"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.