

And China still refrains from conducting such an invasion; they are at
present smart enough to realize that tangling with the US is not a smart
move.

Iran threatened to shoot down any US or Israeli
> aircraft that would attempt to bomb its reactor (but I guesss you
> don't read the Mideast news either)

Whoopie. So what's new?

and finally N. Korea threatened
> all-out war over the US attempting any military attack against its
> nuclear weapons program.

Uhmmm...one country conducting a military attack on another is usually
grounds for war, didn't ya know?

The US did say it would not tolerate a N
> Korean nuclear bomb but they just laughed in our faces and produced 8
> more in addition to the 2 they already had. We did nothing and still
> do nothing.

So all of that diplomatic stuff (being conducted with the PRC's
participation) is "nothing", huh? Odd how you condemn the US for not
continuing to pursue other means in regards to Iraq, but seemingly think we
should be streaming across the 38th parallel at the drop of a hat...

Furthermore we are moving our troops in S Korea back from
> the northern border since we know in the event of war N Korea will
> barrage the south with massive artillery and missiles before
> attempting to cross with their 1 million man army.

And because the ROK Army is judged to be capable of handling the DPRK ground
attacks in this modern era.

Our plans- let the
> South Korean soldiers bite it while we sit back further south an await
> the order to strike back. Seoul, meanwhile, would be history.
> You are the ignorant clue****.

No, you have again demonstrated an acute lack of reasoning skills. Quickly
now--which has more combat power, the combined assets of FROKA, SROKA, and
TROKA, or the US 2nd ID(-)? As to the future of Seoul... I'll bet you money
Seoul will still be a prosperous city long after Pyongyang is a ghosttown
at the current pace of events.

Brooks

>
> Rob

Kevin Brooks

February 19th 04, 02:29 PM

"Bernardz" > wrote in message
news:MPG.1a9f38ff24421b1a98990a@news...
> In article <LjUYb.27752$Zt4.9307@okepread01>, says...
> > > Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
> > > submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
> > > we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China.
> >
> > Probably because there's no need to, at least yet.
> >
>
> Actually in this, robert arndt is right.

No, he is not.

Its one thing to take on powers
> like Iraq, Serbia and N Vietnam but its another to take on nuclear
> powers. The situation with crazies like N Korea is very disturbing.
>
> We have a situation now where there are countries that are safe to
> attack and others where it is not.

"Safe to attack"? Hardly. The US suffered more casualties on 9-11 to
improvised weapons than we have ever suffered to enemy nuclear attacks; any
number of nations could replicate or conduct a similar atrocity. Nuclear
weapons are as much an anchor around the owners' neck as they are an asset,
especially when dealing with a US that they can't reliably ensure their own
weapons can even reach. The key issue is the determination of the scope of
the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into Afghanistan
and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became amenable to
peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but without
the support of either the CIS or the PRC it is only a matter of time before
we get what we want--so why start pounding the swords on the shields?

Brooks

>

Michael Zaharis

February 19th 04, 03:58 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Korean nuclear bomb but they just laughed in our faces and produced 8
>>more in addition to the 2 they already had. We did nothing and still
>>do nothing.
>
>
> So all of that diplomatic stuff (being conducted with the PRC's
> participation) is "nothing", huh? Odd how you condemn the US for not
> continuing to pursue other means in regards to Iraq, but seemingly think we
> should be streaming across the 38th parallel at the drop of a hat...
>

Brooks, obvious that you just don't get it. Whatever the US does is
wrong. If we go to war, we shouldn't have. If we don't go to war, we
should have.

Please, do keep up. ;-)

Eugene Griessel

February 19th 04, 04:23 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > The US postwar history:
> > > >
> >
> > I could only wish that the political decision to change direction
> > eastward would have never come and Sea Lion would have happened. What
> > would have Britain defended itself with then- the Home Guard with
> > pitch forks and shotguns? You should thank God a lone German bomber
> > ditched its bombs on London and saved your nation. Germany could have
> > kept fighting and by the winter of 1940 you would have ran out of
> > pilots and planes- had the Germans not diverted to civilian targets
> > like London.
>
>
> You really are ignorant of the situation in 1940 arent you.
>
> The simple reality is that by the end of August 1940 the RAF were STRONGER
> than at the beginning of the BOB. Quite simply they were building aircraft
> and training pilots faster than the luftwaffe and more than replacing their
> losses. Dowdings idea of readiness meant that each squadron should have
> 15 operational arcraft and twice that number of pilots. There were aircraft
> to spare and while the pilot situation was tighter there were still around
> 20 piots per squadron
>
> Conversely when Milch surveyed the Luftwaffe front line units at the
> same time he found that most Luftwaffe units were between 25 and 30%
> under strength. It was the Luftwaffe that was losing the battle of
> attrition.
> The Ju-87's had already been withdrawn and the Me-110's were now
> having to be escorted by 109's
>
> As for Sealion that would have been one of the biggest disasters
> of German arms
>
> Setting aside the fact that Britain had 13 combat ready divisions
> available in the SE of England there's the little matter of the
> Royal Navy. The Kriegsmarine could field 1 BB, 1 CA and 10 Destroyers
> The RN had available 5 BB's , 11 Cruisers and 76 Destroyers.
>
> Then of course the RAF has several hundred bomber
> tasked with repelling the invasion ready for action
>
> The Invasion fleet consisted of Rhine barges towed at 4 knots
> that would have taken 30 hours to make the crossing and would
> sink in anything much more than flat calm. They of course had no
> LCT's so there chosen method of moving heavy weapons
> was to blow off the bows of the barge with HE.
>
> Meanwhile the defences of the target chose, Dover , consisted
> of heavy coastal artillery (14",9.2" 8" and 6" guns) augmented by
> Army artillery units firing from gun pits behind the town and
> in and around it were 2 divisions of the Territorial army,
> 1 Indian Brigade, 1 New Zealan Division, 1 Armoured division
> equipped with Matilda II tanks that were impervious to anything
> short of an 88, 1 Canadian division and a further armoured brigde

I had a brother-in-law who was commanding a battery of 105mm howitzers
during the battle of France and he had a younger brother who was an
infantry officer in the same campaign (later killed during the Battle
of the Bulge). Their letters home, which we still have, are quite
revealing.

The battery ended up somewhere in the Amiens area where they had to
prepare and train for Sealion. The brother was near Rouen basically
doing the same thing. At that time the motorised element of the
battery was one motor car and a field ambulance. Everything else was
horsedrawn. They were totally unprepared and untrained for an
invasion and equipment for such an enterprise was not forthcoming,
perhaps because it did not exist in Germany at the time(?). The
professional officers, at least at his level, considered the whole
idea crazy and suicidal. And no amount of national socialist ardour
and chivvying seemed to change that attitude. When Sealion was
abandoned the sense of relief in the letters home is palpable. Its
the relief of professional soldiers when a madcap scheme is finally
ditched as reason begins to prevail.

Eugene

Kevin Brooks

February 19th 04, 04:36 PM

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>Korean nuclear bomb but they just laughed in our faces and produced 8
> >>more in addition to the 2 they already had. We did nothing and still
> >>do nothing.
> >
> >
> > So all of that diplomatic stuff (being conducted with the PRC's
> > participation) is "nothing", huh? Odd how you condemn the US for not
> > continuing to pursue other means in regards to Iraq, but seemingly think
we
> > should be streaming across the 38th parallel at the drop of a hat...
> >
>
> Brooks, obvious that you just don't get it. Whatever the US does is
> wrong. If we go to war, we shouldn't have. If we don't go to war, we
> should have.
>
> Please, do keep up. ;-)

Yeah, I keep forgetting that I am dealing with Arndt, a guy who tries to
justify German aggression during WWII while at the same time trying to
condemn the US for going into Iraq.

Brooks
>

Matt Clonfero

February 19th 04, 05:09 PM

In article >, robert
arndt > wrote:

>According to the World Almanac 2004:
>
>1. US economy= 10.4 trillion
>2. Japanese economy= 3.5 trillion
>3. German economy= 2.2 trillion
>
>Notice unfair comparison. US equivalent to EU.

But the EU isn't a nation (thank heavens). Who would want to be a part
of a nation where Germans get a say in foreign policy, French in
defence, and the UK in healthcare?

Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy

Krztalizer

February 19th 04, 06:40 PM

>
>That's a total of 11.091 trillion, more than the US economy.

Are you implying that the European Union has a "combined" GNP?

Jeff Crowell

February 19th 04, 07:54 PM

robert arndt wrote:

(various bulldren snipped)

> Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to
> be able to pound into submission any puny Third
> World nation without a significant AF

(more snippage)

Who you calling 'we,' sonny boy?

Have you attempted to do anything about it,
other than spamming multiple newsgroups?

Gonna do anything with your life after you grow up?

My bet is, like most people of your stripe, you'll
find a reasonably good job and sock away the
bucks enjoying a life bought and paid for you by
men and women in uniform.

Jeff

Jeff Crowell

February 19th 04, 08:05 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > Then there's the little matter of the fall of communism, the
> > dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR

robert arndt wrote:
> Which is more due to Soviet citizens standing in line for bread 8 hrs
> a day and the forever unattainable 5 year plans they made... not to
> mention devoting almost all their resources to defense and the

Multiple problems all devolving from the same cause... and why
exactly did they do this?

C'mon, I know you can say it, even if it galls you.

"The West."

There, was that so hard?

> > The war aims of protecting the Kosovans from Serbian ethnic cleansing
> > were achieved
>
> Oh please, too little too late. Serb soldiers insulted International
> forces as they left Kosovo and threatened ethnic minorities right in
> front the peacekeepers.

Killing pathetic bullies may feel good, but when is it right to
pull the trigger? The only reason the Serbs acted this way
was because they knew they were safe doing it.

Killing someone over an insult is the sort of the thing your
favorite SS boys did. look where it got 'em.

> A US Naval warship which should have been adequately protected. Taken
> out by a raft of explosives.

You'd have our guys shoot any boat which nears one of our
ships? You must not own a pleasure boat!

By your lights you'd have us kill every living thing in
Afghanstan and Iraq, I guess, just to be sure we got the
Bad Guys (tm).

Or do you have a (realistic) better idea?

> Oh thank God for British token forces whose own weapons and gear are
> ****. I assume you're British, so don't you read your own papers for
> God-save-the-Queen sakes!!! All you guys did was sit in the rear and
> deliver humanitarian aid while the US drove downtown to Baghdad.

Gag. Bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to a guy who was
there.

Jeff

Jeff Crowell

February 19th 04, 08:21 PM

robert arndt wrote:
> According to the World Almanac 2004:
>
> 1. US economy= 10.4 trillion
> 2. Japanese economy= 3.5 trillion
> 3. German economy= 2.2 trillion
>
> Notice unfair comparison. US equivalent to EU.
>
> 01. Austria= 226 billion
> 02. Belgium= 298 billion
> 03. Denmark= 156 billion
> 04. Finland= 1.5 trillion
> 05. France= 1.5 trillion
> 06. Germany= 2.2 trillion
> 07. Greece= 201 billion
> 08. Ireland= 119 billion
> 09. Italy= 1.4 trillion
> 10. Luxembourg= 20 billion
> 11. Netherlands= 434 billion
> 12. Portugal= 182 billion
> 13. Spain= 828 billion
> 14. Sweden= 227 billion
> 15. UK= 1.5 trillion
>
> That's a total of 11.091 trillion, more than the US economy.

"Unfair"?

Bobby, you crack me up. Get that mob in step (economically)
and then come talk to me.

Jeff

ArtKramr

February 19th 04, 08:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Germany Lost the War... So What?
>From: "Jeff Crowell"
>Date: 2/19/04 11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>robert arndt wrote:
>
>(various bulldren snipped)
>
>> Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to
>> be able to pound into submission any puny Third
>> World nation without a significant AF
>
>(more snippage)
>
>Who you calling 'we,' sonny boy?
>
>Have you attempted to do anything about it,
>other than spamming multiple newsgroups?
>
>Gonna do anything with your life after you grow up?
>
>My bet is, like most people of your stripe, you'll
>find a reasonably good job and sock away the
>bucks enjoying a life bought and paid for you by
>men and women in uniform.
>
>
>
>Jeff
>
>

I went to war and nobody owes me anything. I went because I wanted to.
I went the day I was 18 and before I could couint to 10, I was 10,000 feet
over Germany. And that is where I wanted to be. And no one is beholding to me
for it. And if I had it to do again, I would.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Krztalizer

February 19th 04, 08:54 PM

>By your lights you'd have us kill every living thing in
>Afghanstan and Iraq, I guess, just to be sure we got the
>Bad Guys (tm).
>
>Or do you have a (realistic) better idea?
>

Arn't would deploy the 61th SS "Snowballfight" Panzer Div, which would mop up
the entire mid-east in 48 hours.

Tuollaf43

February 20th 04, 05:20 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > The US postwar history:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> > >
> > > > Korea: stalemate
> > >
> > > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> > >
> > > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> > >
> > > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
> >
> > And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
> > that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.
>
> Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
> online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
> removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
> reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
not that there was no concession.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and Osama
> > > > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> > >
> > > Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups
> >
> > Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
> > Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.
>
> Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
> serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--

If Taliban comes, can Osama be far behind?

> and that a few
> other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other terrorist
> operations.

This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> >
> > LOL! Tell us more.
>
> Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the US
> population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX, CA)
> only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further if
> you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.
>
> www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html
>
> >
> > > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > > and couldnt even beat Britain.
> >
> > Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
> > Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
> > Europe.
>
> Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?
>
> Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
> > spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.
>
> That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;

There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
independence, merely a US lackey.

> that it has
> happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much a
> product of common values than anything else.

ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,
propaganda over facts.

> Reading anything further into
> it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
part?

And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK? Fear of US is
understandable - its rich, powerful and governed by a mad hatter. But
why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
up.

>
> Germany might
> > not have won,
>
> No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?

You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss. To me it is a
story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
sad but engrossing history to me.

I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.

Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
Empire is now history.

BTW I wonder when colonialism will be history.

>
> > but Britain sure seems to have lost.
>
> Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?

I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).

France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
that beating.

UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
smashed non the less.

> Now
> France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...

Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
or UK can you?

> sorry if that all
> upsets you, but them's the facts.

So nice of you to be concerned about my happiness Grofaz. Thanks.

>
> Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Keith

Kevin Brooks

February 20th 04, 06:30 AM

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > The US postwar history:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> > > >
> > > > > Korea: stalemate
> > > >
> > > > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > > > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > > > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> > > >
> > > > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> > > >
> > > > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
> > >
> > > And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
> > > that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.
> >
> > Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
> > online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
> > removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
> > reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.
>
> Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
> insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves in:
millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf

On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get the
Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet nuclear
capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm

So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big deal.
More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the Jupiter
removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
clan).

>
> The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
> anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
> bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
> not that there was no concession.

Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
plans? I think not. I'd call that more in the line of a bargain (and be
aware that my views on this have changed over the past year or two, after
this subject was previously discussed and I had reason to peruse Gromyko's
book, followed by a bit of reading on where the Jupiter program was going at
the time). I am not a big Kennedy fan, to put it mildly--but in this case he
gave up what we already wanted to rid ourselves of and in the process
swecured what we *wanted*, namely the removal of those SS-4's from Cuba.

>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and
Osama
> > > > > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> > > >
> > > > Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups
> > >
> > > Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
> > > Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.
> >
> > Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
> > serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--
>
> If Taliban comes, can Osama be far behind?

"If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority of
Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing them
from power was a *good* thing. AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.

>
> > and that a few
> > other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
terrorist
> > operations.
>
> This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and even
reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF has
been a significant success.

>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> > >
> > > LOL! Tell us more.
> >
> > Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the
US
> > population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX,
CA)
> > only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further
if
> > you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.
> >
> > www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html
> >
> > >
> > > > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > > > and couldnt even beat Britain.
> > >
> > > Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > Europe.
> >
> > Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?
> >
> > Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
> > > spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.
> >
> > That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;
>
> There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
> independence, merely a US lackey.

Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites. The UK
remains capable of determining its own course. In fact, Blair has reportedly
had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
direction at times over the past few years. Most USians still have a great
deal of respect for the UK, and while it cannot any longer muster the level
of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to be
a partner as opposed to a "lackey". Common language (for the most part) and
a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between the
two nations.

>
> > that it has
> > happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much
a
> > product of common values than anything else.
>
> ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,

No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
commodity vital to most of the rest of the world. You act as if this is some
sort of colonial conquest--but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
their own government and affairs. That would be another one of those "good
things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past thirty
years or so.

> propaganda over facts.

It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts, since
you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy theory.
You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime without
question.

>
> > Reading anything further into
> > it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.
>
> Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
> part?

No.

>
> And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?

I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK in a
military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Fear of US is
> understandable - its rich, powerful

Yep, we are.

<snip inane whining>

But
> why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
> that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
> up.

That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world. It
has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the USAF.
During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to our
CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra PR9
and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF are
truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.

>
> >
> > Germany might
> > > not have won,
> >
> > No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?
>
> You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
> reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.

Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about the
spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a serious
morality flaw.

To me it is a
> story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
> emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
> razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
> assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
> sad but engrossing history to me.

My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore the
gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that the
defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our parents
lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.

>
> I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
> weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.
>
> Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
> there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
> affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
> Empire is now history.

One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate. Odd that
you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism, yet so
willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

<snip>

> >
> > > but Britain sure seems to have lost.
> >
> > Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?
>
> I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
> battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).
>
> France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
> that beating.
>
> UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
> smashed non the less.

Odd, in that they were on the winning side. The disintegration of their
former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before the
war. And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
retaining control of its old colonial holdings. Time marches on and the
world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather important
place in the greater scheme of world order. That would be another "good
thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had they
not been on the winning side during WWII.

>
>
> > Now
> > France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...
>
> Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
> the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
> or UK can you?

In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Brooks

>
> > sorry if that all
> > upsets you, but them's the facts.
>
> So nice of you to be concerned about my happiness Grofaz. Thanks.
>
> >
> > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Keith

Presidente Alcazar

February 20th 04, 10:15 AM

On 19 Feb 2004 20:54:27 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>By your lights you'd have us kill every living thing in
>>Afghanstan and Iraq, I guess, just to be sure we got the
>>Bad Guys (tm).
>>
>>Or do you have a (realistic) better idea?
>
>Arn't would deploy the 61th SS "Snowballfight" Panzer Div, which would mop up
>the entire mid-east in 48 hours.

Only after 69th SS Panzer Division "Goldenboy", 19th SS
Panzergrenadier Division "Funboy" and 99th SS Panzergrenadier Division
"Leatherboy", who would conquer Afghanistan after they finished making
those homo-erotic films of themselves playing volleyball naked with
all those Hitler Youth or marching around in creaking black leather
whipping the untermenschen with an array of S&M gear.

Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!

Gavin Bailey

Denyav

February 20th 04, 05:33 PM

>You didn't mention winning the Cold War. Try doing the whole thing over,
>while including the truth and see if you come to the same conclusions.
>

The Cold War won by Global Financial Power not by US alone,in other words not
by Global Military Power.
Every post WWII US administration ,except Nixon and current administrations,was
endorsed by Global Financial Power.
Lets remember what happened to Nixon and why Wall Street Barons openly declared
war aganist current administration.
For global financial power, global military power is only a profit reducing
tool that they no longer need.

Denyav

February 20th 04, 06:01 PM

>Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
>

So,US nuclear tipped missilles were also withdrawn as the USSR demanded.
Correct?

>The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
>about the going it alone bit.

Honestly I admire British "Great Game" playing skills.
They returned to South iraqi oil fields using US card and I am also pretty sure
they will return to northern oil fields by using EU card in near future.
Texan or Alabamian nativity is not a very good credential when it comes to
playing "The Great Game" with the Brits.

>Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
>a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....
>

With US encouragement of course.
Iraq had to start GW1 so that US could start with the implementation of
Kissingers plan called "Seizing Arab Oil
".>Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
>and controlled the combined industries of western europe
>and couldnt even beat Britain.

You seem to forget that the British Empire in 1939 stretched from N.America to
Africa,from Europa to Mideast,From Subcontinent to the down under.
Can you give us an idea about the Human and natural resources controlled by
British Crown in 1939?
Actually I thing the Brits had the finest fighting force Germans faced during
WWII,

Paul J. Adam

February 20th 04, 06:26 PM

In message <KiVYb.27758$Zt4.11905@okepread01>, t_mark >
writes
>> On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.
>
>Hardly. China is dependent on the US, directly and indirectly, for the
>majority of its annual growth and over 20% of its entire economy. That's
>not going to change much in the future as the two become more and more
>intertwined.

I'm minded of the confident predictions around the start of the 20th
Century, about how the Great Powers were now so intertwined by trade and
diplomacy that a major war was now unthinkable and impossible.

Whoops.

>To even get into a position to battle America in Asia, much
>less elsewhere, would require decades of spending the Chinese can't even
>afford to build up to, and have no reason to. It won't be smooth sailing,
>but China has vastly more reasons to remain friends if not allies with the
>United States than to plunge itself back into the middle of last century and
>ruin decades of economic building by trying to fight it.

True, but common sense can be remarkably elusive on occasion.
>
>

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Keith Willshaw

February 20th 04, 07:53 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
> >
>
> So,US nuclear tipped missilles were also withdrawn as the USSR demanded.
> Correct?
>

Indeed but they were due for removal within 12 months
in any event. There's little doubt that Khruschev lost a great
deal of prestige over the Cuban missile affair and his
position was weakened.

Kenedy came out of the affair rather better.

> >The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
> >about the going it alone bit.
>
> Honestly I admire British "Great Game" playing skills.
> They returned to South iraqi oil fields using US card and I am also pretty
sure
> they will return to northern oil fields by using EU card in near future.
> Texan or Alabamian nativity is not a very good credential when it comes to
> playing "The Great Game" with the Brits.
>
> >Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
> >a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....
> >
>
> With US encouragement of course.

Nope, the Iraqi government assure everyone including the Arab league
and the US government that it would not actually invade Kuwait.
Its worth noting that the Kuwaitis dont believe this piece
of nonsense.

> Iraq had to start GW1 so that US could start with the implementation of
> Kissingers plan called "Seizing Arab Oil

Kissinger wasnt in the administration

> ".>Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> >and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> >and couldnt even beat Britain.
>
> You seem to forget that the British Empire in 1939 stretched from
N.America to
> Africa,from Europa to Mideast,From Subcontinent to the down under.
> Can you give us an idea about the Human and natural resources controlled
by
> British Crown in 1939?

You seem to forget that Australia, Canada and New Zealand were already
indpendent in 1939 and that India was already moving in that direction
with elected bodies already being responsible for everything except defence
and foreign policy. Full independence was planned for around 1948, more
or less when it actually happened

> Actually I thing the Brits had the finest fighting force Germans faced
during
> WWII,
>

In fact as any British soldier who ever served with them will tell
you the best light infantry to be found were the Ghurka's who
come from Nepal, which was never part of the Empire.

Keith

Denyav

February 20th 04, 11:00 PM

>ctually in this, robert arndt is right. Its one thing to take on powers
>like Iraq, Serbia and N Vietnam but its another to take on nuclear
>powers. The situation with crazies like N Korea is very disturbing.
>
>We have a situation now where there are countries that are safe to
>attack and others where it is not.

100 percent correct,the survival of not only US but all western
countries,depends on the availability of an opponent that cares about MAD,if
you cannot deter your nuclear opponent you MUST stay at home.

A couple of nuclear tipped ICBMs in the hands of an opponent willing to use
them no matter what are much more dangerous than 10000 nuclear weapons in the
hands of opponents afraid to use them.

That was the lesson Mr.Andropov learned from Mr.Philby,a top product of the
western civilization.

Denyav

February 20th 04, 11:12 PM

>Kissinger wasnt in the administration

You dont need to be in administration,administrations execute the plans and
Kissingers plan known as "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared first in 1975.

Current caretakers of Kissingers plan are also known as "Straussians" but
Mr.Strauss himself was never been a part of any administration.

Grantland

February 21st 04, 11:11 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message <KiVYb.27758$Zt4.11905@okepread01>, t_mark >
>writes
>>> On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.
>>
>>Hardly. China is dependent on the US, directly and indirectly, for the
>>majority of its annual growth and over 20% of its entire economy. That's
>>not going to change much in the future as the two become more and more
>>intertwined.
>
>I'm minded of the confident predictions around the start of the 20th
>Century, about how the Great Powers were now so intertwined by trade and
>diplomacy that a major war was now unthinkable and impossible.
>
>Whoops.
>
>>To even get into a position to battle America in Asia, much
>>less elsewhere, would require decades of spending the Chinese can't even
>>afford to build up to, and have no reason to. It won't be smooth sailing,
>>but China has vastly more reasons to remain friends if not allies with the
>>United States than to plunge itself back into the middle of last century and
>>ruin decades of economic building by trying to fight it.
>
>True, but common sense can be remarkably elusive on occasion.
>>
And what a disappointment *you* turned out to be. Where's KP, eh?

Grantland
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Keith Willshaw

February 21st 04, 12:31 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Kissinger wasnt in the administration
>
> You dont need to be in administration,administrations execute the plans
and
> Kissingers plan known as "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared first in 1975.
>
> Current caretakers of Kissingers plan are also known as "Straussians" but
> Mr.Strauss himself was never been a part of any administration.

There's no need to seize it, the Arabs will sell it anyway or starve.

Keith

Tuollaf43

February 21st 04, 11:07 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > > > m...
> > > > > > The US postwar history:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Korea: stalemate
> > > > >
> > > > > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > > > > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > > > > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
> > > >
> > > > And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
> > > > that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.
> > >
> > > Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
> > > online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
> > > removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
> > > reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.
> >
> > Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
> > insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.
>
> If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
> administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
> Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
> mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
> regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves in:
> millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf
>
> On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
> indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get the
> Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
> little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet nuclear
> capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
> great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
> forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm
>
> So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big deal.
> More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the Jupiter
> removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
> clan).

So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
Soviet insistence. It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
was not worth its keep.

The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
concession.

>
> >
> > The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
> > anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
> > bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
> > not that there was no concession.
>
> Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
> plans? I think not.

It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
to you.

> I'd call that more in the line of a bargain

yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.
Hence my original contention, a stalemate.

> (and be
> aware that my views on this have changed over the past year or two, after
> this subject was previously discussed and I had reason to peruse Gromyko's
> book, followed by a bit of reading on where the Jupiter program was going at
> the time). I am not a big Kennedy fan, to put it mildly--but in this case he
> gave up what we already wanted to rid ourselves of and in the process
> swecured what we *wanted*, namely the removal of those SS-4's from Cuba.
>
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and
> Osama
> > > > > > escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups
> > > >
> > > > Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
> > > > Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.
> > >
> > > Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
> > > serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--
> >
> > If Taliban comes, can Osama be far behind?
>
> "If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority of
> Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing them
> from power was a *good* thing.

As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
afghanistan and a bad government has been replaced with no government,
religious fundamentalists have been replaced by drug lords, free road
traffic been replaced by tolls to local warloads holding the
cross-roads etc. I am not certain that it was such a "good" thing
after all. Had you mananged to install a government representative of
the people, and which is supportive of *their* interests, built up the
infrastructure bombed in the war, *then* it would indeed have been a
good thing. As things stand it is not.

> AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
> free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.

I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts. Osama
never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
pakistan. And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -
they are typically very small in number and can be quite easily
trained covertly and unobstrusively. US presence in a small fraction
of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
fashion.

>
> >
> > > and that a few
> > > other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
> terrorist
> > > operations.
> >
> > This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.
>
> Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and even
> reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF has
> been a significant success.

I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
matters greatly to the US). But I do agree with you that
reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.

There have been no significant success other than the general change
in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
*certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
OEF has been a dismal failure.

>
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Tell us more.
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the
> US
> > > population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX,
> CA)
> > > only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further
> if
> > > you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.
> > >
> > > www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > > > > and couldnt even beat Britain.
> > > >
> > > > Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > > Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > > Europe.
> > >
> > > Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
markets for US industries. But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
western europeans also share your approval for the plan.

> > >
> > > Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
> > > > spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.
> > >
> > > That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;
> >
> > There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
> > independence, merely a US lackey.
>
> Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.

Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
people then.

Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
personal advantage
Independent: Free from external control and constraint

You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
relationship with the US.

> The UK
> remains capable of determining its own course.

Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
independence.

> In fact, Blair has reportedly
> had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
> direction at times over the past few years.

'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
independent thought.

> Most USians still have a great
> deal of respect for the UK,

So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.

> and while it cannot any longer muster the level
> of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to be
> a partner as opposed to a "lackey".

That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
British friends.

> Common language (for the most part) and
> a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between the
> two nations.

I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
them that we are seeing.

>
> >
> > > that it has
> > > happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much
> a
> > > product of common values than anything else.
> >
> > ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,
>
> No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
> stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
> commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.

Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
of the rest of the world)!

Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam, he was
pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
non-existant WMD.

> You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--

Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
acknowledged it in your last sentence. You want to control the oil
(stability was the euphemism used). Colonialism being the use of a
weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.

> but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
> just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
> their own government and affairs.

The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
of Isreal. The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
its natural resources (specifically oil). Large number of foreign
troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.
Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
for material and training. Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
free country.

> That would be another one of those "good
> things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past thirty
> years or so.
>
> > propaganda over facts.
>
> It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts, since
> you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy theory.
> You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime without
> question.

First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
said it was true?

Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
WMD). That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.

>
> >
> > > Reading anything further into
> > > it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.
> >
> > Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
> > part?
>
> No.

Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.

>
> >
> > And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?
>
> I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
> other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK in a
> military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
> worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?

>
> Fear of US is
> > understandable - its rich, powerful
>
> Yep, we are.
>
> <snip inane whining>
>
> But
> > why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
> > that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
> > up.
>
> That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world. It
> has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
> naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the USAF.
> During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to our
> CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra PR9
> and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
> contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF are
> truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.

Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Germany might
> > > > not have won,
> > >
> > > No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?
> >
> > You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
> > reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.
>
> Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about the
> spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a serious
> morality flaw.

I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.

>
> To me it is a
> > story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
> > emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
> > razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
> > assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
> > sad but engrossing history to me.
>
> My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore the
> gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that the
> defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our parents
> lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.

Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
scale.

And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?

What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.

>
> >
> > I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
> > weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.
> >
> > Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
> > there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
> > affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
> > Empire is now history.
>
> One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
> this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.

As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
very emotive issue for me.

I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
conclusions and generalizations.

> Odd that
> you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
> yet so
> willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
makes the rest of the world tick.

>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > > but Britain sure seems to have lost.
> > >
> > > Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?
> >
> > I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
> > battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).
> >
> > France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
> > that beating.
> >
> > UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
> > smashed non the less.
>
> Odd, in that they were on the winning side.

Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
you are better off than before. Contact Bush jr for details.

> The disintegration of their
> former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before the
> war.

Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
tragic, ultimately very welcome.

> And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
> retaining control of its old colonial holdings.

The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.

> Time marches on and the
> world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather important
> place in the greater scheme of world order.

Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
now a decidedly second/third rung power.

> That would be another "good
> thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had they
> not been on the winning side during WWII.

They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
the obvious?

>
> >
> >
> > > Now
> > > France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...
> >
> > Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
> > the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
> > or UK can you?
>
> In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
in 1913, 1938 and 2000?

>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > > sorry if that all
> > > upsets you, but them's the facts.
> >
> > So nice of you to be concerned about my happiness Grofaz. Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keith

Kevin Brooks

February 22nd 04, 04:26 AM

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
message
> > >...
> > > > > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > > > > m...
> > > > > > > The US postwar history:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Korea: stalemate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > > > > > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > > > > > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with
assurances
> > > > > that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.
> > > >
> > > > Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program
coming
> > > > online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We
also
> > > > removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the
same
> > > > reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.
> > >
> > > Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
> > > insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.
> >
> > If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
> > administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
> > Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
> > mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
> > regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves
in:
> > millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf
> >
> > On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
> > indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get
the
> > Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
> > little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet
nuclear
> > capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
> > great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
> > forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm
> >
> > So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big
deal.
> > More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the
Jupiter
> > removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
> > clan).
>
> So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
> Soviet insistence.

Actually, no. Soviet insistence had darned little to do with it--we were
already planning on removing those missiles, and when Gromyko presented the
proposal to have the US do so the White House jumped on it. From reading
Gromyko's comments (it has been a year or so, but I think I have the gist
right), it is apparent that the Soviets were going to cave on the missiles
in Cuba, and our agreement to *eventually* remove the missiles from Turkey
was more of a sop to keep Khrushchev to save some face when he presented the
plan to his cronies.

It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
> was not worth its keep.

You must have missed that comment regarding the desire to remove the
missiles from Turkey being expressed "over a year ago", huh?

>
> The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
> pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
> concession.

The only time we ever came close to conducting an invasion with US military
forces was during the crisis itself. Why would we have wanted to invade
otherwise? Hell, Cuba has been a great posterchild for the "why you DON'T
want your nation to go communist" cause.

> > >
> > > The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
> > > anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
> > > bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
> > > not that there was no concession.
> >
> > Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
> > plans? I think not.
>
> It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
> it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
> to you.

Look up "concession"--the approriate definition of the root word (concede)
is "to yield". Which means to forego your own desired result. We GOT our own
desired results on both fronts--no Soviet missiles in Cuba, and we pulled
the Jupters that we already wanted to remove. That does not equal a
"concession".

>
> > I'd call that more in the line of a bargain
>
> yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
> with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.

Again, when you give up what you already are trying to get rid of, that is
not a "concession". I am guessing that english is not your native tongue;
nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you are going to start arguing
the nuances of the wording, you might want to freshen up your vocabulary.

> Hence my original contention, a stalemate.

Not really.

<snip>

> >
> > "If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority
of
> > Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing
them
> > from power was a *good* thing.
>
> As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
> afghanistan

It has? H'mmm...those folks the Taliban executed outright on a rather
routine basis might have argued that their "standard of living" could not
have gotten any worse. The Afghani women would also likely tell you that
their standard of living today is better than it was. What guage are you
going to use to measure the changes? Television ownership maybe? ISTR that
under the Taliban the reported number of privately owned TV's would have
been a big zero--it has now mushroomed, apparently... :)

> and a bad government has been replaced with no government,

Well, not just bad, but inherently *evil*; blasting those Buddhist reliefs
was indicative of that. They now have a constitution ready for approval,
IIRC; only what, two years after the Taliban was removed from power? heck,
here isn the US it took us fourteen years after the British signed the peace
treaty before we had our constitution in hand.

<snip more whining>

>
> > AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
> > free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.
>
> I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts.

Well, lucky for us, *your* beliefs don't hold much water, right?

Osama
> never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
> pakistan.

He does now.

> And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -

Actually, they do if they want to have major "successes" like 9-11. What,
you think the fact that there have been major terrorist training facilities
(in a number of nations) over the past few decades was just due to some kind
of "terrosist bureaucracy" at work, building infrastructure they did not
*need*?

> they are typically very small in number

Don't confuse their operational methodology with their training
requirements.

and can be quite easily
> trained covertly and unobstrusively.

Really? Kind of hard to train guys to effectively conduct demolitions
operations without making things go "boom" at some point; likewise, training
people to effectively engage targets with small arms requires some kind of
training area. Want to run rehearsals for a major operation? Again, you need
somewhere safe to do it.

US presence in a small fraction
> of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
> fashion.

Right...sure. Care to show us any evidence that the AQ training programs
(which they did have running in Afghanistan, whether you thought they were
needed or not) are back up and running in that country?

>
> >
> > >
> > > > and that a few
> > > > other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
> > terrorist
> > > > operations.
> > >
> > > This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.
> >
> > Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and
even
> > reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF
has
> > been a significant success.
>
> I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
> killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
> matters greatly to the US).

How many Afghans were killed during OEF to date? Of that many, how many were
fighting on the Taliban/AQ side?

But I do agree with you that
> reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.

But it represents a virtual waterfall of largesse compared to the amount of
aid they were receiving under the Taliban leadership. How much
reconstruction had the Taliban completed?

>
> There have been no significant success other than the general change
> in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
> *certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
> OEF has been a dismal failure.

Thank goodness what you say again has no relevance to the actual outcome or
its assessment by more logical individuals.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! Tell us more.
> > > >
> > > > Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million,
the
> > US
> > > > population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA,
TX,
> > CA)
> > > > only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers
further
> > if
> > > > you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.
> > > >
> > > > www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html
> > > >

I note you backed off of your sarcastic comment to Keith's statement above--
acknowledgment that he was indeed right?

> > > > >
> > > > > > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > > > > > and couldnt even beat Britain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > > > Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > > > Europe.
> > > >
> > > > Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?
>
> I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
> wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
> markets for US industries.

LOL! Yeah, and did not do a darned thing for the standard of living of all
of those European nations that took advantage of it, huh? One wonders why
the nations that could (and did) partake of it had robust economies in the
sixties, seventies, and eighties, while those that could not (ie., Warsaw
Pact members) were (economically) crawling when the Wall came tumbling down,
huh?

But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
> for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
> western europeans also share your approval for the plan.

Indeed they did. Had it not existed there is little doubt that the economic
staus of those nations would not be where it is today.

>
> > > >
> > > > Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
> > > > > spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.
> > > >
> > > > That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;
> > >
> > > There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
> > > independence, merely a US lackey.
> >
> > Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.
>
> Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
> people then.
>
> Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
> personal advantage
> Independent: Free from external control and constraint

Your definitions kind of make my point. Again, english is not your native
tongue, is it?

>
> You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
> relationship with the US.

Not really.

>
> > The UK
> > remains capable of determining its own course.
>
> Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
> ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
> vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
> independence.

>
> > In fact, Blair has reportedly
> > had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
> > direction at times over the past few years.
>
> 'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
> independent thought.

Obviously you are going to let your paranoia rule your interpretation of all
things British, so the above is hardly a surprising comment coming from you.

>
> > Most USians still have a great
> > deal of respect for the UK,
>
> So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.

So you think only the current British government is the source of this
alleged "lackey" state, huh? One has to wonder when you point to as the
start of this "lackeydom", and where it has manifested itself over the past
few decades.

>
> > and while it cannot any longer muster the level
> > of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to
be
> > a partner as opposed to a "lackey".
>
> That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
> British friends.

Well, its also true, but I realize you can't recognize that fact.

>
> > Common language (for the most part) and
> > a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between
the
> > two nations.
>
> I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
> of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
> them that we are seeing.

I detect the first indications of another GCT (Great Conspiracy Theory)
being fomented here...

> > >
> > > > that it has
> > > > happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as
much
> > a
> > > > product of common values than anything else.
> > >
> > > ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,
> >
> > No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
> > stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
> > commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.
>
> Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
> of the rest of the world)!

No, for *all* of us--you included. No need to express your appreciation,
however.

>
> Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam,

Yeah, it was. Had he folded his cards in a timely manner and met all of the
requirements set forth, Iraq could have been back to selling its oil to
whomever it chose to in any amount it so chose. But his refusal to do what
he was required to do kept that from happening.

he was
> pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
> memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
> non-existant WMD.

Then you have a bad memory, or the wrong impression. His WMD efforts, and
his refusal to comply with the related requirements he agreed to meet as
part of the cease fire agreement, were significant reasons, but not the only
ones. The US had established regime change as its goal (and made it public
law) for a number of reasons, and it did so well before the current
administration entered into power. There were quite a few observations of
his tendancy to conduct mass murder of those he did not like, for example,
that went into those decisions to officially sanction regime change. And we
have found quite a few mass graves tied to those detestable actions by
Saddam. We have also found that his compliance with the WMD requirements was
lacking, as we suspected; what we have not found (yet) are any final
products of those WMD progrmas that he did indeed maintain, at whatever
level, in direct violation of the terms imposed upon him. And not just in
the "WMD" area--you will recall that his missile programs were also
determined to be in violation of the allowable maximum range, something he
continually denied up until the very eve of the beginning of OIF.

>
> > You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--
>
> Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
> acknowledged it in your last sentence.

No, I did not.

You want to control the oil
> (stability was the euphemism used).

No, now you are just plain lying. I did not say we want to control the oil.
Period. Regional stability is NOT equivalent to "controlling the oil".
Period. These are not complex statements, nor are they unduly complex
theories, so your attempt to twist my statement to suit your own purpose is
just a case of fabrication on your part.

Colonialism being the use of a
> weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.

The UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc., would disagree with your definition that sees
them as "colonial possessions" because the sell oil to the highest bidder in
whatever quantities they so choose, IAW with the guidelines of the cartel
(OPEC) that they themselves formed and operate.

>
> > but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
> > just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
> > their own government and affairs.
>
> The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
> specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
> of Isreal.

Once they have reassumed complete control of their own governance they can.

The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
> its natural resources (specifically oil).

Yes, they will.

Large number of foreign
> troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.

Really? "Will continue" for how long, and what is your supporting evidence
for this claim?

> Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
> for material and training.

Of their choosing once they are running their own government--not that it
matters much, being as history is rife with examples of independent nations
obtaining such materiel and training from a single foreign source.

Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
> free country.

Yes, it will be.

>
> > That would be another one of those "good
> > things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past
thirty
> > years or so.
> >
> > > propaganda over facts.
> >
> > It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts,
since
> > you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy
theory.
> > You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime
without
> > question.
>
> First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
> said it was true?

No, just an example of your buying into propoganda, as you claimed I was.
Does the US covet and plan to control Iraqi oil resources? No. If you want
to claim otherwise, provide some actual proof.

>
> Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
> WMD).

Well, he actually said he had no WMD *programs*...which was not correct, as
even Hans Blix and the latest US investigation chief acknowledged. He also
claimed that his disclosures were "full, final, and complete" each time he
submitted one...and then when we (or the UN) found something new, he'd
submit a revised "full, final, and complete" disclosure. Now that was not
very honest, was it? Then there were his threats, delivered via his son Uday
IIRC, of the drastic and fatal result (supposedly dwarfing 9-11 as he
indicated at the time) that would accompany any coalition attack into Iraq;
he wanted to play the "I've got WMD and will use them" game one time too
many. But you think he was truthful, huh? Well, that's another reason not to
take your acssessments with much seriousness.

> That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.

Nope, not really.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > Reading anything further into
> > > > it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.
> > >
> > > Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
> > > part?
> >
> > No.
>
> Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.
>
> >
> > >
> > > And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?
> >
> > I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
> > other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK
in a
> > military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
> > worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.
>
> Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?

Care to name them? How many of them could match the ability of the UK to
project power, and how many of them have any proven track record in doing
so?

>
> >
> > Fear of US is
> > > understandable - its rich, powerful
> >
> > Yep, we are.
> >
> > <snip inane whining>
> >
> > But
> > > why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
> > > that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
> > > up.
> >
> > That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world.
It
> > has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
> > naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the
USAF.
> > During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to
our
> > CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra
PR9
> > and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
> > contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF
are
> > truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.
>
> Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
> you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.

But then by your definition, as the rest of the world is all inhabited
solely by "chipmunks", then being the "biggest, baddest" chipmunk of them
all does indeed merit significant respect.

> > > >
> > > > Germany might
> > > > > not have won,
> > > >
> > > > No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that,
huh?
> > >
> > > You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
> > > reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.
> >
> > Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about
the
> > spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a
serious
> > morality flaw.
>
> I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
> which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
> Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
> the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.

I guess you forgot that the "free world" was also a winner.

>
> >
> > To me it is a
> > > story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
> > > emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
> > > razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
> > > assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
> > > sad but engrossing history to me.
> >
> > My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore
the
> > gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that
the
> > defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our
parents
> > lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.
>
> Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
> lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
> with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
> that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
> coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
> idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
> scale.

The world is not perfect. But it would have been an even less perfect world
had the cause of Nazism prevailed.

>
> And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
> mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
> the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?

As to Tokyo, no I don't. I just got back this evening from celebrating my
father's eightieth birthday. Sixty-one years ago next month he was flying as
a crewmember on one of the B-29's dropping those incendiaries over Japanese
cities. That was the art of warfare during that era--not nearly as precise
and clean as it is today. If the Japanese did not want to experience the
bombing of their homeland, then all they had to do was refrain from
attacking the US. They didn't. Too bad.

>
> What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
> Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
> other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
> claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
> fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.

So you say. Again, your track record thus far is not adding up to a strong
case for meriting your opinions.

> > >
> > > I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
> > > weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.
> > >
> > > Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
> > > there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
> > > affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
> > > Empire is now history.
> >
> > One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
> > this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.
>
> As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
> with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
> distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
> anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
> very emotive issue for me.
>
> I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
> to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
> government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
> itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
> conclusions and generalizations.

So, what is your background and nationality?

>
> > Odd that
> > you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
> > yet so
> > willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".
>
> This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
> problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
> attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
> makes the rest of the world tick.

Which does not say anything about the fact that you demonstrate a strong and
irrational dislike of the UK, regarless of your thoughts in ragrds to their
cricket team.

>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > but Britain sure seems to have lost.
> > > >
> > > > Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?
> > >
> > > I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
> > > battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).
> > >
> > > France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
> > > that beating.
> > >
> > > UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
> > > smashed non the less.
> >
> > Odd, in that they were on the winning side.
>
> Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
> you are better off than before.

Better off? They were certainly better off than if they had lost, and they
were better off than the losers.

<snip more whining>

>
> > The disintegration of their
> > former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before
the
> > war.
>
> Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
> happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
> world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
> tragic, ultimately very welcome.
>
> > And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
> > retaining control of its old colonial holdings.
>
> The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
> possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.
>
> > Time marches on and the
> > world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather
important
> > place in the greater scheme of world order.
>
> Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
> economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
> now a decidedly second/third rung power.

LOL! Twenty years ago the Soviet Union was a "preeminent power"; now they
are having problems paying the lighting bills for the military bases that
house forces that are a mere shadow of their former beings. As I said, time
marches on and the world changes--but the UK reamains as one of the more
powerful nations.

>
> > That would be another "good
> > thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had
they
> > not been on the winning side during WWII.
>
> They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
> the obvious?

> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now
> > > > France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...
> > >
> > > Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
> > > the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
> > > or UK can you?
> >
> > In the case of the UK, yes I can.
>
> Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
> in 1913, 1938 and 2000?

Who really cares? You already said yourself, "Oh yes, UK is still important
in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy." Economic power is vital--as much so or more so than military
power. The Brits remain powerful. Mighty big "chipmunk" you got there, huh?

Brooks

Bernardz

February 22nd 04, 05:50 AM

> The key issue is the determination of the scope of
> the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
> with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into Afghanistan
> and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became amenable to
> peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but without
> the support of either the CIS or the PRC

I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
China.

It is interesting that no nuclear power eg Britain, France, Russia,
China, Israel, India or Pakistan reacted like Libya or Iran.

> it is only a matter of time before
> we get what we want--so why start pounding the swords on the shields?

The history of the world shows that those that beat their swords into
plowshares will plow for those that don't.

>
> Brooks
>
> >
>
>
>

--
How many public servants care enough about their department agenda that
they would be willing, if it received a budget cut to take a pay cut?

Observations of Bernard - No 46

Kevin Brooks

February 22nd 04, 06:29 AM

"Bernardz" > wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa2ee4ab5f1cc5d98991a@news...
> > The key issue is the determination of the scope of
> > the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
> > with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into
Afghanistan
> > and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became
amenable to
> > peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but
without
> > the support of either the CIS or the PRC
>
> I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
> Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
> China.

Why should we "take on" China? As long as they keep their threats towards
Taiwan in the "threat" category, is there any reason we should be slobbering
at the opportunity to militarily confront the PRC? Especially when they are
working *with* us vis a vis the DPRK?

>
> It is interesting that no nuclear power eg Britain, France, Russia,
> China, Israel, India or Pakistan reacted like Libya or Iran.

Why do you find that interesting? We identified Iran as being in our focus,
and Libya had long been subject to not only US but also UN action, so the
fact that they have interpreted US actions a bit differently than the other
nations (which the US does not currently have any major disagreements with)
should not be surprising. None of those other nations you list has any
reason to fear US military action against them. Did you think we should be
rattling our sabres towards France merely because of some policy
disagreements? Pakistan not only allowed US overflights for OEF, but also
provided limited basing support, and has handed over captured AQ members.
Why would you think any of them should, or even could, consider the US as a
"foe" in the current situation?

>
>
> > it is only a matter of time before
> > we get what we want--so why start pounding the swords on the shields?
>
>
> The history of the world shows that those that beat their swords into
> plowshares will plow for those that don't.

Uhmmm...OK. And irrelevant. We have lots of nice, lethal, and very shiny
spears, and we have proven that we know how to use them. That does not mean
that we have to use them in every instance, now does it? Again, the
non-military option is being used against the DPRK right now, and I don't
see the DPRK getting anything but weaker, so why the rush to arms?

Brooks

Peter Stickney

February 22nd 04, 03:59 PM

In article <MPG.1aa2ee4ab5f1cc5d98991a@news>,
Bernardz > writes:
>> The key issue is the determination of the scope of
>> the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
>> with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into Afghanistan
>> and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became amenable to
>> peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but without
>> the support of either the CIS or the PRC
>
> I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
> Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
> China.

If that were really the situation, we'd had 50 years where, by your
reckoning, we could have/should have invaded the DPRK. (With which,
btw, we, and the UN, are still at war with. Armistices are not end to
the conflict, they are cease-fires.) But we didn't do so.
In fact, the situation wrt the U.S. Armed FOrces, andth eDPRK hasn't
changed much at all.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Tuollaf43

February 26th 04, 08:51 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > Facts arent your strong point are they ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Korea: stalemate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
> > > > > > > and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
> > > > > > > DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with
> assurances
> > > > > > that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program
> coming
> > > > > online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We
> also
> > > > > removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the
> same
> > > > > reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.
> > > >
> > > > Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
> > > > insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.
> > >
> > > If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
> > > administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
> > > Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
> > > mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
> > > regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves
> in:
> > > millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf
> > >
> > > On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
> > > indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get
> the
> > > Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
> > > little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet
> nuclear
> > > capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
> > > great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
> > > forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm
> > >
> > > So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big
> deal.
> > > More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the
> Jupiter
> > > removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
> > > clan).
> >
> > So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
> > Soviet insistence.
>
> Actually, no. Soviet insistence had darned little to do with it--we were
> already planning on removing those missiles, and when Gromyko presented the
> proposal to have the US do so the White House jumped on it. From reading
> Gromyko's comments (it has been a year or so, but I think I have the gist
> right), it is apparent that the Soviets were going to cave on the missiles
> in Cuba, and our agreement to *eventually* remove the missiles from Turkey
> was more of a sop to keep Khrushchev to save some face when he presented the
> plan to his cronies.

I know you are an ultra right winger - but it too much even for a
right winger to say that Kenedy went out to his way to save old
shoe-banger's face?

> It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
> > was not worth its keep.
>
> You must have missed that comment regarding the desire to remove the
> missiles from Turkey being expressed "over a year ago", huh?

No. You are one of those people who think a loundly repeating the very
same thing again and again constitutes an 'explanattion'.

> >
> > The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
> > pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
> > concession.
>
> The only time we ever came close to conducting an invasion with US military
> forces was during the crisis itself. Why would we have wanted to invade
> otherwise? Hell, Cuba has been a great posterchild for the "why you DON'T
> want your nation to go communist" cause.

You are too ignorant (or in denial) for me to even begin to educate
you. Look up the historical records.

> > > >
> > > > The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
> > > > anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
> > > > bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
> > > > not that there was no concession.
> > >
> > > Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
> > > plans? I think not.
> >
> > It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
> > it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
> > to you.
>
> Look up "concession"--the approriate definition of the root word (concede)
> is "to yield". Which means to forego your own desired result. We GOT our own
> desired results on both fronts--no Soviet missiles in Cuba, and we pulled
> the Jupters that we already wanted to remove. That does not equal a
> "concession".

Excellent spin. Maybe you should join the English Cricket side as a
spinner.

> >
> > > I'd call that more in the line of a bargain
> >
> > yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
> > with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.
>
> Again, when you give up what you already are trying to get rid of, that is
> not a "concession". I am guessing that english is not your native tongue;
> nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you are going to start arguing
> the nuances of the wording, you might want to freshen up your vocabulary.
>
> > Hence my original contention, a stalemate.
>
> Not really.

Really.

>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > "If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority
> of
> > > Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing
> them
> > > from power was a *good* thing.
> >
> > As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
> > afghanistan
>
> It has? H'mmm...

Yes, it has.

> those folks the Taliban executed outright on a rather
> routine basis might have argued that their "standard of living" could not
> have gotten any worse.

Yeah, look who is in town preaching! You did not have a problem with
goverments murdering innnocents or repressing freedoms as long as they
looked out for US interests. Saddam Hussain, Shah of Iran or the
present Saudi Regieme to mention a few.

> The afghani women would also likely tell you that
> their standard of living today is better than it was.
> What guage are you
> going to use to measure the changes? Television ownership maybe? ISTR that
> under the Taliban the reported number of privately owned TV's would have
> been a big zero--it has now mushroomed, apparently... :)

Lord you are so clueless! TV ownership for godsakes???!!! Was Mary
Antoinette
one of your ancestors?

> > and a bad government has been replaced with no government,
>
> Well, not just bad, but inherently *evil*; blasting those Buddhist reliefs
> was indicative of that.

Well one government blew up statues. Another made aggressive war on
false pretenses and killed tens of thousands. You consider one evil
and the other the milk of human kindness. It is just sicking that you
value historical artifacts over living, breathing people.

> They now have a constitution ready for approval,
> IIRC; only what, two years after the Taliban was removed from power? heck,
> here isn the US it took us fourteen years after the British signed the peace
> treaty before we had our constitution in hand.
>
> > > AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
> > > free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.
> >
> > I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts.
>
> Well, lucky for us, *your* beliefs don't hold much water, right?

I see it all an evil conspiracy to blacken the US hatched by the BBC,
CNN etc. I guess for right wing nutters if it is not reported on Fox
it never happened.

> Osama
> > never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
> > pakistan.
>
> He does now.

You would know, how?

> > And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -
>
> Actually, they do if they want to have major "successes" like 9-11.

How many of the 9-11 hijackers learnt to fly planes in afghanistan?

> What,
> you think the fact that there have been major terrorist training facilities
> (in a number of nations) over the past few decades was just due to some kind
> of "terrosist bureaucracy" at work, building infrastructure they did not
> *need*?

Al-Qaida is a very small and very select group. You are just buying
into the propaganda that every person who looks sideways at you must
be Al-Qaida.

> > they are typically very small in number
>
> Don't confuse their operational methodology with their training
> requirements.

OK exactly what are the training requirements Grofaz? We are all ears.

> and can be quite easily
> > trained covertly and unobstrusively.
>
> Really? Kind of hard to train guys to effectively conduct demolitions
> operations without making things go "boom" at some point; likewise, training
> people to effectively engage targets with small arms requires some kind of
> training area. Want to run rehearsals for a major operation? Again, you need
> somewhere safe to do it.

LOL! Small arms fire and demolitions would stand out like a sore thumb
in an area awash with light and heavy infantry weapons and where
people celebrate by firing whole magazines on automatic in the air. I
suppose you believe the local afghan sound pollution board reports
them to the authorities? LOL!

> US presence in a small fraction
> > of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
> > fashion.
>
> Right...sure. Care to show us any evidence that the AQ training programs
> (which they did have running in Afghanistan, whether you thought they were
> needed or not) are back up and running in that country?

My point is that the training needed is on such low scale that it
would not have a large prominient footprint. The very fact that you
ask for evidence indicates that you have no clue what you are talking
about.

> > > > > and that a few
> > > > > other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
> terrorist
> > > > > operations.
> > > >
> > > > This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.
> > >
> > > Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and
> even
> > > reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF
> has
> > > been a significant success.
> >
> > I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
> > killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
> > matters greatly to the US).
>
> How many Afghans were killed during OEF to date? Of that many, how many were
> fighting on the Taliban/AQ side?

Not enough to satify you obviously.

> But I do agree with you that
> > reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.
>
> But it represents a virtual waterfall of largesse compared to the amount of
> aid they were receiving under the Taliban leadership. How much
> reconstruction had the Taliban completed?

About 45 million worth atleast in 2001.

> >
> > There have been no significant success other than the general change
> > in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
> > *certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
> > OEF has been a dismal failure.
>
> Thank goodness what you say again has no relevance to the actual outcome or
> its assessment by more logical individuals.
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL! Tell us more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million,
> the
> US
> > > > > population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA,
> TX,
> CA)
> > > > > only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers
> further
> if
> > > > > you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html
> > > > >
>
> I note you backed off of your sarcastic comment to Keith's statement above--
> acknowledgment that he was indeed right?

I read states as nation states, not administrative subdivisions in a
single nation. So it appears that Keith was indeed right. so I kept
quite. Unlike you I dont twist and turn and argue sideways just to be
argumentative.

> > > > > > > and controlled the combined industries of western europe
> > > > > > > and couldnt even beat Britain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > > > > Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
> > > > > > Europe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?
> >
> > I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
> > wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
> > markets for US industries.
>
> LOL! Yeah, and did not do a darned thing for the standard of living of all
> of those European nations that took advantage of it, huh? One wonders why
> the nations that could (and did) partake of it had robust economies in the
> sixties, seventies, and eighties, while those that could not (ie., Warsaw
> Pact members) were (economically) crawling when the Wall came tumbling down,
> huh?

OK, your point being?

> But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
> > for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
> > western europeans also share your approval for the plan.
>
> Indeed they did. Had it not existed there is little doubt that the economic
> staus of those nations would not be where it is today.

Well and true. Where have I contested this point Quixote? You seem to
be in love with your own voice (or writing in this instance).

> > > > >
> > > > > Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
> > > > > > spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;
> > > >
> > > > There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
> > > > independence, merely a US lackey.
> > >
> > > Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.
> >
> > Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
> > people then.
> >
> > Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
> > personal advantage
> > Independent: Free from external control and constraint
>
> Your definitions kind of make my point.

Err, my definations kind of dont make your point. You claim Lackeydom
and Independence are opposites - I say that they are distinct
concepts. UK is independent, and it is a lackey. You could argue that
UK is independent and not a lackey and you would merely run the risk
of being considered a fool. But please dont try to redefine English to
suit your needs.

> Again, english is not your native
> tongue, is it?

No it is not. Not even my second or third language. But I seem to be a
little better at it than you do. Is it just you or do you blame it on
the education system?

> > You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
> > relationship with the US.
>
> Not really.

Yes really.

> > > The UK
> > > remains capable of determining its own course.
> >
> > Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
> > ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
> > vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
> > independence.

Good to see you agree with this.

> > > In fact, Blair has reportedly
> > > had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
> > > direction at times over the past few years.
> >
> > 'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
> > independent thought.
>
> Obviously you are going to let your paranoia rule your interpretation of all
> things British, so the above is hardly a surprising comment coming from you.

No, hardly surprising because it is true. I cant help you and your
willfull myopia.

> > > Most USians still have a great
> > > deal of respect for the UK,
> >
> > So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.
>
> So you think only the current British government is the source of this
> alleged "lackey" state, huh? One has to wonder when you point to as the
> start of this "lackeydom", and where it has manifested itself over the past
> few decades.

You are permitted to wonder.

> > > and while it cannot any longer muster the level
> > > of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to
> be
> > > a partner as opposed to a "lackey".
> >
> > That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
> > British friends.
>
> Well, its also true, but I realize you can't recognize that fact.

No, I dont recognize your contrary-to-all-experiance assertion. We'll
leave it at that.

> > > Common language (for the most part) and
> > > a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between
> the
> > > two nations.
> >
> > I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
> > of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
> > them that we are seeing.
>
> I detect the first indications of another GCT (Great Conspiracy Theory)
> being fomented here...

And Pray tell Grofaz what the GCT is? Last time around it was about
your fears about India invading Australia or something like that. Talk
of paronia.

> > > > > that it has
> > > > > happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as
> much
> a
> > > > > product of common values than anything else.
> > > >
> > > > ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,
> > >
> > > No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
> > > stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
> > > commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.
> >
> > Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
> > of the rest of the world)!
>
> No, for *all* of us--you included. No need to express your appreciation,
> however.

There is no danger of that.

Now where did I hear this kind of reasoning before - oh yes, the
colonial days! The argument being that the colonies exist for the
benefit of the colonized. You must be so proud of caryying the White
Man's Burden (release two, version 2004).

> > Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam,
>
> Yeah, it was. Had he folded his cards in a timely manner and met all of the
> requirements set forth, Iraq could have been back to selling its oil to
> whomever it chose to in any amount it so chose. But his refusal to do what
> he was required to do kept that from happening.
>
> he was
> > pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
> > memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
> > non-existant WMD.
>
> Then you have a bad memory, or the wrong impression. His WMD efforts, and
> his refusal to comply with the related requirements he agreed to meet as
> part of the cease fire agreement, were significant reasons, but not the only
> ones. The US had established regime change as its goal (and made it public
> law) for a number of reasons, and it did so well before the current
> administration entered into power. There were quite a few observations of
> his tendancy to conduct mass murder of those he did not like, for example,
> that went into those decisions to officially sanction regime change. And we
> have found quite a few mass graves tied to those detestable actions by
> Saddam. We have also found that his compliance with the WMD requirements was
> lacking, as we suspected; what we have not found (yet) are any final
> products of those WMD progrmas that he did indeed maintain, at whatever
> level, in direct violation of the terms imposed upon him. And not just in
> the "WMD" area--you will recall that his missile programs were also
> determined to be in violation of the allowable maximum range, something he
> continually denied up until the very eve of the beginning of OIF.

Well whose should I believe? That old fart Bush who runs the country
or an anonymous apologist for the British Empire? No offense but I
will go with the version Bush, incoherent though he is and changes his
story every thrursday, as he was the one who planned, waged,
authorised and conned the world into war.

> > > You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--
> >
> > Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
> > acknowledged it in your last sentence.
>
> No, I did not.
>
> You want to control the oil
> > (stability was the euphemism used).
>
> No, now you are just plain lying. I did not say we want to control the oil.
> Period. Regional stability is NOT equivalent to "controlling the oil".

For the US it is. Get real!

> Period. These are not complex statements, nor are they unduly complex
> theories, so your attempt to twist my statement to suit your own purpose is
> just a case of fabrication on your part.
>
> Colonialism being the use of a
> > weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.
>
> The UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc., would disagree with your definition that sees
> them as "colonial possessions"

Yes the US supported undemocratic puppet regimes would vociferously
support you, indeed. Great company you keep.

> because the sell oil to the highest bidder in
> whatever quantities they so choose, IAW with the guidelines of the cartel
> (OPEC) that they themselves formed and operate.

You seem to have no clue how these things work. It is quantity of oil
on the market, and the currency of exchange, not who is selling to
whom that is important.

> > > but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
> > > just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
> > > their own government and affairs.
> >
> > The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
> > specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
> > of Isreal.
>
> Once they have reassumed complete control of their own governance they can.

oh yes, I suppose they will be free to continue their war against
Isreal if they choose to like most arabs, LOL! We just need to look at
the firm, independent path Karzai has struck in Afghanistan as
evidence.

> The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
> > its natural resources (specifically oil).
>
> Yes, they will.

So you say. It remains to be seen.

> Large number of foreign
> > troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.
>
> Really? "Will continue" for how long, and what is your supporting evidence
> for this claim?

US track record.

> > Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
> > for material and training.
>
> Of their choosing once they are running their own government--not that it
> matters much, being as history is rife with examples of independent nations
> obtaining such materiel and training from a single foreign source.

History also shows that such nations are typically dominated by that
single source in matters economic, military and diplomatic.

> Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
> > free country.
>
> Yes, it will be.

Yes, I share that hope too. I'd say after another 50 years or when oil
runs out or becomes irrelevant - whichever comes earlier.

> > > That would be another one of those "good
> > > things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past
> thirty
> > > years or so.
> > >
> > > > propaganda over facts.
> > >
> > > It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts,
> since
> > > you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy
> theory.

Why is it whacky - what torpedoes the 'theory'? Lack of motive, means
or intent? Or is it whacky just because you dont like the facts.

> > > You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime
> without
> > > question.
> >
> > First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
> > said it was true?
>
> No, just an example of your buying into propoganda, as you claimed I was.
> Does the US covet and plan to control Iraqi oil resources? No. If you want
> to claim otherwise, provide some actual proof.

What do you want - Secret video tapes of Bush and Cronies plotting to
take over the world? LOL!

> > Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
> > WMD).
>
> Well, he actually said he had no WMD *programs*...which was not correct, as
> even Hans Blix and the latest US investigation chief acknowledged. He also
> claimed that his disclosures were "full, final, and complete" each time he
> submitted one...and then when we (or the UN) found something new, he'd
> submit a revised "full, final, and complete" disclosure. Now that was not
> very honest, was it? Then there were his threats, delivered via his son Uday
> IIRC, of the drastic and fatal result (supposedly dwarfing 9-11 as he
> indicated at the time) that would accompany any coalition attack into Iraq;
> he wanted to play the "I've got WMD and will use them" game one time too
> many. But you think he was truthful, huh? Well, that's another reason not to
> take your acssessments with much seriousness.
>
> > That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.
>
> Nope, not really.

Yes, Really.

> > > > > Reading anything further into
> > > > > it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
> > > > part?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?
> > >
> > > I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
> > > other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK
> in a
> > > military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
> > > worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.
> >
> > Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?
>
> Care to name them?

China, Germany, France, India, Japan, Sweden off the cuff.

> How many of them could match the ability of the UK to
> project power,

Why this moving goal-post? Why is power projection suddenly thrust as
the arbitary measure of military effectiveness. All of them do have
the capability to go toe to toe with any nation, other than the US,and
make them hurt like hell, which is what you claimed as the USP of the
UK military.

BTW, It might surprise you that atleast in some countries defense
forces are structured and maintaned to do just that - defend the
homeland. So power projection requirements are moot.

> and how many of them have any proven track record in doing
> so?

I admit you have a point here. Fortunately some of the countries
mentioned have been a little less blood thirsty lately than the US or
UK. So not having a proven track record in war in not a bad thing - it
is indeed a really good thing because the primary purpose of an armed
force is to deter war and only if that fails does one fight.

> > > Fear of US is
> > > > understandable - its rich, powerful
> > >
> > > Yep, we are.
> > >
> > > <snip inane whining>

Bush = fruit cake. Tee hee hee! I love your pavlovian responce.

> > > But
> > > > why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
> > > > that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
> > > > up.
> > >
> > > That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world.

Which you claimed, contrary to the experiance of the rest of the
military world, is useless a while back.

> It
> > > has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
> > > naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the
> USAF.
> > > During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to
> our
> > > CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra
> PR9
> > > and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
> > > contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF
> are
> > > truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.
> >
> > Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
> > you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.
>
> But then by your definition, as the rest of the world is all inhabited
> solely by "chipmunks", then being the "biggest, baddest" chipmunk of them
> all does indeed merit significant respect.

Perhaps it does and perhaps it doesnt. That is a side issue I dont
care to go over with you. What I said was the US military + UK
military doesnt make it any more powerful in any real terms than just
US military (Gorilla backed by a chipmunk doesnt make the Gorilla any
more fearsome). You dispute that, but are yet to justify how exactly.

> > > > > Germany might
> > > > > > not have won,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that,
> huh?
> > > >
> > > > You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
> > > > reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.
> > >
> > > Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about
> the
> > > spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a
> serious
> > > morality flaw.
> >
> > I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
> > which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
> > Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
> > the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.
>
> I guess you forgot that the "free world" was also a winner.

Oh no, you lie. I did say that one of the positive benefits of the
second world war did occuring as and when it did was that a lot of
nations became free of their colonial oppressors.

> > > To me it is a
> > > > story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
> > > > emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
> > > > razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
> > > > assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
> > > > sad but engrossing history to me.
> > >
> > > My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore
> the
> > > gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that
> the
> > > defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our
> parents
> > > lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.
> >
> > Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
> > lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
> > with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
> > that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
> > coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
> > idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
> > scale.
>
> The world is not perfect. But it would have been an even less perfect world
> had the cause of Nazism prevailed.

Perhaps your world. But not mine. Germany was and remains a European
problem. US, now, is a world wide problem.

> > And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
> > mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
> > the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?
>
> As to Tokyo, no I don't. I just got back this evening from celebrating my
> father's eightieth birthday. Sixty-one years ago next month he was flying as
> a crewmember on one of the B-29's dropping those incendiaries over Japanese
> cities.

Lucky for your father then that the US won. If the world were a fair
place he would have been strung up from the nearest tree for being a
war criminal that he is.

What was his excuse? I vaz jhust vollowing oarders?

> That was the art of warfare during that era--not nearly as precise
> and clean as it is today.

Great Scott alive - a closet Osama lover! I suppose you also think
that Osama was justified in his murder of a few thosand innocent
people because that was the best he could do now.

> If the Japanese did not want to experience the
> bombing of their homeland, then all they had to do was refrain from
> attacking the US. They didn't. Too bad.

This is disgusting - murdering, burning and maiming of civilians is
never
justifiable. Weather they be Germans, Japanese, Americans or Afghans.
People being inadvertantly killed due to collateral damage is one
thing - but to support willfull targeting of cities amply demonstrates
the kind of person you are - and it is not flattering.

> > What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
> > Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
> > other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
> > claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
> > fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.
>
> So you say. Again, your track record thus far is not adding up to a strong
> case for meriting your opinions.

What are you disputing really? The nature of US role in 1) East
Pakistan or 2) Rwanda? Or are you indeed arguing that the the US
fought to save the jews, slavs etc and against the holocaust? Or do
you dispute that US participated in the european war for its own self
interest?

Or are you saying that the US government archives on the US role in
the East Pakistan Genocide which were released about an year back
under the freedom of information act are all commie/democrat/baathist
propaganda?

And I do note how you chickned out and ran the last time when I did
post some corroborating evidence that refuted the silly military
theories you were peddling, Grofaz. So I dont really expect you to
follow up in any sensible fashion.

> > > > I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
> > > > weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
> > > > there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
> > > > affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
> > > > Empire is now history.
> > >
> > > One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
> > > this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.
> >
> > As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
> > with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
> > distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
> > anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
> > very emotive issue for me.
> >
> > I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
> > to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
> > government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
> > itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
> > conclusions and generalizations.
>
> So, what is your background and nationality?

Not that it is any great secret, but what does it have to do with the
discussion in hand.

But I do admit that I am surprised (then again perhaps not) that you
consider it surprising that people who sufferend and were enslaved
under it did not like the British Empire.

> > > Odd that
> > > you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
> > > yet so
> > > willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".
> >
> > This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
> > problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
> > attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
> > makes the rest of the world tick.
>
> Which does not say anything about the fact that you demonstrate a strong and
> irrational dislike of the UK, regarless of your thoughts in ragrds to their
> cricket team.

I wont lose any sleep that a closet talibani, a proud son of a war
criminal and British Empire apologist thinks of me as irrational.

> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > but Britain sure seems to have lost.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?
> > > >
> > > > I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
> > > > battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).
> > > >
> > > > France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
> > > > that beating.
> > > >
> > > > UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
> > > > smashed non the less.
> > >
> > > Odd, in that they were on the winning side.
> >
> > Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
> > you are better off than before.
>
> Better off? They were certainly better off than if they had lost, and they
> were better off than the losers.

Sure. But how does that contradict what I am saying?

> > > The disintegration of their
> > > former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before
> the
> > > war.
> >
> > Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
> > happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
> > world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
> > tragic, ultimately very welcome.
> >
> > > And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
> > > retaining control of its old colonial holdings.
> >
> > The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
> > possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.

I note that you do not dispute my assertion.

> > > Time marches on and the
> > > world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather
> important
> > > place in the greater scheme of world order.
> >
> > Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
> > economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
> > now a decidedly second/third rung power.
>
> LOL! Twenty years ago the Soviet Union was a "preeminent power"; now they
> are having problems paying the lighting bills for the military bases that
> house forces that are a mere shadow of their former beings. As I said, time
> marches on and the world changes--but the UK reamains as one of the more
> powerful nations.

Again how does that contradict what I am saying.

> > > That would be another "good
> > > thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had
> they
> > > not been on the winning side during WWII.
> >
> > They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
> > the obvious?

No point I see. Not unusual for you.

> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now
> > > > > France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...
> > > >
> > > > Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
> > > > the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
> > > > or UK can you?
> > >
> > > In the case of the UK, yes I can.
> >
> > Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
> > in 1913, 1938 and 2000?
>
> Who really cares?

If you dont then why you did you butt in at all, eh?

> You already said yourself, "Oh yes, UK is still important
> in world affairs - thanks to its large
> economy." Economic power is vital--as much so or more so than military
> power. The Brits remain powerful.

Who contests the point you are belabouring here Quixote? Who says
Brits are not powerful today? This is just another of your strawmen?
Point of contention was the relative standing then and now.

> Mighty big "chipmunk" you got there, huh?

Being a gorialla then and a chipmunk now is not really a great
improvement as you make it sound. People who do not qualify as even
the shortest of titans cosole themselves as being the tallest dwarf.

>
> Brooks