lance wrote:Hello, Battle of Britain. Brits, Poles and French did pretty well against the German Air Force.
As I stated the Pole’s were riding horse charges against tanks. Hardly and effective counter attack. The French invasion started on May 10th 1940 and France was under German control by June 14th 1940. Once again hardly an effective resistance.
Now as for the Battle of Britain, the air war. Churchill had foreseen the German threat years in advance and being the head of the secret committee on air-defense research with in the British government he was able to prepare them for this threat. Using cracked radio codes and radar the British were able to effectively use their limited resources to counter the German air attacks.
lance wrote:Yeah, but is it worth 87 billion plus, nearly 300 dead and at least 1,500 wounded?
To save tens of thousands a year from being put to death for simply having an opinion? Abso-freakin-lutely!! I know many many men and women who are serving or have served in Iraq and I’ve yet to meet one that would not fight for the freedom of others and if in was needed sacrifice their life for it. If I met someone in the armed forces that did not feel we should be there I would ask them why they were in the military in the first place then. I’m betting there answer would be that it’s a paycheck or some variation of that theme.
By saying that freedom is not worth 300 deaths you are saying that the thousands that died on the beaches of Normandy were far to expensive for the value we have today. I disagree!
lance wrote:And why Iraq? Pakistan is ruled by the military and has nuclear weapons, why not there? How about the Sudan? How about a dozen other countries with repressive governments and access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
Pakistan is working with us now. They are not threatening our allies or us. They do not refer to us as the Great Satan. Is everything perfect there? No. But steps are being taken and improvements are being made.
Now as for the rest and why Iraq… well you have to start somewhere don’t you? You continue to point out all these things that are the real reasons for Bush to invade, and I say that that’s not just one reason its many many reasons. Yes we stopped a future threat, yes we stabilized a major source of oil, yes we freed a repressed people, and yes we sent a message to other countries and on and on. Could we have gotten such a large number of positives by invading say N. Korea or Cuba? Yes we would have gotten some of those effects but not all of them. By invading Iraq we accomplished the largest number of positive and needed effects with the least amount of negative ones.
lance wrote:And if that was really the justification for Iraq, why the horse and pony show with WMDs? Why did the Administration talk up a blue streak about weapons they can't find?
Because we did want to the UN backing on this and that was the most effective argument in that area. After all the UN had issued 17 resolutions on the subject. They certainly felt they were there, otherwise why issue 17 resolutions and spend billions on Weapon’s Inspectors to look for something that that wasn’t there? It’s using the best argument for the situation. It doesn’t mean it’s the only argument. If there are 17 resolutions on WMD and 3 on human rights violations you don’t go in with the human rights violations as your main argument. But it doesn’t mean it’s not a valid one.
lance wrote:That's a specious argument. George Bush didn't lie to us about the danger of drowning in a bucket of water. He did lie to the American people, and the rest of the world, about WMDs and sent a lot of brave men and women off to war they didn't need to fight.
By saying that Bush lied about the WMD means that the UN also lied because they had weapons inspectors in there looking for WMD’s that they too knew were not there. (Hold on I have to put on my tin foil hat for this) we could keep going round and round here and say that it was all a plan buy the military industrial complex and the trilateral commission, but the simple fact is that there was clear evidence and historical president that Saddam had and was trying to get more WMD’s. The question in the UN was not if they were there, but how to deal with the fact that they had, were, and more than likely going to be more of them there.
lance wrote:Clinton did not lie to us about why we were going into Kosvo.
That’s a matter of opinion. Clinton did what he did in Kosvo to draw attention in the media away from facts that were being uncovered about his wrongdoings. And when the threat of those facts died down Clinton signed the cease-fire agreement that had been on the table with Milosivic since before the air strikes started.
starbug wrote:What I don't agree with is the fact that you can say 'well it took years in the case of WW2 and therefore it's fine if it takes just as long in Iraq.'
It hasn’t been five months though? And we’ve done more than we did almost 4 times as long in Germany. No one is saying it will take 7 years. But it will take time and also remember that at the end of those 7 years Germany what not what it is today. If in a year or two years we are still in the same boat, then ok… but five months is a bit short to start saying it’s a failure.
It’s been two years since the attacks and the office space from the world trade centers has not been replaced. Does that mean that NY is a failure and we should just give up on it?
I’m confused should we just send in the Walmarts and such and rebuild in all instantly or should we stabilize the country and allow them to make a decision on how to rebuild? Rebuilding is not as simple as it sounds and we should take our time in doing it and do it right.
starbug wrote:Honestly, now you are just being offensive. Yes, the policy of appeasement went on too long. Yes, there were pockets of Nazism in both France and England. No, 'we' as nations did not give 'Europe' of which by the way we are part, away to Germany. People fought and died to stand up for freedom and to stop the senseless killing of Jews. The war was fought and won by many brave people, including Americans, but let's not forget the vast civilian efforts and huge military victories of the allies.
First off I was not trying to be offensive to those that resisted the Germans attacks and occupation. They risked their lives for their beliefs and I honor them for it. “You’ may not have given the Germans what they took, but the governments of the time did nothing to stop Hitler until May of 1940 when he took over what was left of Europe and the last that was standing in his way of having a direct route to England. The point being that you cannot appease a mad man, you should not allow evil to grow. If England and France had address the issue in the late 20’s and early 30’s we may have been able to avoid war in Europe, although that’s not certain. But it is certain that it gained nothing to allow him to continue with his plans.
Many Americans remember this lesson and do not wish to relearn it with Saddam. We would rather see 300 die now than to risk what could happen if we did nothing.
starbug wrote:You might have learnt in school that the Americans won WW2 for the allies. Let me assure you that is a warped view.
So if the US had not supplied Britain and Russia with military supplies and then assembled the largest military assault force in history Europe would have defeated Hitler? I think not! America did not do it alone, but without our industrial and military power things would not have worked out as they did. And to infer that Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and other US military leaders were not instrumental in the victory over Germany is to me a bit offensive.
starbug wrote: I certainly don't think it is OK to allow other people to suffer and turn a blind eye … In fact I think you would find me an extremely compassionate person.
And I don’t wish to imply otherwise. I am simply playing devils advocate here and trying to show you that saying there is no justification is the same as turning a blind eye.
starbug wrote:So far as I know, the international rules of war, which I think all civilized societies must follow, state that there must be a credible immediate threat to the security of your nation (or those in your alliance) before you attack another nation.
If you are referring to the “Rules of war” set down in the such documents as the Geneva Convention and of UN documents they say no such thing. In fact wars have come very close to being declared over such small things as a spy plane flight ( hardly a “credible immediate threat” ). War is simply force applied to achieve a desired result. The US no longer wished to deal with the real, fake, actual or perceived threat that Iraq presented to the region, its people and our Allies. For 10 years we attempt to address that threat through diplomatic means and saw no signs that it was working or going to work in the future. You seem to feel that the US should not act in its own interests. That this is somehow wrong for us to do. We attempted to work with the rest of the civilized world to solve the issues we had there. But there were those in the civilized world that continued to supply Saddam with reactors, weapons systems and offensive capability that the US felt was not going to work to ours or anyone else’s favor.
starbug wrote:However, I am worried by the sort of 'international moral dictates' issued by the US government on this.
The US is not trying to exercise a “make the world England” policy here. These military dictatorships do not promote the creation of wealth and prosperity.
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose... the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money." No other language or nation had ever used these words before... Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.” – Ayn Rand
starbug wrote:…you'll have to trust that I'm not a malicious evil person who wishes the Iraqi nation confined to the gutter of Saddam.
And I don’t believe you are. That is why I question your belief that their suffering is not enough justification. You ask “me” why we don’t do the same elsewhere then. And I answer that I don’t know… luckily for the world I am not in charge because I am a firm believer in spanking the naughty children of the world.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke
starbug wrote:We didn't even go to war to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam. In the UK, the war was 'justified' by WMDs.
So I ask you do you have to worry now about an attack with a WMD from Iraq any longer? If we had not invaded could you say that you would have the same level of confidence that we would not be attacked with one.
The goal was to remove the risk of an attack using a WMD that was developed or deployed from Iraq. And I think you have to agree that we have accomplished that goal. Once again its playing what we know for sure now ( and I don’t believe that we have searched all of Iraq and found every thing that’s hidden there, but we have taken it out of play by controlling the area) somehow effects what are actions should have been then. The question before the UN was not if there were weapons but how to best deal with the threat that existed from the historical and intelligence evidence at the time. To say that because we have not found any WMD’s means that Bush knew they were not there is not a logical conclusion.
I read the first two stories, the third required a subscription for me to read (maybe you could email me the text or post it here).
The first invalidates its own argument with this statement: “Iraq's current total power output is 3,362 megawatts. That may not be far off the 4,000MW being produced just before the war but it falls a long way short of today's demand, estimated at between 7,000 and 20,000MW.”
Hmm why is the demand higher now then before the war. Could it be that there are now more businesses and services that require power than there was previously available? Could it be that the demand is out stepping the supply because of the new freedoms that those who wish to work have to execute those wishes? Could it be that those supplying the power will raise their prices to make money to reinvest in the creation of an improved grid able to meet the demand at a more efficient cost? Could it be ( The horror
) the effects of a free market at work?
As for the second story its nothing but spin in my opinion:
Have you ever planned something out… say moving a piece of furniture and it turned out you needed help moving it? Did the fact that you failed to move it by yourself mean that you completely and utterly failed? Or did you simply adjust your plan by calling a friend and get the job done? But wait maybe it was really heavy, did you call and extra friend to make sure you had enough help even though he got there and just ended up drinking your beer and eating your pizza? There is a group of people who wish this venture to fail for whatever reason and they will do and say anything to make it appear that it is ( no tin hats here… just ego and emotion). They accomplish two goals by doing these types of things. One it looks like the powers that be didn’t do enough planning. And second it discourages those in the future from doing the same, both of which increase the chance of overall failure. But instead it is more than likely the realization that more security was needed and so we adjust the plan accordingly.
starbug wrote: Now he's suddenly not an immediate threat, but merely a potential threat in the future?
In case I didn’t make it clear that it is my belief that we did not invade Iraq for a single reason but a multitude of them. And if you look at each reason as an problem then stop to consider the goal to solving that problem you should see that most of those goals have been accomplished. You may not feel that the ends justify the means, but we’ve spoke of justification at great length already here.
And he has german ancestors? Ridiculous.