Germany Lost the War... So What?

"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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

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.

"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

"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