If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Nothing Learned From History
From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if
you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's pre-1939 maneuvering? If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent election. .....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: [OT] Nothing Learned From History
From: stop spam Date: 9/12/2004 11:19 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's pre-1939 maneuvering? If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent election. ....and yet, he would have been a Genius who was never celebrated for it. How could FDR possibly invaded Germany? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "stop spam" wrote in message ... From a blog I frequent... interesting parallel, perhaps, especially if you compare the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait with Hitler's pre-1939 maneuvering? Seems to me that comparing Dubyah to FDR is a huge insult to FDR. If you are looking for a good historical parallel with the Iraq war, how about Benito's invasion of Abessynia? This seems rather more appropriate to me. Nope, he draws an interesting and not totally unrealistic comparison. If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity, Such simplistic proposals ignore feasibility. He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the manner he described. And deep down you know you would have, even if you would not admit it. Brooks snip |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Nope, he draws an interesting and not totally unrealistic comparison. The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.; comparisons that both on ground of policy and personality are extremely far fetched. Get off your stump, for gosh sakes. He drew the comparison because the situation can be looked at in the same way--if Roosevelt had possessed the capability to conduct a preemptive strike to remove the Nazi menace before it ignited global war and done so, you would have been tossing the same arguments aginst him that you now throw at our current leadership. There was no compariosn stated or implied as to Bush and FDR on the personal level. snip further straying from the topic at hand He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the manner he described. It depends. If a 1930s president had gone off his rocker in the way George W Bush did, sending an army into Europe to invade Germany in absence of a rational policy and realistic war goals, I would (if I had lived at that time) indeed have condemned that president as a mad war-monger, and IMHO quite correctly so. Back up your turnip truck there, Gus. Yes, we did have a rational policy and goals; the policy is, when necessary, to strike threats before they can strike (or again strike) us or our interests. The goals included removal of Saddam (done), elimination of Iraq as a regional military threat (done), curtailing Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not find them to be of the scale we thought they would be at the beginning), and let the Iraqi people institute their own form of government (underway). So would, and with ample justification, have done the people of the USA. "Have done"? You must have missed the fact that a bit over half of us *still* support the President's Iraq policy--and more did so when we embarked upon it. Stop assigning YOUR whacky thoughts to "the people of the USA"--you who is not even a citizen of this nation. You know, the best thing about reelecting Bush is perhaps the fact that it will signal the sentiment of the American people towards all y'all Euroweenies who so fervently want to meddle in our election process--think of it as a symbolic middle finger directed in your direction come November. If a 1940 president had sought to build an alliance to fight the fascist dictatorships in Europe, say in a 1930s version of NATO, and would have committed troops to Europe to support it, I think I would have warmly welcomed that as the only way to rescue the continent from the abyss. Sadly, at the time that too would have been rejected by the American people. The old "only an alliance can wage righteous war" bit, eh? Ignoring the fact that, like today, nations like Belgium, France, and probably even the UK at that time, would have decried the idea of the US striking Germany preemptively, and would not have been willing to do themselves. I am not opposed to the use of military force to support a policy. I am opposed to the rash and incompetent use of force. Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored assualt depth versus time, use of precision strike systems to emasculate a still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid as to call it "incompetent". To quote the dictum attributed to Clausewitz, "war is politics continued by other means". Like Wilhelm II, the neo-cons seem to have Yo, you sound like Art--"neocon this, neocon that". Some of us were conservatives before this strange, not well-defined term even sprang into use. Given that Bush's approval rating is now around 52%, I guess you think a bit over half of us are neocons", eh? Fat chance. adopted military force as an alternative to politics, instead of a tool of it, We had some twelve years of trying to let politics take care of the Iraq problem--it failed, thus the Clauswitzian extension into war. because they lack the competency and understanding of the world that are needed to define and implement an effective policy. As barbaric narcissists, these people have been seduced by the power at their command, and they can't resist using it even when it does them and their country no good. Their obsession with showing "strength" betrays their fundamental weakness. The above reads like the typical limp-wristed fare we have come to expect from a lot of Europeans exhibiting their usual stuffy disdain for the US, and their own cultural and intellectual superiority to all others. Newsflash--Europe is on the wane, and it won't be long before it moves from second to third place in terms of economic and political importance (watch out for Asia...). Get used to it, and get off that high horse you are trying to stay astride before you fall off and bust your collective rump. Brooks -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
... Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored assualt depth versus time, Bwah hah hah hah! Hilarious! Thanks for cheering up a grey Edinburgh day with this hilarious statement! And some people over here still maintain that Merkins don't 'do' irony! use of precision strike systems to emasculate a still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid as to call it "incompetent". Cor! Why is that stupid? What would an 'incompetent' policy look like then? How would we know the difference? 1000 US troops and mercenaries dead, ~10 000 Iraqis dead, continuing and escalating violence, no rule of law, no credible democracy in place. No WMD. Not, as you put it "Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not find them to be of the scale we thought they would be at the beginning)" No WMD. Tell it like it is. Even your compatriots and fellow GW Bush fans must be laughing at the above quote from your post. No Osama Bin Laden. And you didn't even get to keep the oil you wanted! This three years after US citizens learned for the first time what the Palestinians and the Irish among others have known for many years, how it feels to be on the receiving end of a vicious bloodthirsty attack by terrorists. Nearly a year and a half after your draft-dodging, coke-snorting, election-rigging President posed on an aircraft carrier under the words 'Mission Accomplished'. Again, in what regards would an incompetent policy be different to what we have now? John |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Nope, he draws an interesting and not totally unrealistic comparison. The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.; comparisons that both on ground of policy and personality are extremely far fetched. Get off your stump, for gosh sakes. He drew the comparison because the situation can be looked at in the same way--if Roosevelt had possessed the capability to conduct a preemptive strike to remove the Nazi menace before it ignited global war and done so, you would have been tossing the same arguments aginst him that you now throw at our current leadership. There was no compariosn stated or implied as to Bush and FDR on the personal level. If FDR had had that power in 1937 he would quite rightly have been viewed then and ever after as an imperialistic warmongering son of a bitch. Because in 1937 exactly what had Germany done that was so terrable?. Oh now we know that in time they would build up, but I can just imagin FDR trying to sell that one, 'Well gee I know they haven't hurt anyone, well no worse than most other governments in the world, but I just know in a few years they are going to because I read it in a history book from the future', they'd have sent for the boys in white coats with butterfly nets. Based on what was known in 1937, and on their actions untill that time Germany had done nothing seriously out of line, the USA would have had as much if not more justification for invading Poland, and probably France, any of the balkin states, and probably the British empire if you were really keen. snip further straying from the topic at hand He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the manner he described. It depends. If a 1930s president had gone off his rocker in the way George W Bush did, sending an army into Europe to invade Germany in absence of a rational policy and realistic war goals, I would (if I had lived at that time) indeed have condemned that president as a mad war-monger, and IMHO quite correctly so. Back up your turnip truck there, Gus. Yes, we did have a rational policy and goals; the policy is, when necessary, to strike threats before they can strike (or again strike) us or our interests. The goals included removal of Saddam (done), elimination of Iraq as a regional military threat (done), curtailing Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not find them to be of the scale we thought they would be at the beginning), and let the Iraqi people institute their own form of government (underway). Well as far as anyone out side the US can see US policy and planing for Iraq seemes to have been, hold a nice quick war, go home and hold a victory parade well all them sand ******s bow down at our feet in gratatude. When useful numbers of said sand ******s failed to show their apreteation the plan such as it was fell apart and the US has been running round ****ing on fires ever since. Opps. Oh and those WMD programs had been effectivly killed off years before the Shrub came into power, as the UN inspectors were saying even though things weren't going as well as anyone would have liked, and as the CIA, and its field office MI5, would have known if they hadn't been so busy looking for what the boss wanted to hear. So would, and with ample justification, have done the people of the USA. "Have done"? You must have missed the fact that a bit over half of us *still* support the President's Iraq policy--and more did so when we embarked upon it. Stop assigning YOUR whacky thoughts to "the people of the USA"--you who is not even a citizen of this nation. You know, the best thing about reelecting Bush is perhaps the fact that it will signal the sentiment of the American people towards all y'all Euroweenies who so fervently want to meddle in our election process--think of it as a symbolic middle finger directed in your direction come November. Ah, he was talking about your proposed invasion of Germany, which would have had, in 1937, even less justification than Iraq. And that a bit over half support for Iraq was around 70% not that long ago. If a 1940 president had sought to build an alliance to fight the fascist dictatorships in Europe, say in a 1930s version of NATO, and would have committed troops to Europe to support it, I think I would have warmly welcomed that as the only way to rescue the continent from the abyss. Sadly, at the time that too would have been rejected by the American people. The old "only an alliance can wage righteous war" bit, eh? Ignoring the fact that, like today, nations like Belgium, France, and probably even the UK at that time, would have decried the idea of the US striking Germany preemptively, and would not have been willing to do themselves. What problem do you have with the factual statement that in 1940 the US's voters would not have supported an alliance against Germany?. Anyway your little adventure in Iraq is an alliance, or haven't you been listening to the shrub rambbling on about his alliance of the willing?, not ofcourse that being part of that alliance permits a country to disagree with US policy without incuring the wrath of Washington. I am not opposed to the use of military force to support a policy. I am opposed to the rash and incompetent use of force. Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored assualt depth versus time, use of precision strike systems to emasculate a still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid as to call it "incompetent". Beating the Iraqi army, oh I forgot most of the Iraqi army sat the war out, beating the Republican Guard, most of which also sat the war out, was hardly a feat of arms to brag about, it was a fairly well organised march but please don't insult our inteligence, and the memories of those who fought serious wars, by claiming occuping Iraq was some awsome feat of arms, the Zulus had more chance against the Brits back in the spear chucking days, and infact put up a much better fight. As for the sanctions, they were acheving everything anyone wanted, militaraly Iraq was irrelavent, just another tin pot dictatorship in a world full of them. He wasn't killing any more of his people than many of the countries around him were, and still are for that matter. So some people , other than US presedentual contributers, were making a bit of money out of it, big deal, the problem was nicly contained and the area as stable as its likely to get. Now the country is on fire, thousands have died, many more are going to, the US army is so bogged down it probably can't respond to a situation anywhere else, US credability in the region is going down the toilet with every evening news broadcast and the terrorists are having a recruting field day, oh yes the plan is unfolding wounderfully, just who's plan remains to be seen but so far this thing has been a dream come true for AQ. To quote the dictum attributed to Clausewitz, "war is politics continued by other means". Like Wilhelm II, the neo-cons seem to have Yo, you sound like Art--"neocon this, neocon that". Some of us were conservatives before this strange, not well-defined term even sprang into use. Given that Bush's approval rating is now around 52%, I guess you think a bit over half of us are neocons", eh? Fat chance. Down from what 6 months ago? a year ago? Anyway neocon is probably a more concice discription than Euroweeny. adopted military force as an alternative to politics, instead of a tool of it, We had some twelve years of trying to let politics take care of the Iraq problem--it failed, thus the Clauswitzian extension into war. What failed?, who had Iraq invaded in those years, who had they threatened?, how many outsiders had they killed? 12 years of granted somewhat muddled policy had kept things nice and quiet in a very important part of the world. I trust you don't think the current mess is some sought of improvment?. Granted its alegidly a work in progress so I suppose there is an outside chance in 10 years time the place might even be a liberal western democracy, personly I'd give better odds that the horse will learn to sing. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Emmanuel Gustin wrote: The problem with such comparisons is that right-wingers are always comparing Bush with Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, etc.; Just what did Kennedy do in his short 3 years, besides screw up the Bay of Pigs invasion? Creating the Camelot ambiance does not count. Bob Kolker |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Rex F. May wrote: Nazis. Imagine what kind of suicide bombers Germans would make. Not very good ones. Their culture did not glorify martyrdom unto death. Japs and Moslems are good at it. Germans not good. Bob Kolker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | bspgallery | Military Aviation | 0 | July 14th 04 12:12 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
FS: 1969-70 "The Pictorial History Of The RAF " 3-Volume Hardcover Book Set | J.R. Sinclair | Military Aviation | 0 | December 3rd 03 04:17 AM |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | Robert Hansen | Military Aviation | 0 | September 6th 03 12:10 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |