Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I don't think so. USA (so was UK a little) was a huge supplier of soviet hardware if they went to war and cut them off they would not have had the long term supply. Were it not for US convoys Russia would not have survived against Germany.

And all those Eastern European that spent more than half their lives under an oppressive regime might have a different feeling about being liberated by the West in 1-2 years or wait 45 years. That's my opinion.

Except of course that no-one in the West really cared about Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and hte Soviet occupied zone, since they were considered the agressors in WW2, and you'd hav to be an idiot to want to do anything to help them in the first place.

Those who advocated going to war were short-sighted morons IMO - they were mainly rabid anti-communists.....and remember that the UK ditched Churchill and elected a Laboutr Govt right after the war.....you'd not have gotten any support there at all...indeed perhaps the opposite...

The world was sick of agressive wars - except for a few myopic generals who would not have been hte ones dying in the front lines.

How you can think that carpet and possibly A-bombing Eastern Europe in 1946-47 would be a good thing is entirely beyond me.

[targul]

Originally posted by Hueristic:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by targul:

{snip}

Agnositics and athetist must have a very difficult time dealing with life since they believe this life is it. That would be a horrible thought for me and I piety them. With there feeling that they are here for no reason.

ABeing an agnostic i must correct you. An agnostic is someone who does not know. that is it. They do not believe everything told to them and make thier own decisions. they may go back and forth through life from one end of the spectrum to the other but they generally keep thier minds open and do not allow clouding from any direction.

I personally don't think it is harder for a person to believe there is no soul than a person who believes there is. I have found through my life that those who believe in unprovable entities cause more death and destruction than those who don't.

I will decide whether to believe in something someday if I live long enough.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Also many people believe that atheists believe in the Devil. Lol that's so funny it's not worth commenting on. But i will anyway. If you believe in any entity you must believe in the others of that pantheon. </font>

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

I don't think so. USA (so was UK a little) was a huge supplier of soviet hardware if they went to war and cut them off they would not have had the long term supply. Were it not for US convoys Russia would not have survived against Germany.

And all those Eastern European that spent more than half their lives under an oppressive regime might have a different feeling about being liberated by the West in 1-2 years or wait 45 years. That's my opinion.

Except of course that no-one in the West really cared about Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and hte Soviet occupied zone, since they were considered the agressors in WW2, and you'd hav to be an idiot to want to do anything to help them in the first place.

</font>

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by targul:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hueristic:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by targul:

{snip}

Agnositics and athetist must have a very difficult time dealing with life since they believe this life is it. That would be a horrible thought for me and I piety them. With there feeling that they are here for no reason.

Being an agnostic i must correct you. An agnostic is someone who does not know. that is it. They do not believe everything told to them and make thier own decisions. they may go back and forth through life from one end of the spectrum to the other but they generally keep thier minds open and do not allow clouding from any direction.

I personally don't think it is harder for a person to believe there is no soul than a person who believes there is. I have found through my life that those who believe in unprovable entities cause more death and destruction than those who don't.

I will decide whether to believe in something someday if I live long enough.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Also many people believe that atheists believe in the Devil. Lol that's so funny it's not worth commenting on. But i will anyway. If you believe in any entity you must believe in the others of that pantheon. </font>

[letifer]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

What was islamist about Saddam Hussain again? This is hte guy who fought hte Ayatollah, and banned AQ......

There was nothing Islamist about Saddam. The middle east is a miasma of Islamism and totalitarian regimes, and it is producing the kind of people who gave us 9/11 (along with all the other bombings), and Iraq is plump dab in the middle of it all. If you wanted to alter the politics of the middle east nothing could be more powerful that dropping a successful Republic right in its heart, in effect saying to the citizens of all the surrounding countries: "Look, you too can live in a nation of laws, self-governed and free from the tyrany of dictators and lunatic mullahs." The muslims have no such example among their own kind. They went right from feudalism to various kinds of dictatorship and they desparately need an example to show that, in effect, they too can join the law-abiding non-violent free world. Afganistan is too small, and too peripheral to have the kind of desired effect.

[arado234]

letifer us westerners have been occuping these so called terrorist states and oppressing them long before sept11 ot anyother attacks.Maybe these people are lashing out because they dont want us there and this is the only way they can strike back.Kind of like the resistance in ww2.We maynot agree with there way of life but NO ONE gave us the right to tell them how they should live.As far as saddam goes remember america sold him the chemical weapons he used to wipe out the kurds.This bit that america didnt know that saddam wasnt a genocide nut is b.s..His idol was hitler.That should have tipped them off.As far as sept11 goes lets not forget the guys flying those planes were saudis(our supposed friends)and egyptians.Attacking iraq after sept11 makes about as much sense is when japan bombed pearl harbour america goes and attacks mexico.

[Blashy]

As well, this idea of dumping a Republic in Iraq is pure US propaganda because their first excuse of WMDs turned out as we all knew BEFORE (so did US Intelligence) that there was none.

And when you support Totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc... trying to make people believe you are there to spread democracy just shows a total lack of respect for the intelligence of people that live there... they know who the biggest supporter of their corrupt Government is, USA.

So USA as a whole is seen as a hypocrite and a liar which is pretty much true.

Good one arado: Attacking iraq after sept11 makes about as much sense is when japan bombed pearl harbour america goes and attacks mexico. That's funny and at the same time sad.

[Kuniworth]

USA helped Saddam survive the Iranian onslaught in the 1980's. That's the war when he used gas you know and a war he started on his own.

Where were the US then? USA kept quiet.

Khmer Rouge, genocide in Cambodia. Vietnamese forces went in to crush Pol Pots murdering - USA supported Khmer Rouge.

lists go on.

US foreign policy is outdated. If you wanna be the good guys stand up for your values of freedom and liberty and not support dictators. AND above all act smarter.

Al Qaeda is most likely stronger today then 2001. USA keep chasing down terror-networks while completly ignoring to focus on the reasons why they are not able to stop the new recruiting of terrorists.

Iraq is a disaster. Everyone knew it would be. Now US forces are arming the sunni-minority, which is very dangerous the day when America withdraws, huge risk of civil war.

Bush and similar administration will never be able to keep Americas position as a world police in a world where China and other nations are growing fast economically - IF they keep going for sledgehammertactics. US position can't be built on brute force anymore, you'll need to act smarter.

But I guess this is what happens when you give military the free hand. We've seen it in Vietnam and we see it now - the only thing that's worse than Bush lies on WMD is the hypocrits among the democrats. Rats in the true word, wanna leave the ship when USA should take full responsibilty for it's non-sanctioned war by the UN and rebuild whats been destroyed.

[ July 22, 2007, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[letifer]

Originally posted by arado234:

letifer us westerners have been occuping these so called terrorist states and oppressing them long before sept11 ot anyother attacks.Maybe these people are lashing out because they dont want us there and this is the only way they can strike back.Kind of like the resistance in ww2.We maynot agree with there way of life but NO ONE gave us the right to tell them how they should live.As far as saddam goes remember america sold him the chemical weapons he used to wipe out the kurds.This bit that america didnt know that saddam wasnt a genocide nut is b.s..His idol was hitler.That should have tipped them off.As far as sept11 goes lets not forget the guys flying those planes were saudis(our supposed friends)and egyptians.Attacking iraq after sept11 makes about as much sense is when japan bombed pearl harbour america goes and attacks mexico.

Well, I'm not sure what to say. I can't think of any American-occupied Arab states (excepting Iraq and Afganistan, of course). There were and are Arab states with an American troop presence, but but they did not invade (prior to this 9/11 business) and are not there to support a pupet regime and do not meddle in internal politics. And certainly most of what you're thinking of is trailing detritus of the cold-war: US participation in wargames in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc -- all cold war allies. I'd also point out that many non-muslim states around the world have hosted American troops without any violence whatsoever. In fact, most of the world has been a colony of one form or another in the last couple centuries and the ONLY part of it widely exporting radicalism and terrorism is the Muslim. That should be cause for thought, and cause to question the whole caused-by-colonialism paradigm. If you draw a circle around the Muslim world you will see that wherever it touches the non-muslim world there is violence: India, sub-saharan Africa, and sourthern Russia. And the people responsible for the violence recommend it to their compatriots on religious grounds, Jihad (holy war) - not their resentment of colonialism. The only time you'll hear complaints of colonialism from them is in places like the UN, or when talking to western leaders or press; it's for foreign consumption. many of them have been to university in the West, and they understand that the politics of guilt has great power over here.

As to the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, I can only point out that a casus belli is not the same as strategic intent. Stategically, as an example, plunking down an example republic in the middle of the arab world would be a sound investment in attempting to transform the arab world into a region that is able to live in peace with the rest of the world - democracies are generally peaceful. The connection between the strategic objective and 9/11 is that 9/11 was the galvanizing event that caused the US to say, "Hey! Something has to be done! Let's try and get to the root of the problem!" If you read neo-conservative writings from the time you will see that the strategic goal I've described above is not something I thought out myself or invented. That was their hope. Whether it was a wise or plausible policy is of course open to question. Certainly it was idealistic.

[Blashy]

are not there to support a pupet regime and do not meddle in internal politics

You are not serious with this statement, you just can't be.

Have you ever read US policy during the oil embargo? Henry Kissinger stated it right on camera that if Saudi Arabia were to cut off USA of oil they would not hesitate to invade it to secure the security of USA. This is not denied at all, it was actually contemplated and it is the US doctrine as a standard that they will not allow another country to affect their progress, even if those resources belong to THAT country and it is within their complete right to do as they wish with it.

So USA is VERY much involved in the politics of the middle east and heavily supports ANY regime as long as USA gets the resources. This is how they destroyed latin america, how they keep Africa dirt poor (The European Union is a big factor in Africa as well), it is not different in the middle east.

USA is the basic bully that many other countries were at some point in history and just never EVER learn.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Blashy:

As well, this idea of dumping a Republic in Iraq is pure US propaganda because their first excuse of WMDs turned out as we all knew BEFORE (so did US Intelligence) that there was none.

As far as i remember it was Saddam who greeted the world showing the fuse / bomb nose fo an a-bomb.

And he is the guy who already proved on several occasions that he would actualy use WMD if he ha the opportunity to (kurds, iran, israel).

Considering this i coulddn't care less if WMD were found or not.

I am glad and thankful that the USA stopped Saddam once and for all.

Whatever happens now in Iraq is of course some kind of catastrophe, but what the heck.

As a german i would always prefer doing something BEFORE it is too late (The Allies gave Hitler the rhineland, austria, the chechs and only because of this was this evil maniac able to ignite the world.

[Guest Mike]

Stopped Saddam once and for all doing what? killing fewer people than are currently dying in Iraq?

As a German can you explain why other Germans did nothing about Hitler before it was too late?

[arado234]

Xwormwood how can you compare what hitler did with saddam.Iraq has no hope of attacking the whole world let alone the U.S.A.You know as well as i do that the main reason we are in the middleast is because of oil.Look what happened in sierra leone and the diamond ind.People were gettting killed like crazy and there certianly wasnt any ful scale invasion to try and help them.Like blashy said politicans are greedy and will jump at the chance to justify any attempt to seize oil.As far as saddam using W.M.D's the americans SOLD THEM TO IRAQ(chemical weapons).What the hell did they think he would do with them?I do agree with you though that the world is probably a better place without saddam but thats not our decision to make.If we were really so concerned about human rights and feedom why dont we attack china?They treat sure treat alot of their citizens real nice.Just ask the people of tibet.Or atleast boycot them but wait that would cost us ALOT of money,so you can forget that.We all know its about GREED.Plain and simple.

[arado234]

letifer i work with people that have come from the middle east(iran and iraq).They dont see us so much as canadians brits americans etc they see us as westerners who want to occupy and rule their land.I know way back america wasnt in the middle east it was the brits. and the french mainly.They see the americans just replacing the other two countries.From what my friends have told me is that most middle easterns(muslims)DONOT hate us and dont want to fight us.Its the radicals that do and by us being over there we create more of them.They want to be left alone to sort out their own problems.

[letifer]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />are not there to support a pupet regime and do not meddle in internal politics

You are not serious with this statement, you just can't be.

Have you ever read US policy during the oil embargo? Henry Kissinger stated it right on camera that if Saudi Arabia were to cut off USA of oil they would not hesitate to invade it to secure the security of USA. This is not denied at all, it was actually contemplated and it is the US doctrine as a standard that they will not allow another country to affect their progress, even if those resources belong to THAT country and it is within their complete right to do as they wish with it.

So USA is VERY much involved in the politics of the middle east and heavily supports ANY regime as long as USA gets the resources. This is how they destroyed latin america, how they keep Africa dirt poor (The European Union is a big factor in Africa as well), it is not different in the middle east.

USA is the basic bully that many other countries were at some point in history and just never EVER learn. </font>

[letifer]

Originally posted by arado234:

letifer i work with people that have come from the middle east(iran and iraq).They dont see us so much as canadians brits americans etc they see us as westerners who want to occupy and rule their land.I know way back america wasnt in the middle east it was the brits. and the french mainly.They see the americans just replacing the other two countries.From what my friends have told me is that most middle easterns(muslims)DONOT hate us and dont want to fight us.Its the radicals that do and by us being over there we create more of them.They want to be left alone to sort out their own problems.

I agree that the situation is complicated by history and that attitudes are not monlithic. But the hands off approach was tried and failed. Up until 9/11 the US ignored 20 years of various kinds of attacks by Muslim radicals - largely by treating them as law-enforcement matters. The situation was not getting better. I'm not saying Afganistan/Iraq was a practical plan (jury is still out on that one), only that it was an understandable attempt to do *something* to cure the root causes of the problem. The alternative is to sit back an take an occasional shot on the chin, and say "Jeez, I wish those guys would stop killing Westerners! Aren't they getting tired of it yet?" And what if someone slips them a nuke? Given a span of 25 or 50 years its seems far from impossible - especially given the accelerating proliferation of the area. If/when NY or DC disappears in a flash of light what do we say then? "Golly! They must have been angrier than we thought! I sure hope Interpol catches up with those guys!" Absurd of course, but what are your real options in response to a nuke with no return address?

Arado, I know you personally do not take this lightly, but there are some who seem to think nothing here is at stake. Certainly there is no easy answer, and the biggest problem is that most attacks are made by non-state actors out of the shadows. But they are not coming from nowhere, and polls have repeatedly shown a deep sympathy across much of the Muslim world for the terrorists' goals: Jihad, and the expansion of Sharia to moderate muslim lands as well as non-Muslim lands. And this sentiment has been on the rise, not ebb. And given the jihadist's complete disregard for life and millenialist aspirations, it's a very serious long-term situation.

[arado234]

letifer we finally agree on something which is yes alot of tradtionalist and secular muslims"support"the radicals(this i think where we differ) only because they see the americans as colonialists.There will always be crazy people bent on wiping us out and/or forcing their religious beliefs on us.That will never end.My muslim friends(no im not muslim)Ive asked about this very subject say the vast majority dont care what we believe and have no interest in forcing islam upon us.I dont see the point in us making more enemies by attacking these countries.I also dont see how attacking iraq and going into afghanistan is going to prevent some nuts from smuggling in the components to build and set off an a bomb(all the info on how to build one is on the net).I believe(and you may disagree)that by attacking these countries we create MORE resentment and hate towards us not less.I also would like to know as far as these polls go what questions were asked and in what part of the muslim world they were asked.We both know that it matters what and how a question is asked especially if your looking for a certian response.I will say this, you are one of the very few people ive ever had the pleasure to have an actual level headed discussion on this topic.

[jon_j_rambo]

The most interesting fact about the USA, we are the new kids on the block & because the Superpower of the world after WW-2. Everybody else had a headstart, we just need 150 years to to get things in hand.

[arado234]

Rambo thats the funniest thing ive ever read.

[Guest Mike]

You could figure out what it meant??!! :eek: :eek:

[arado234]

With rambo sometimes you just have to read between the lines.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

The most interesting fact about the USA, we are the new kids on the block & because the Superpower of the world after WW-2. Everybody else had a headstart, we just need 150 years to to get things in hand.

Thing is you wont get 150 years.

America is what 300 million? China got 1 billion, India almost the same.

With everybody chasing growth of the economy the struggle for resources are becoming more and more important.

Sledgehammer-tactics are dated. For the USA, the cultural tactics(McDonalds, Coca Cola, Hollywood etc) been much more effective than using military force.

[jon_j_rambo]

No two countries that have McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other

Only the USA knows how to properly make CocaCola, the real thing. I've been to Bahamas, Canada, & Korea...and their soda pop tasts like how my butt smells after recycling a can of beans. Seriously, the bottling companies outside the USA are terrible.

Far as the USA's future, I don't see good things. Far as the world's future, I don't see good things. (viewing as a worldly man). Clearly, we are on our way to Revelations chapter 4.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by letifer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by arado234:

letifer i work with people that have come from the middle east(iran and iraq).They dont see us so much as canadians brits americans etc they see us as westerners who want to occupy and rule their land.I know way back america wasnt in the middle east it was the brits. and the french mainly.They see the americans just replacing the other two countries.From what my friends have told me is that most middle easterns(muslims)DONOT hate us and dont want to fight us.Its the radicals that do and by us being over there we create more of them.They want to be left alone to sort out their own problems.

I agree that the situation is complicated by history and that attitudes are not monlithic. But the hands off approach was tried and failed. Up until 9/11 the US ignored 20 years of various kinds of attacks by Muslim radicals - largely by treating them as law-enforcement matters. The situation was not getting better. I'm not saying Afganistan/Iraq was a practical plan (jury is still out on that one), only that it was an understandable attempt to do *something* to cure the root causes of the problem. The alternative is to sit back an take an occasional shot on the chin, and say "Jeez, I wish those guys would stop killing Westerners! Aren't they getting tired of it yet?" And what if someone slips them a nuke? Given a span of 25 or 50 years its seems far from impossible - especially given the accelerating proliferation of the area. If/when NY or DC disappears in a flash of light what do we say then? "Golly! They must have been angrier than we thought! I sure hope Interpol catches up with those guys!" Absurd of course, but what are your real options in response to a nuke with no return address?

Arado, I know you personally do not take this lightly, but there are some who seem to think nothing here is at stake. Certainly there is no easy answer, and the biggest problem is that most attacks are made by non-state actors out of the shadows. But they are not coming from nowhere, and polls have repeatedly shown a deep sympathy across much of the Muslim world for the terrorists' goals: Jihad, and the expansion of Sharia to moderate muslim lands as well as non-Muslim lands. And this sentiment has been on the rise, not ebb. And given the jihadist's complete disregard for life and millenialist aspirations, it's a very serious long-term situation. </font>

[jon_j_rambo]

I agree with Blashy. Why fight a war in the Middle East where there is an open high from both Canada & Mexico. I believe it's a Supreme Court consipracy to allow a new Roman Catholic base into the country.