Germany Lost the War... So What?

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
The US postwar history:


Facts arent your strong point are they ?

Korea: stalemate

South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves in:
millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf

On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get the
Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet nuclear
capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm

So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big deal.
More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the Jupiter
removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
clan).

So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
Soviet insistence. It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
was not worth its keep.

The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
concession.



The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
not that there was no concession.

Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
plans? I think not.

It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
to you.

I'd call that more in the line of a bargain

yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.
Hence my original contention, a stalemate.

(and be
aware that my views on this have changed over the past year or two, after
this subject was previously discussed and I had reason to peruse Gromyko's
book, followed by a bit of reading on where the Jupiter program was going at
the time). I am not a big Kennedy fan, to put it mildly--but in this case he
gave up what we already wanted to rid ourselves of and in the process
swecured what we *wanted*, namely the removal of those SS-4's from Cuba.



snip

Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and
Osama
escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.

Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups

Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.

Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--

If Taliban comes, can Osama be far behind?

"If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority of
Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing them
from power was a *good* thing.

As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
afghanistan and a bad government has been replaced with no government,
religious fundamentalists have been replaced by drug lords, free road
traffic been replaced by tolls to local warloads holding the
cross-roads etc. I am not certain that it was such a "good" thing
after all. Had you mananged to install a government representative of
the people, and which is supportive of *their* interests, built up the
infrastructure bombed in the war, *then* it would indeed have been a
good thing. As things stand it is not.

AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.

I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts. Osama
never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
pakistan. And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -
they are typically very small in number and can be quite easily
trained covertly and unobstrusively. US presence in a small fraction
of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
fashion.



and that a few
other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
terrorist
operations.

This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and even
reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF has
been a significant success.

I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
matters greatly to the US). But I do agree with you that
reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.

There have been no significant success other than the general change
in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
*certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
OEF has been a dismal failure.




snip


Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined

LOL! Tell us more.

Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the
US
population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX,
CA)
only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further
if
you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.

www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html


and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe.

Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
markets for US industries. But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
western europeans also share your approval for the plan.


Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.

That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;

There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
independence, merely a US lackey.

Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.

Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
people then.

Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
personal advantage
Independent: Free from external control and constraint

You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
relationship with the US.

The UK
remains capable of determining its own course.

Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
independence.

In fact, Blair has reportedly
had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
direction at times over the past few years.

'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
independent thought.

Most USians still have a great
deal of respect for the UK,

So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.

and while it cannot any longer muster the level
of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to be
a partner as opposed to a "lackey".

That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
British friends.

Common language (for the most part) and
a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between the
two nations.

I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
them that we are seeing.



that it has
happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much
a
product of common values than anything else.

ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,

No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.

Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
of the rest of the world)!

Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam, he was
pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
non-existant WMD.

You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--

Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
acknowledged it in your last sentence. You want to control the oil
(stability was the euphemism used). Colonialism being the use of a
weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.

but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
their own government and affairs.

The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
of Isreal. The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
its natural resources (specifically oil). Large number of foreign
troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.
Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
for material and training. Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
free country.

That would be another one of those "good
things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past thirty
years or so.

propaganda over facts.

It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts, since
you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy theory.
You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime without
question.

First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
said it was true?

Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
WMD). That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.



Reading anything further into
it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
part?

No.

Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.



And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?

I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK in a
military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?


Fear of US is
understandable - its rich, powerful

Yep, we are.

snip inane whining

But
why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
up.

That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world. It
has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the USAF.
During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to our
CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra PR9
and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF are
truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.

Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.




Germany might
not have won,

No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?

You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.

Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about the
spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a serious
morality flaw.

I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.


To me it is a
story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
sad but engrossing history to me.

My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore the
gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that the
defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our parents
lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.

Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
scale.

And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?

What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.



I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.

Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
Empire is now history.

One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.

As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
very emotive issue for me.

I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
conclusions and generalizations.

Odd that
you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
yet so
willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
makes the rest of the world tick.


snip


but Britain sure seems to have lost.

Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?

I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).

France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
that beating.

UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
smashed non the less.

Odd, in that they were on the winning side.

Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
you are better off than before. Contact Bush jr for details.

The disintegration of their
former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before the
war.

Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
tragic, ultimately very welcome.

And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
retaining control of its old colonial holdings.

The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.

Time marches on and the
world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather important
place in the greater scheme of world order.

Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
now a decidedly second/third rung power.

That would be another "good
thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had they
not been on the winning side during WWII.

They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
the obvious?




Now
France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...

Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
or UK can you?

In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
in 1913, 1938 and 2000?


Brooks


sorry if that all
upsets you, but them's the facts.

So nice of you to be concerned about my happiness Grofaz. Thanks.


Brooks


Keith

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
The US postwar history:


Facts arent your strong point are they ?

Korea: stalemate

South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with
assurances
that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program
coming
online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We
also
removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the
same
reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves
in:
millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf

On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get
the
Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet
nuclear
capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm

So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big
deal.
More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the
Jupiter
removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
clan).

So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
Soviet insistence.

Actually, no. Soviet insistence had darned little to do with it--we were
already planning on removing those missiles, and when Gromyko presented the
proposal to have the US do so the White House jumped on it. From reading
Gromyko's comments (it has been a year or so, but I think I have the gist
right), it is apparent that the Soviets were going to cave on the missiles
in Cuba, and our agreement to *eventually* remove the missiles from Turkey
was more of a sop to keep Khrushchev to save some face when he presented the
plan to his cronies.


It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
was not worth its keep.

You must have missed that comment regarding the desire to remove the
missiles from Turkey being expressed "over a year ago", huh?


The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
concession.

The only time we ever came close to conducting an invasion with US military
forces was during the crisis itself. Why would we have wanted to invade
otherwise? Hell, Cuba has been a great posterchild for the "why you DON'T
want your nation to go communist" cause.


The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
not that there was no concession.

Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
plans? I think not.

It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
to you.

Look up "concession"--the approriate definition of the root word (concede)
is "to yield". Which means to forego your own desired result. We GOT our own
desired results on both fronts--no Soviet missiles in Cuba, and we pulled
the Jupters that we already wanted to remove. That does not equal a
"concession".


I'd call that more in the line of a bargain

yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.

Again, when you give up what you already are trying to get rid of, that is
not a "concession". I am guessing that english is not your native tongue;
nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you are going to start arguing
the nuances of the wording, you might want to freshen up your vocabulary.

Hence my original contention, a stalemate.

Not really.

snip


"If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority
of
Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing
them
from power was a *good* thing.

As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
afghanistan

It has? H'mmm...those folks the Taliban executed outright on a rather
routine basis might have argued that their "standard of living" could not
have gotten any worse. The Afghani women would also likely tell you that
their standard of living today is better than it was. What guage are you
going to use to measure the changes? Television ownership maybe? ISTR that
under the Taliban the reported number of privately owned TV's would have
been a big zero--it has now mushroomed, apparently...

and a bad government has been replaced with no government,

Well, not just bad, but inherently *evil*; blasting those Buddhist reliefs
was indicative of that. They now have a constitution ready for approval,
IIRC; only what, two years after the Taliban was removed from power? heck,
here isn the US it took us fourteen years after the British signed the peace
treaty before we had our constitution in hand.

snip more whining


AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.

I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts.

Well, lucky for us, *your* beliefs don't hold much water, right?

Osama
never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
pakistan.

He does now.

And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -

Actually, they do if they want to have major "successes" like 9-11. What,
you think the fact that there have been major terrorist training facilities
(in a number of nations) over the past few decades was just due to some kind
of "terrosist bureaucracy" at work, building infrastructure they did not
*need*?


they are typically very small in number

Don't confuse their operational methodology with their training
requirements.

and can be quite easily
trained covertly and unobstrusively.

Really? Kind of hard to train guys to effectively conduct demolitions
operations without making things go "boom" at some point; likewise, training
people to effectively engage targets with small arms requires some kind of
training area. Want to run rehearsals for a major operation? Again, you need
somewhere safe to do it.

US presence in a small fraction
of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
fashion.

Right...sure. Care to show us any evidence that the AQ training programs
(which they did have running in Afghanistan, whether you thought they were
needed or not) are back up and running in that country?




and that a few
other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
terrorist
operations.

This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and
even
reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF
has
been a significant success.

I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
matters greatly to the US).

How many Afghans were killed during OEF to date? Of that many, how many were
fighting on the Taliban/AQ side?

But I do agree with you that
reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.

But it represents a virtual waterfall of largesse compared to the amount of
aid they were receiving under the Taliban leadership. How much
reconstruction had the Taliban completed?


There have been no significant success other than the general change
in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
*certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
OEF has been a dismal failure.

Thank goodness what you say again has no relevance to the actual outcome or
its assessment by more logical individuals.


Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined

LOL! Tell us more.

Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million,
the
US
population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA,
TX,
CA)
only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers
further
if
you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.

www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html


I note you backed off of your sarcastic comment to Keith's statement above--
acknowledgment that he was indeed right?


and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe.

Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
markets for US industries.

LOL! Yeah, and did not do a darned thing for the standard of living of all
of those European nations that took advantage of it, huh? One wonders why
the nations that could (and did) partake of it had robust economies in the
sixties, seventies, and eighties, while those that could not (ie., Warsaw
Pact members) were (economically) crawling when the Wall came tumbling down,
huh?

But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
western europeans also share your approval for the plan.

Indeed they did. Had it not existed there is little doubt that the economic
staus of those nations would not be where it is today.



Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.

That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;

There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
independence, merely a US lackey.

Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.

Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
people then.

Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
personal advantage
Independent: Free from external control and constraint

Your definitions kind of make my point. Again, english is not your native
tongue, is it?


You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
relationship with the US.

Not really.


The UK
remains capable of determining its own course.

Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
independence.


In fact, Blair has reportedly
had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
direction at times over the past few years.

'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
independent thought.

Obviously you are going to let your paranoia rule your interpretation of all
things British, so the above is hardly a surprising comment coming from you.


Most USians still have a great
deal of respect for the UK,

So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.

So you think only the current British government is the source of this
alleged "lackey" state, huh? One has to wonder when you point to as the
start of this "lackeydom", and where it has manifested itself over the past
few decades.


and while it cannot any longer muster the level
of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to
be
a partner as opposed to a "lackey".

That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
British friends.

Well, its also true, but I realize you can't recognize that fact.


Common language (for the most part) and
a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between
the
two nations.

I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
them that we are seeing.

I detect the first indications of another GCT (Great Conspiracy Theory)
being fomented here...


that it has
happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as
much
a
product of common values than anything else.

ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,

No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.

Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
of the rest of the world)!

No, for *all* of us--you included. No need to express your appreciation,
however.


Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam,

Yeah, it was. Had he folded his cards in a timely manner and met all of the
requirements set forth, Iraq could have been back to selling its oil to
whomever it chose to in any amount it so chose. But his refusal to do what
he was required to do kept that from happening.

he was
pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
non-existant WMD.

Then you have a bad memory, or the wrong impression. His WMD efforts, and
his refusal to comply with the related requirements he agreed to meet as
part of the cease fire agreement, were significant reasons, but not the only
ones. The US had established regime change as its goal (and made it public
law) for a number of reasons, and it did so well before the current
administration entered into power. There were quite a few observations of
his tendancy to conduct mass murder of those he did not like, for example,
that went into those decisions to officially sanction regime change. And we
have found quite a few mass graves tied to those detestable actions by
Saddam. We have also found that his compliance with the WMD requirements was
lacking, as we suspected; what we have not found (yet) are any final
products of those WMD progrmas that he did indeed maintain, at whatever
level, in direct violation of the terms imposed upon him. And not just in
the "WMD" area--you will recall that his missile programs were also
determined to be in violation of the allowable maximum range, something he
continually denied up until the very eve of the beginning of OIF.


You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--

Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
acknowledged it in your last sentence.

No, I did not.

You want to control the oil
(stability was the euphemism used).

No, now you are just plain lying. I did not say we want to control the oil.
Period. Regional stability is NOT equivalent to "controlling the oil".
Period. These are not complex statements, nor are they unduly complex
theories, so your attempt to twist my statement to suit your own purpose is
just a case of fabrication on your part.

Colonialism being the use of a
weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.

The UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc., would disagree with your definition that sees
them as "colonial possessions" because the sell oil to the highest bidder in
whatever quantities they so choose, IAW with the guidelines of the cartel
(OPEC) that they themselves formed and operate.


but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
their own government and affairs.

The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
of Isreal.

Once they have reassumed complete control of their own governance they can.

The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
its natural resources (specifically oil).

Yes, they will.

Large number of foreign
troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.

Really? "Will continue" for how long, and what is your supporting evidence
for this claim?

Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
for material and training.

Of their choosing once they are running their own government--not that it
matters much, being as history is rife with examples of independent nations
obtaining such materiel and training from a single foreign source.

Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
free country.

Yes, it will be.


That would be another one of those "good
things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past
thirty
years or so.

propaganda over facts.

It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts,
since
you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy
theory.
You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime
without
question.

First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
said it was true?

No, just an example of your buying into propoganda, as you claimed I was.
Does the US covet and plan to control Iraqi oil resources? No. If you want
to claim otherwise, provide some actual proof.


Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
WMD).

Well, he actually said he had no WMD *programs*...which was not correct, as
even Hans Blix and the latest US investigation chief acknowledged. He also
claimed that his disclosures were "full, final, and complete" each time he
submitted one...and then when we (or the UN) found something new, he'd
submit a revised "full, final, and complete" disclosure. Now that was not
very honest, was it? Then there were his threats, delivered via his son Uday
IIRC, of the drastic and fatal result (supposedly dwarfing 9-11 as he
indicated at the time) that would accompany any coalition attack into Iraq;
he wanted to play the "I've got WMD and will use them" game one time too
many. But you think he was truthful, huh? Well, that's another reason not to
take your acssessments with much seriousness.

That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.

Nope, not really.




Reading anything further into
it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
part?

No.

Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.



And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?

I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK
in a
military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?

Care to name them? How many of them could match the ability of the UK to
project power, and how many of them have any proven track record in doing
so?



Fear of US is
understandable - its rich, powerful

Yep, we are.

snip inane whining

But
why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
up.

That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world.
It
has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the
USAF.
During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to
our
CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra
PR9
and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF
are
truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.

Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.

But then by your definition, as the rest of the world is all inhabited
solely by "chipmunks", then being the "biggest, baddest" chipmunk of them
all does indeed merit significant respect.


Germany might
not have won,

No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that,
huh?

You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.

Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about
the
spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a
serious
morality flaw.

I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.

I guess you forgot that the "free world" was also a winner.



To me it is a
story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
sad but engrossing history to me.

My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore
the
gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that
the
defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our
parents
lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.

Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
scale.

The world is not perfect. But it would have been an even less perfect world
had the cause of Nazism prevailed.


And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?

As to Tokyo, no I don't. I just got back this evening from celebrating my
father's eightieth birthday. Sixty-one years ago next month he was flying as
a crewmember on one of the B-29's dropping those incendiaries over Japanese
cities. That was the art of warfare during that era--not nearly as precise
and clean as it is today. If the Japanese did not want to experience the
bombing of their homeland, then all they had to do was refrain from
attacking the US. They didn't. Too bad.


What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.

So you say. Again, your track record thus far is not adding up to a strong
case for meriting your opinions.


I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.

Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
Empire is now history.

One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.

As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
very emotive issue for me.

I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
conclusions and generalizations.

So, what is your background and nationality?


Odd that
you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
yet so
willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
makes the rest of the world tick.

Which does not say anything about the fact that you demonstrate a strong and
irrational dislike of the UK, regarless of your thoughts in ragrds to their
cricket team.



snip


but Britain sure seems to have lost.

Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?

I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).

France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
that beating.

UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
smashed non the less.

Odd, in that they were on the winning side.

Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
you are better off than before.

Better off? They were certainly better off than if they had lost, and they
were better off than the losers.

snip more whining


The disintegration of their
former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before
the
war.

Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
tragic, ultimately very welcome.

And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
retaining control of its old colonial holdings.

The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.

Time marches on and the
world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather
important
place in the greater scheme of world order.

Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
now a decidedly second/third rung power.

LOL! Twenty years ago the Soviet Union was a "preeminent power"; now they
are having problems paying the lighting bills for the military bases that
house forces that are a mere shadow of their former beings. As I said, time
marches on and the world changes--but the UK reamains as one of the more
powerful nations.


That would be another "good
thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had
they
not been on the winning side during WWII.

They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
the obvious?





Now
France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...

Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
or UK can you?

In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
in 1913, 1938 and 2000?

Who really cares? You already said yourself, "Oh yes, UK is still important
in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy." Economic power is vital--as much so or more so than military
power. The Brits remain powerful. Mighty big "chipmunk" you got there, huh?

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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
Facts arent your strong point are they ?

Korea: stalemate

South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with
assurances
that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program
coming
online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We
also
removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the
same
reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves
in:
millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf

On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get
the
Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet
nuclear
capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm

So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big
deal.
More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the
Jupiter
removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
clan).

So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
Soviet insistence.

Actually, no. Soviet insistence had darned little to do with it--we were
already planning on removing those missiles, and when Gromyko presented the
proposal to have the US do so the White House jumped on it. From reading
Gromyko's comments (it has been a year or so, but I think I have the gist
right), it is apparent that the Soviets were going to cave on the missiles
in Cuba, and our agreement to *eventually* remove the missiles from Turkey
was more of a sop to keep Khrushchev to save some face when he presented the
plan to his cronies.

I know you are an ultra right winger - but it too much even for a
right winger to say that Kenedy went out to his way to save old
shoe-banger's face?

It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
was not worth its keep.

You must have missed that comment regarding the desire to remove the
missiles from Turkey being expressed "over a year ago", huh?

No. You are one of those people who think a loundly repeating the very
same thing again and again constitutes an 'explanattion'.


The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
concession.

The only time we ever came close to conducting an invasion with US military
forces was during the crisis itself. Why would we have wanted to invade
otherwise? Hell, Cuba has been a great posterchild for the "why you DON'T
want your nation to go communist" cause.

You are too ignorant (or in denial) for me to even begin to educate
you. Look up the historical records.


The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
not that there was no concession.

Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
plans? I think not.

It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
to you.

Look up "concession"--the approriate definition of the root word (concede)
is "to yield". Which means to forego your own desired result. We GOT our own
desired results on both fronts--no Soviet missiles in Cuba, and we pulled
the Jupters that we already wanted to remove. That does not equal a
"concession".

Excellent spin. Maybe you should join the English Cricket side as a
spinner.


I'd call that more in the line of a bargain

yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.

Again, when you give up what you already are trying to get rid of, that is
not a "concession". I am guessing that english is not your native tongue;
nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you are going to start arguing
the nuances of the wording, you might want to freshen up your vocabulary.

Hence my original contention, a stalemate.

Not really.

Really.


snip


"If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority
of
Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing
them
from power was a *good* thing.

As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
afghanistan

It has? H'mmm...

Yes, it has.

those folks the Taliban executed outright on a rather
routine basis might have argued that their "standard of living" could not
have gotten any worse.

Yeah, look who is in town preaching! You did not have a problem with
goverments murdering innnocents or repressing freedoms as long as they
looked out for US interests. Saddam Hussain, Shah of Iran or the
present Saudi Regieme to mention a few.

The afghani women would also likely tell you that
their standard of living today is better than it was.
What guage are you
going to use to measure the changes? Television ownership maybe? ISTR that
under the Taliban the reported number of privately owned TV's would have
been a big zero--it has now mushroomed, apparently...

Lord you are so clueless! TV ownership for godsakes???!!! Was Mary
Antoinette
one of your ancestors?

and a bad government has been replaced with no government,

Well, not just bad, but inherently *evil*; blasting those Buddhist reliefs
was indicative of that.

Well one government blew up statues. Another made aggressive war on
false pretenses and killed tens of thousands. You consider one evil
and the other the milk of human kindness. It is just sicking that you
value historical artifacts over living, breathing people.

They now have a constitution ready for approval,
IIRC; only what, two years after the Taliban was removed from power? heck,
here isn the US it took us fourteen years after the British signed the peace
treaty before we had our constitution in hand.

AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.

I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts.

Well, lucky for us, *your* beliefs don't hold much water, right?

I see it all an evil conspiracy to blacken the US hatched by the BBC,
CNN etc. I guess for right wing nutters if it is not reported on Fox
it never happened.

Osama
never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
pakistan.

He does now.

You would know, how?

And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -

Actually, they do if they want to have major "successes" like 9-11.

How many of the 9-11 hijackers learnt to fly planes in afghanistan?

What,
you think the fact that there have been major terrorist training facilities
(in a number of nations) over the past few decades was just due to some kind
of "terrosist bureaucracy" at work, building infrastructure they did not
*need*?

Al-Qaida is a very small and very select group. You are just buying
into the propaganda that every person who looks sideways at you must
be Al-Qaida.

they are typically very small in number

Don't confuse their operational methodology with their training
requirements.

OK exactly what are the training requirements Grofaz? We are all ears.

and can be quite easily
trained covertly and unobstrusively.

Really? Kind of hard to train guys to effectively conduct demolitions
operations without making things go "boom" at some point; likewise, training
people to effectively engage targets with small arms requires some kind of
training area. Want to run rehearsals for a major operation? Again, you need
somewhere safe to do it.

LOL! Small arms fire and demolitions would stand out like a sore thumb
in an area awash with light and heavy infantry weapons and where
people celebrate by firing whole magazines on automatic in the air. I
suppose you believe the local afghan sound pollution board reports
them to the authorities? LOL!

US presence in a small fraction
of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
fashion.

Right...sure. Care to show us any evidence that the AQ training programs
(which they did have running in Afghanistan, whether you thought they were
needed or not) are back up and running in that country?

My point is that the training needed is on such low scale that it
would not have a large prominient footprint. The very fact that you
ask for evidence indicates that you have no clue what you are talking
about.

and that a few
other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
terrorist
operations.

This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and
even
reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF
has
been a significant success.

I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
matters greatly to the US).

How many Afghans were killed during OEF to date? Of that many, how many were
fighting on the Taliban/AQ side?

Not enough to satify you obviously.

But I do agree with you that
reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.

But it represents a virtual waterfall of largesse compared to the amount of
aid they were receiving under the Taliban leadership. How much
reconstruction had the Taliban completed?

About 45 million worth atleast in 2001.


There have been no significant success other than the general change
in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
*certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
OEF has been a dismal failure.

Thank goodness what you say again has no relevance to the actual outcome or
its assessment by more logical individuals.


Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined

LOL! Tell us more.

Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million,
the
US
population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA,
TX,
CA)
only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers
further
if
you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.

www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html


I note you backed off of your sarcastic comment to Keith's statement above--
acknowledgment that he was indeed right?

I read states as nation states, not administrative subdivisions in a
single nation. So it appears that Keith was indeed right. so I kept
quite. Unlike you I dont twist and turn and argue sideways just to be
argumentative.

and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe.

Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
markets for US industries.

LOL! Yeah, and did not do a darned thing for the standard of living of all
of those European nations that took advantage of it, huh? One wonders why
the nations that could (and did) partake of it had robust economies in the
sixties, seventies, and eighties, while those that could not (ie., Warsaw
Pact members) were (economically) crawling when the Wall came tumbling down,
huh?

OK, your point being?

But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
western europeans also share your approval for the plan.

Indeed they did. Had it not existed there is little doubt that the economic
staus of those nations would not be where it is today.

Well and true. Where have I contested this point Quixote? You seem to
be in love with your own voice (or writing in this instance).


Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.

That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;

There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
independence, merely a US lackey.

Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.

Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
people then.

Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
personal advantage
Independent: Free from external control and constraint

Your definitions kind of make my point.

Err, my definations kind of dont make your point. You claim Lackeydom
and Independence are opposites - I say that they are distinct
concepts. UK is independent, and it is a lackey. You could argue that
UK is independent and not a lackey and you would merely run the risk
of being considered a fool. But please dont try to redefine English to
suit your needs.

Again, english is not your native
tongue, is it?

No it is not. Not even my second or third language. But I seem to be a
little better at it than you do. Is it just you or do you blame it on
the education system?

You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
relationship with the US.

Not really.

Yes really.

The UK
remains capable of determining its own course.

Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
independence.

Good to see you agree with this.

In fact, Blair has reportedly
had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
direction at times over the past few years.

'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
independent thought.

Obviously you are going to let your paranoia rule your interpretation of all
things British, so the above is hardly a surprising comment coming from you.

No, hardly surprising because it is true. I cant help you and your
willfull myopia.

Most USians still have a great
deal of respect for the UK,

So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.

So you think only the current British government is the source of this
alleged "lackey" state, huh? One has to wonder when you point to as the
start of this "lackeydom", and where it has manifested itself over the past
few decades.

You are permitted to wonder.

and while it cannot any longer muster the level
of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to
be
a partner as opposed to a "lackey".

That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
British friends.

Well, its also true, but I realize you can't recognize that fact.

No, I dont recognize your contrary-to-all-experiance assertion. We'll
leave it at that.

Common language (for the most part) and
a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between
the
two nations.

I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
them that we are seeing.

I detect the first indications of another GCT (Great Conspiracy Theory)
being fomented here...

And Pray tell Grofaz what the GCT is? Last time around it was about
your fears about India invading Australia or something like that. Talk
of paronia.

that it has
happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as
much
a
product of common values than anything else.

ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,

No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.

Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
of the rest of the world)!

No, for *all* of us--you included. No need to express your appreciation,
however.

There is no danger of that.

Now where did I hear this kind of reasoning before - oh yes, the
colonial days! The argument being that the colonies exist for the
benefit of the colonized. You must be so proud of caryying the White
Man's Burden (release two, version 2004).

Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam,

Yeah, it was. Had he folded his cards in a timely manner and met all of the
requirements set forth, Iraq could have been back to selling its oil to
whomever it chose to in any amount it so chose. But his refusal to do what
he was required to do kept that from happening.

he was
pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
non-existant WMD.

Then you have a bad memory, or the wrong impression. His WMD efforts, and
his refusal to comply with the related requirements he agreed to meet as
part of the cease fire agreement, were significant reasons, but not the only
ones. The US had established regime change as its goal (and made it public
law) for a number of reasons, and it did so well before the current
administration entered into power. There were quite a few observations of
his tendancy to conduct mass murder of those he did not like, for example,
that went into those decisions to officially sanction regime change. And we
have found quite a few mass graves tied to those detestable actions by
Saddam. We have also found that his compliance with the WMD requirements was
lacking, as we suspected; what we have not found (yet) are any final
products of those WMD progrmas that he did indeed maintain, at whatever
level, in direct violation of the terms imposed upon him. And not just in
the "WMD" area--you will recall that his missile programs were also
determined to be in violation of the allowable maximum range, something he
continually denied up until the very eve of the beginning of OIF.

Well whose should I believe? That old fart Bush who runs the country
or an anonymous apologist for the British Empire? No offense but I
will go with the version Bush, incoherent though he is and changes his
story every thrursday, as he was the one who planned, waged,
authorised and conned the world into war.

You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--

Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
acknowledged it in your last sentence.

No, I did not.

You want to control the oil
(stability was the euphemism used).

No, now you are just plain lying. I did not say we want to control the oil.
Period. Regional stability is NOT equivalent to "controlling the oil".

For the US it is. Get real!

Period. These are not complex statements, nor are they unduly complex
theories, so your attempt to twist my statement to suit your own purpose is
just a case of fabrication on your part.

Colonialism being the use of a
weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.

The UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc., would disagree with your definition that sees
them as "colonial possessions"

Yes the US supported undemocratic puppet regimes would vociferously
support you, indeed. Great company you keep.

because the sell oil to the highest bidder in
whatever quantities they so choose, IAW with the guidelines of the cartel
(OPEC) that they themselves formed and operate.

You seem to have no clue how these things work. It is quantity of oil
on the market, and the currency of exchange, not who is selling to
whom that is important.

but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
their own government and affairs.

The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
of Isreal.

Once they have reassumed complete control of their own governance they can.

oh yes, I suppose they will be free to continue their war against
Isreal if they choose to like most arabs, LOL! We just need to look at
the firm, independent path Karzai has struck in Afghanistan as
evidence.

The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
its natural resources (specifically oil).

Yes, they will.

So you say. It remains to be seen.

Large number of foreign
troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.

Really? "Will continue" for how long, and what is your supporting evidence
for this claim?

US track record.

Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
for material and training.

Of their choosing once they are running their own government--not that it
matters much, being as history is rife with examples of independent nations
obtaining such materiel and training from a single foreign source.

History also shows that such nations are typically dominated by that
single source in matters economic, military and diplomatic.

Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
free country.

Yes, it will be.

Yes, I share that hope too. I'd say after another 50 years or when oil
runs out or becomes irrelevant - whichever comes earlier.

That would be another one of those "good
things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past
thirty
years or so.

propaganda over facts.

It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts,
since
you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy
theory.

Why is it whacky - what torpedoes the 'theory'? Lack of motive, means
or intent? Or is it whacky just because you dont like the facts.

You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime
without
question.

First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
said it was true?

No, just an example of your buying into propoganda, as you claimed I was.
Does the US covet and plan to control Iraqi oil resources? No. If you want
to claim otherwise, provide some actual proof.

What do you want - Secret video tapes of Bush and Cronies plotting to
take over the world? LOL!

Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
WMD).

Well, he actually said he had no WMD *programs*...which was not correct, as
even Hans Blix and the latest US investigation chief acknowledged. He also
claimed that his disclosures were "full, final, and complete" each time he
submitted one...and then when we (or the UN) found something new, he'd
submit a revised "full, final, and complete" disclosure. Now that was not
very honest, was it? Then there were his threats, delivered via his son Uday
IIRC, of the drastic and fatal result (supposedly dwarfing 9-11 as he
indicated at the time) that would accompany any coalition attack into Iraq;
he wanted to play the "I've got WMD and will use them" game one time too
many. But you think he was truthful, huh? Well, that's another reason not to
take your acssessments with much seriousness.

That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.

Nope, not really.

Yes, Really.

Reading anything further into
it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
part?

No.

Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.



And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?

I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK
in a
military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?

Care to name them?

China, Germany, France, India, Japan, Sweden off the cuff.

How many of them could match the ability of the UK to
project power,

Why this moving goal-post? Why is power projection suddenly thrust as
the arbitary measure of military effectiveness. All of them do have
the capability to go toe to toe with any nation, other than the US,and
make them hurt like hell, which is what you claimed as the USP of the
UK military.

BTW, It might surprise you that atleast in some countries defense
forces are structured and maintaned to do just that - defend the
homeland. So power projection requirements are moot.

and how many of them have any proven track record in doing
so?

I admit you have a point here. Fortunately some of the countries
mentioned have been a little less blood thirsty lately than the US or
UK. So not having a proven track record in war in not a bad thing - it
is indeed a really good thing because the primary purpose of an armed
force is to deter war and only if that fails does one fight.

Fear of US is
understandable - its rich, powerful

Yep, we are.

snip inane whining

Bush = fruit cake. Tee hee hee! I love your pavlovian responce.

But
why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
up.

That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world.

Which you claimed, contrary to the experiance of the rest of the
military world, is useless a while back.

It
has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the
USAF.
During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to
our
CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra
PR9
and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF
are
truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.

Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.

But then by your definition, as the rest of the world is all inhabited
solely by "chipmunks", then being the "biggest, baddest" chipmunk of them
all does indeed merit significant respect.

Perhaps it does and perhaps it doesnt. That is a side issue I dont
care to go over with you. What I said was the US military + UK
military doesnt make it any more powerful in any real terms than just
US military (Gorilla backed by a chipmunk doesnt make the Gorilla any
more fearsome). You dispute that, but are yet to justify how exactly.

Germany might
not have won,

No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that,
huh?

You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.

Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about
the
spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a
serious
morality flaw.

I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.

I guess you forgot that the "free world" was also a winner.

Oh no, you lie. I did say that one of the positive benefits of the
second world war did occuring as and when it did was that a lot of
nations became free of their colonial oppressors.

To me it is a
story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
sad but engrossing history to me.

My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore
the
gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that
the
defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our
parents
lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.

Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
scale.

The world is not perfect. But it would have been an even less perfect world
had the cause of Nazism prevailed.

Perhaps your world. But not mine. Germany was and remains a European
problem. US, now, is a world wide problem.

And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?

As to Tokyo, no I don't. I just got back this evening from celebrating my
father's eightieth birthday. Sixty-one years ago next month he was flying as
a crewmember on one of the B-29's dropping those incendiaries over Japanese
cities.

Lucky for your father then that the US won. If the world were a fair
place he would have been strung up from the nearest tree for being a
war criminal that he is.

What was his excuse? I vaz jhust vollowing oarders?

That was the art of warfare during that era--not nearly as precise
and clean as it is today.

Great Scott alive - a closet Osama lover! I suppose you also think
that Osama was justified in his murder of a few thosand innocent
people because that was the best he could do now.

If the Japanese did not want to experience the
bombing of their homeland, then all they had to do was refrain from
attacking the US. They didn't. Too bad.

This is disgusting - murdering, burning and maiming of civilians is
never
justifiable. Weather they be Germans, Japanese, Americans or Afghans.
People being inadvertantly killed due to collateral damage is one
thing - but to support willfull targeting of cities amply demonstrates
the kind of person you are - and it is not flattering.

What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.

So you say. Again, your track record thus far is not adding up to a strong
case for meriting your opinions.

What are you disputing really? The nature of US role in 1) East
Pakistan or 2) Rwanda? Or are you indeed arguing that the the US
fought to save the jews, slavs etc and against the holocaust? Or do
you dispute that US participated in the european war for its own self
interest?

Or are you saying that the US government archives on the US role in
the East Pakistan Genocide which were released about an year back
under the freedom of information act are all commie/democrat/baathist
propaganda?

And I do note how you chickned out and ran the last time when I did
post some corroborating evidence that refuted the silly military
theories you were peddling, Grofaz. So I dont really expect you to
follow up in any sensible fashion.

I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.

Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
Empire is now history.

One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.

As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
very emotive issue for me.

I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
conclusions and generalizations.

So, what is your background and nationality?

Not that it is any great secret, but what does it have to do with the
discussion in hand.

But I do admit that I am surprised (then again perhaps not) that you
consider it surprising that people who sufferend and were enslaved
under it did not like the British Empire.

Odd that
you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
yet so
willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
makes the rest of the world tick.

Which does not say anything about the fact that you demonstrate a strong and
irrational dislike of the UK, regarless of your thoughts in ragrds to their
cricket team.

I wont lose any sleep that a closet talibani, a proud son of a war
criminal and British Empire apologist thinks of me as irrational.

snip


but Britain sure seems to have lost.

Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?

I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).

France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
that beating.

UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
smashed non the less.

Odd, in that they were on the winning side.

Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
you are better off than before.

Better off? They were certainly better off than if they had lost, and they
were better off than the losers.

Sure. But how does that contradict what I am saying?

The disintegration of their
former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before
the
war.

Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
tragic, ultimately very welcome.

And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
retaining control of its old colonial holdings.

The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.

I note that you do not dispute my assertion.

Time marches on and the
world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather
important
place in the greater scheme of world order.

Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
now a decidedly second/third rung power.

LOL! Twenty years ago the Soviet Union was a "preeminent power"; now they
are having problems paying the lighting bills for the military bases that
house forces that are a mere shadow of their former beings. As I said, time
marches on and the world changes--but the UK reamains as one of the more
powerful nations.

Again how does that contradict what I am saying.

That would be another "good
thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had
they
not been on the winning side during WWII.

They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
the obvious?

No point I see. Not unusual for you.




Now
France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...

Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
or UK can you?

In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
in 1913, 1938 and 2000?

Who really cares?

If you dont then why you did you butt in at all, eh?

You already said yourself, "Oh yes, UK is still important
in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy." Economic power is vital--as much so or more so than military
power. The Brits remain powerful.

Who contests the point you are belabouring here Quixote? Who says
Brits are not powerful today? This is just another of your strawmen?
Point of contention was the relative standing then and now.

Mighty big "chipmunk" you got there, huh?

Being a gorialla then and a chipmunk now is not really a great
improvement as you make it sound. People who do not qualify as even
the shortest of titans cosole themselves as being the tallest dwarf.


Brooks