A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] Nothing Learned From History



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 12th 04, 07:19 PM
stop spam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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.

  #3  
Old September 13th 04, 03:57 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 13th 04, 03:06 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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




  #6  
Old September 13th 04, 05:41 PM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 14th 04, 12:30 AM
Nicholas Smid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 14th 04, 01:29 AM
robert j. kolker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old September 14th 04, 01:31 AM
robert j. kolker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:13 PM
FS: 1969-70 "The Pictorial History Of The RAF " 3-Volume Hardcover Book Set J.R. Sinclair Military Aviation 0 December 3rd 03 05:17 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.