As a historian, I look at what has happened before, and like Seneca, I know that 'if you refuse to learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it'.

There has always been a vocal minority in this country, even when we were still thirteen colonies, that were against fighting any war. But until recent times (Since the 1950s) that minority never really got to stand in a national forum to state their views. Most of our wars before Korea were fought at great distances both in actual range, but in how fast we were told of what occured during them as well.

But with the advent of wireless communication it began to change. As an example, the Second world war was over two years old before the first actual photographs of American war dead were seen by the American public. The strongly partisan support for the war took it's first major hit when photos of an Island named Buka with American laying there dead were seen. Suddenly petitions were being circulated to end the war. To negotiate a peace.

But the end of the Korean War made it worse. The anti-war segment didn't give a damn about violations of the UN charter committed by both the Russians and the Chinese. No one seemed to notice that the 2 million men thrown into that conflict were all Chinese, but were at the same time supposedly 'volunteers fighting for a just cause'.

The said that data that proved entire formations, right down to a tank division was 'created' by the CIA. We didn't win that war because we were too busy worrying about world and our own dead.

That pattern has continued to this day. When we went into Kuwait, i saw some woman pushing a baby charriage with a sign that said 'I look just like an Iraqi baby'. I wanted to ask her where she was when Iraq burtally attacked a country so small, that our invasion of them was merely the cartoon picture of the slightly larger fish being eaten by yet another fish.

But mixed into this is the 'conspiracy theory' crap. Oh we didn't help Kuwait because they deserved help. We did it for oil. We have never gotten a drop from them that hasn;t been paid for at fair market value the day it was shipped, but it has to be true.

Just ask the Conspiracy theorist.

Before I get to the next comment, remember that I do not support the war. We didn;t have enough verifiable data when we asked for the original put up or shut up sanction (#1441) and the data we had after that was suspect just from what I heard on the news.

But the 'I supported it before I didn't support it' crap from first John Kerry and now Hilary Clinton is just too much. She can't just say, 'I was misled' or 'I did it because it would have been political suicide to vote against it'.

No, she has to make a long drawn out conspiracy of the Adminsitration 'creating' data which they then spoonfed to her and of course she couldn't find the truth. Next time you get a chance, look at the House Intelligence Committees and the coresponding Senat committe, and tell me how many of each party there were.

We have cut and run in every war since Korea, and always after the administration that created the mess was kicked out.

Bets on 2008?

Britney and K-Fed will get back together. Someone will be elected President and no one will like him by March (Letterman or someone like that will make some corny black joke if Obama gets elected; "Haha yeah, now that Obama's in office we probably won't have to pay taxes on malt liquor or Newports!"), We'll leave Iraq after a while, turning it into a Middle Eastern version of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. I will get a robot eye with WiFi connectivity that looks like a Sharingan from Naruto.

http://narutofever.com/multimedia/naruto-fanart-images/renjiro-sharingan2.jpg)

Have you thought of the fact that if Hilary gets elected he'll probably say 'And the ventriloquist act of Hilary and Bill is back in town. But she has already told Bill she is not going to let him put words in her mouth this time'.

He'd probably go for something like "she says she won't let him put words in her mouth and I believe her, seeing as she probably doesn't let him put anything in there!"

He'd probably go for something like "she says she won't let him put words in her mouth and I believe her, seeing as she probably doesn't let him put anything in there!"

Nah. Leno will say that

We have cut and run in every war since Korea, and always after the administration that created the mess was kicked out.

And what would happen if we decided to stick and fight in Korea, Vietnam? What would happen had we stayed there and CONTINUE to fought? Someone has to back down, and if USSR doesn't and if the USA doesn't...then...

Consider the fact that both the Soviet Union and the USA could nuke each other, that every single conflict could act as a catayalst for WWIII, in which we all could be murdered off, and then...well...what? Is that the price for "freedom"? The destruction of civilization itself?

Prehaps this is indeed the best of all possible worlds, no?

...And to be quite fair, we can possibly win any war, as long as we pay the price. But, the price may be too large, and the beniefts too small...that we could win a Phyrric victory.

Not that it matters anyway, China is going to become the next superpower, and our next overlords. Let them run the world, and let them see how hard it is.

And what would happen if we decided to stick and fight in Korea, Vietnam? What would happen had we stayed there and CONTINUE to fought? Someone has to back down, and if USSR doesn't and if the USA doesn't...then...

I was actually waiting for you to show up, SS. The wars you are talking about started because of stupidity on a politician's part, or someone actively fomenting it hoping the other would jump in. Korea began because the American Secretary of State drew a line on the map in the pacific and said 'if you cross this line, we have to go to war'. That line went from Singapore to Hong Kong, to Taiwan to Japan. While we had 30,000 troops in Korea, we did not mention it. So the North Koreans believed we would not help Singmun Rhee to defend the country. What we had said publically was we would not assist him it taking over the North.

But when the Korean army was smashed, instead of accepting this the Chinese sent 2 million men in divisional units claiming that they were 'volunteers fighting to defend Korean freedom'. So why are you talking about who should back down?

In the Nam One political party had tied their wentire future to that war. When a president who had already decided to get out (Kennedy) publically stated this, he was assassinated, and the new man not only kept it going, he upgraded if from 'we are advising the Vietnamese, to full scale operations. But if you read the history books, the first 14 years of that war are ignored. Because 'everybody knows' that Nixon and the Republicans started it.


Consider the fact that both the Soviet Union and the USA could nuke each other, that every single conflict could act as a catayalst for WWIII, in which we all could be murdered off, and then...well...what? Is that the price for "freedom"? The destruction of civilization itself?.

If you have heard of it, there is a structure called the doomsday clock. It has been in existance since 1947 at the University of Chicago. It guages how stable the world is and the closer to midnight it is, the worse. It started at seven minutes to midnight. The time considered most dangerous (Except for ther Cuban Missile crisis when they honestly didn;t have time to reset it) was in 1953 whe it stood at 2 minutes to midnight The primary reason for resetting it is political instability though another nation achieving the nuclear club had caused it as well.

But we have faced the possibiliy of mutual nuclear annihilation since 1948. Yet we are here having this dicsussion, and the number of bombs actually used in anger stans at two, as it has since August of 1945.

As much as idiots think the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was a 'white man's only club', it is because for every potentially unstable nation you have achieving that notoriety, the oddd that one of them will actually use them increases. Add something like the Shi-a legend of the Mahdi (The equivalent of the second coming right before Armageddon, and you can understand why people get nervouse.


...And to be quite fair, we can possibly win any war, as long as we pay the price. But, the price may be too large, and the beniefts too small...that we could win a Phyrric victory. .

The problem is, anyone with a brain knows that if you go to war, men die. But the anti-war movement has never accepted that sometimes a war must be fought. When the Japanese attacked us, there were people here who still pointed out that if we had 'really tried to negotiate instead of treating them like children' the war would have never occured. Define how many men were worth freeing Kuwait. How many were worth getting rid of Hitler. Were a fair market value for France, or Norway or any other nation that has been liberated at one time or another. Once you have one, let me know. I so love your military acumen. As for Pyrric victory, that is when you win the battle, but can't win the war because of your losses. Only four modern nations, have been that stupidly wasteful. They are Germany during WWII, Japan during WWII, China during WWII and North Korea during the korean war. When we've lost 90 percent of the men stationed in Iraq, start talking Pyrric victories. Our losses to date still average less than 2.6 men a day. Compared to the 430.7 of WWI and the 240 of WWII, it's a bargain.

I was actually waiting for you to show up, SS. The wars you are talking about started because of stupidity on a politician's part, or someone actively fomenting it hoping the other would jump in. Korea began because the American Secretary of State drew a line on the map in the pacific and said 'if you cross this line, we have to go to war'. That line went from Singapore to Hong Kong, to Taiwan to Japan. While we had 30,000 troops in Korea, we did not mention it. So the North Koreans believed we would not help Singmun Rhee to defend the country. What we had said publically was we would not assist him it taking over the North.

Interesting history lesson. It tells how the war starts. But...

But when the Korean army was smashed, instead of accepting this the Chinese sent 2 million men in divisional units claiming that they were 'volunteers fighting to defend Korean freedom'. So why are you talking about who should back down?

Because if the Chinese and the Soviet Union wouldn't back down, then what? Someone has to back down. Obivously China wouldn't, because if the Korean Pennisula fell to the Americans, then the Americans could quite easily launch an invasion into China. (We surely hate having Communisum in "our" backyard...so China hates having Capitalism in "their" backyard.)

So, North Korea is very important, and the Chinese wouldn't back down. Soviets wouldn't back down. It is therefore in the American's field. They are the only ones who can decide to back down or escalate the conflict. The Americans backed down, and "cut and run". Thanks to them, we have averted a nuclear war over Korea.

In the Nam One political party had tied their wentire future to that war. When a president who had already decided to get out (Kennedy) publically stated this, he was assassinated, and the new man not only kept it going, he upgraded if from 'we are advising the Vietnamese, to full scale operations. But if you read the history books, the first 14 years of that war are ignored. Because 'everybody knows' that Nixon and the Republicans started it.

Actually, not my History Books. All my History Books talked neturally of Kenendy, Johnson, and Nixon. They saw Kenendy as the one who started the war, Johnson who had to continue to fight the war, and Nixon who actually tried to end the war (and miserablly failed, they basically called Nixon a "cut-and-runner".

So, no, not everyone say that Richard Nixon started Vietnam.

If you have heard of it, there is a structure called the doomsday clock. It has been in existance since 1947 at the University of Chicago. It guages how stable the world is and the closer to midnight it is, the worse. It started at seven minutes to midnight. The time considered most dangerous (Except for ther Cuban Missile crisis when they honestly didn;t have time to reset it) was in 1953 whe it stood at 2 minutes to midnight The primary reason for resetting it is political instability though another nation achieving the nuclear club had caused it as well.

But we have faced the possibiliy of mutual nuclear annihilation since 1948. Yet we are here having this dicsussion, and the number of bombs actually used in anger stans at two, as it has since August of 1945.

But did you know why?

Because the Americans had to compromise with the Soviets, and decided not to wage a war. The Cuban Missle Criss was the closest we got to Nuclear War, but we manage to avert it when USSR withdrew its nukes from Cuba (and Americans withdrew its nukes from Turkey). But there were other crises, other palces where a nuclear war may have occured, like in North Korea and in Vietnam, if we pressed too hard, if we send too many troops.

We basically "cut and run" in every conflict we did. We basically compromised in order to ease relations with the soviets and Prevent a Theronuclear War.

So what if Vietnam and North Korea are still Communist? Note the state of the USSR today...oh wait, they're dead. Look like we won the Cold War after all.

As much as idiots think the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was a 'white man's only club', it is because for every potentially unstable nation you have achieving that notoriety, the oddd that one of them will actually use them increases. Add something like the Shi-a legend of the Mahdi (The equivalent of the second coming right before Armageddon, and you can understand why people get nervouse.

Of course, threatening to attack a rogue nation that may have nuclear bombs also increases the likeyhood of said rogue nation actually using nuclear bombs. But, yes, I can understand why people can get nervous. But, it will only be a couple of cities nuked.

The problem is, anyone with a brain knows that if you go to war, men die. But the anti-war movement has never accepted that sometimes a war must be fought. When the Japanese attacked us, there were people here who still pointed out that if we had 'really tried to negotiate instead of treating them like children' the war would have never occured. Define how many men were worth freeing Kuwait. How many were worth getting rid of Hitler. Were a fair market value for France, or Norway or any other nation that has been liberated at one time or another. Once you have one, let me know. I so love your military acumen. As for Pyrric victory, that is when you win the battle, but can't win the war because of your losses. Only four modern nations, have been that stupidly wasteful. They are Germany during WWII, Japan during WWII, China during WWII and North Korea during the korean war. When we've lost 90 percent of the men stationed in Iraq, start talking Pyrric victories. Our losses to date still average less than 2.6 men a day. Compared to the 430.7 of WWI and the 240 of WWII, it's a bargain.

When I say Phyrric Victory, I'm not talking about dead troops. I'm talking about money.

Basically, we have to PAY for fighting a war. Ton and ton of money spent in the Vietnam War help caused stagflation in America, which was pretty bad for the economy. Not to mention that the more money we spend fighting in Iraq, the higher the deficit grows...and the higher the deficit grows, the bad effects it will have the economy (higher interest rates, lower growth) will increase. I'm a deficit hawk, basically.

But, no, I'm not worried about dead bodies. Dead bodies appear in war, and lives are cheap, so who cares? Really, people are okay with dead bodies, as LONG as war is fought cheap and quickly. If the Iraq War ended in a month, and Iraq quickly became a democractic government...then the Anti-War activists will not grow popular.

Here's the thing. There will always be anti-war activists. But as long as the war is going good, nobody will pay attention to them. When the war goes bad, then people start to turn around.

Interesting history lesson. It tells how the war starts. But...



Because if the Chinese and the Soviet Union wouldn't back down, then what? Someone has to back down. Obivously China wouldn't, because if the Korean Pennisula fell to the Americans, then the Americans could quite easily launch an invasion into China. (We surely hate having Communisum in "our" backyard...so China hates having Capitalism in "their" backyard.)

So, North Korea is very important, and the Chinese wouldn't back down. Soviets wouldn't back down. It is therefore in the American's field. They are the only ones who can decide to back down or escalate the conflict. The Americans backed down, and "cut and run". Thanks to them, we have averted a nuclear war over Korea.

If you look at the borders in 1953, only two borders, the one with Russia and North Korean were Communist. There was 7,000+ miles of borders with those horrible nasty capitalists so that argument doesn't hold water. On top of that, the US could deliver Nuclear weapons into over half of Russia and all of China from our forward bases, but except for Alaska and Washington Staes, the US was safe. What do you think Uncle Joe was going to do; Mail it to us? The US had already told Communist China through the Swiss that you leave Taiwan Hong Kong and Macao alone, and we will let you do what you want in 1948 so don't give us this crap that the US would have immediately attacked them. We could have leveled all of Communiist controlled China and Russian could not have stopped us!

Truman in fact had to deal with Curtis Le May's new 'strategic' combat initiative, which would have started the Korean War from the Airforce side with 'blow every North Korean city off the map, and if China complains, take out their rail hubs too.



He wasn;t worried about russian bombs. He was worried about his own idjits.

China and Russia backed Kim Il Sung for only one reason. They couldn't admit that he had slipped his leash without denying 'communist solidarity


Actually, not my History Books. All my History Books talked neturally of Kenendy, Johnson, and Nixon. They saw Kenendy as the one who started the war, Johnson who had to continue to fight the war, and Nixon who actually tried to end the war (and miserablly failed, they basically called Nixon a "cut-and-runner".

So, no, not everyone say that Richard Nixon started Vietnam.

When I say 'everyone' I mean the Democratic Party ideologues who try to point at all the horrible thing the Republicans have done while ignoring Democratic blunders..

When someone told me that Nixon was to blame for the entire Vietnam war, I pointed out that Truman (Dem) had sent the original troops to occupy Indochina until the French got there, supplied equipment and advisors to them, that that horrible nasty Republican Eisenhower had helped with that, but flatly refused to give them the 70,000 American troops the French demanded in 1953. That while Eisenhower had failed to back the native claim when France was able to break of 'Cochin' which was briefly called South Vietnam, in 56 it was Kennedy(Dem) who sent in extra advisors, it was Johnson(Dem) who upped the ante until we had 100,000+ troops there, then left the mess for Nixon to clean up.

at which point I was labeled a 'Republican ideologue writing revisionist history' and banned from the site.


But did you know why?

Because the Americans had to compromise with the Soviets, and decided not to wage a war. The Cuban Missle Criss was the closest we got to Nuclear War, but we manage to avert it when USSR withdrew its nukes from Cuba (and Americans withdrew its nukes from Turkey). But there were other crises, other palces where a nuclear war may have occured, like in North Korea and in Vietnam, if we pressed too hard, if we send too many troops..

YOu obviously do NOT know history. Kennedy tried to withdraw the missiles in 1961 right after he took office, but countries like Turkey complained. When the Russians backed down, Kennedy used that lever to rip the missiles out of Turkey as a face saving gesture for Khruschev. 'See you've prmised not to put them here, and we took them out there'. Remember as you are spouting all this crap, we were the only nation with nuclear weapons until 1948. We were the only ones that could deliver them until 1955.

If those horrible nasty Americans had wanted to take over any nation on the planet, before 1958 we could have done it. And before you squawk about money, it would have cost us less in the long run to Nuke half of Russia ane all of the communist controlled Chinese territory rather than spend money on supporting the French in Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Nationalist Chinese in China, Korea, Vietnam, and every little tin pot war we have assisted in my entire lifetime!


We basically "cut and run" in every conflict we did. We basically compromised in order to ease relations with the soviets and Prevent a Theronuclear War.

So what if Vietnam and North Korea are still Communist? Note the state of the USSR today...oh wait, they're dead. Look like we won the Cold War after all..

After the total collapse of Communism in Russia, what makes you think I care that they are? Unless you're willing to go to the next step, total agrarian reform (Which China Korea and Cuba will not because they can point at us and scream that we are undermining them) Communism is a national version of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Russia collapsed because they couldn't maintain the monetary pressure of a space race, an arms race, and at the same time, a nuclear proliferation race balanced by the possibility that Star Wars would work. Russia did not decide to go capitalist because they love the concept. they gave up communism because lying about productivity while trying to maintain productivity was no longer working. North Korea has spent the last 54 years systematically starving their people, spending all of their capital on building the third largest army in the area, and a burgeoning 'export economy' while their people have electricity about seven hours a day, a diet of less that 2000 calories per person a day (You need 2500 to do basic labor like office work, 3,000 for heavy work and 6,000 for the average combat troop) and they have succeeded by blaming the US for every problem they have.

China has become an economic powerhouse by ignoring every international copyright and patent law and defies anyone who complains


Of course, threatening to attack a rogue nation that may have nuclear bombs also increases the likeyhood of said rogue nation actually using nuclear bombs. But, yes, I can understand why people can get nervous. But, it will only be a couple of cities nuked..

Every 'threat' has been them 'claiming' that we had threatened them. primarily for the world press. Where I come from, they call that paranoia and there is medication you use to correct it. And a rogue state with nuclear weapons that was screaming 'death to Israel BEFORE they admitted they were developing them, or Korea saying that we were still threatening them after 50 years of peace by an armstice does not make me think either leader is stable.

And as for a couple of cities. Assume Iran attacks Israel and the US in Iraq;

Baghdad 5.8 million
Tel Aviv 388,000
Jerusalem 743,000

In return, before the US can even think about striking Israel hits;

Tehran 7.18 million
Tabriz 1.5 million
qom 1.1 million
Esfahan 1.6 million.

You are talking more people killed in a six hour period than all of the military combat losses of every nation in wwII

Don't just thorw off 'acouple of cities to me!


When I say Phyrric Victory, I'm not talking about dead troops. I'm talking about money.

Basically, we have to PAY for fighting a war. Ton and ton of money spent in the Vietnam War help caused stagflation in America, which was pretty bad for the economy. Not to mention that the more money we spend fighting in Iraq, the higher the deficit grows...and the higher the deficit grows, the bad effects it will have the economy (higher interest rates, lower growth) will increase. I'm a deficit hawk, basically..

Look up the term before you use it then, Scope. The term came from an epic battle of the period ruight after Alexander died when one side lost something like 95% and the 'winning side lost only 90. The Leader of the nation said, 'It was a great victory' and the man who had to lead the troops snapped back 'May the gods save us from such victories'.

As for spending money, War is a game of potlach with living counters. If you don;t understand the term I'll explain it. I even promise to use small words.


But, no, I'm not worried about dead bodies. Dead bodies appear in war, and lives are cheap, so who cares? Really, people are okay with dead bodies, as LONG as war is fought cheap and quickly. If the Iraq War ended in a month, and Iraq quickly became a democractic government...then the Anti-War activists will not grow popular..

Scope, to quote Chappey Sinclair from Iron Eagle I, and every man who has ever put his life on the line; when men die I Give A SH-T. That goes for every person on BOTH sides. If all you care about is the money you have no business complaining about any war ever fought. We spend so many billions on smart weapons that can kill without a man's hand on the trigger primarily to save lives.It was all of the whining by the anti-war movement in the public press (Where the enemy could use it to judge our resolve) that has caused over two years of bloodshed in Iraq alone.

I'll have you know, during Iraqi freedom, even if you figure in civilian casualties. fewer people have died that even the worst doomsayer would have claimed.


Here's the thing. There will always be anti-war activists. But as long as the war is going good, nobody will pay attention to them. When the war goes bad, then people start to turn around.

The statement isd BS through and through. less than a week into the present conflict, the Anti-war movement was emoting about how the Iraqis were merely sucking us in so they could smash us. When they held the strategic pause two weeks in they screamed 'see we've already lost!'. So don't tell me no one listened.

...And to be quite fair, we can possibly win any war, as long as we pay the price. But, the price may be too large, and the beniefts too small...that we could win a Phyrric victory.
We have a ton of resources and servicepeople--we haven't even gone to a draft, for goodness' sake, so we're hardly hurting. Our committment to the war has changed, however.


Not that it matters anyway, China is going to become the next superpower, and our next overlords. Let them run the world, and let them see how hard it is.

No thanks, I'm not into Communism and loss of freedom and basic rights, or whatever the Chinese are calling it these days. :)


Edit: You all keep it nice and civil now, please. It's starting to feel a little warm in this thread. :)

A ceremonial feast among certain Native American peoples of the northwest Pacific coast, as in celebration of a marriage or an accession, at which the host distributes gifts according to each guest's rank or status.

Between rival groups the potlach could involve extravagant or competitive giving and destruction by the host of valued items as a display of superior wealth.

As i said: War is potlach played with people. Wars don't end because you ran out of money. Just ask the Nazis or the Russians in WWII. It ends when you can no longer maintain your army in the field, with material and personnel
after almost 40 million combined civilian and and military casualties, theRussians were still going. The Germans had to stop after a lousy 8.5.

Oh, but wait a minute According to you 49 million people don't count, it was who could afford the monetary cost, isn't it?

No thanks, I'm not into Communism and loss of freedom and basic rights, or whatever the Chinese are calling it these days.
Jae, don't take this the wrong way, but you do know the definition of communism, right? I mean, yes, there are politicians who used communism to establish dictatorship and there were those who oppressed their people, but you have to understand that even if they publicly called it communism, it most certainly wasn't. When you look at some countries that are under a so-called communism, you can say exactly what you said, but you can say the same thing about democracy when you look at life in some countries that supposedly have that.

The Chinese form actually tries to be a 'humanistic Communism, but as Tom Clancy pointed out, the people who are bringing the nation the most wealth, the enterpreneurs who go out and sell their products, are considered lackeys by the party, and since a lacky is something of little worth, they are considered to be easily replaced. As I mentioned, China has grown to be our major market partner by systematically undercutting their competitors, and stealing every valuable patent they can to undercut foreign nations as well.

At the same time their workers make in a day what the average American worker at miniumum wage makes in an hour

If you changed the name to Guatemala and the distributer buying from them to Cathy Lee Gifford, you would be screaming at this. But thanks to Bill Clinton, it's just 'regular business' dealing with the Chinese.

If you look at the borders in 1953, only two borders, the one with Russia and North Korean were Communist. There was 7,000+ miles of borders with those horrible nasty capitalists so that argument doesn't hold water.

Well, increasing those borders would not be good, no? Soviets wanted buffer states, you know, to protect it.

On top of that, the US could deliver Nuclear weapons into over half of Russia and all of China from our forward bases, but except for Alaska and Washington Staes, the US was safe. What do you think Uncle Joe was going to do; Mail it to us? The US had already told Communist China through the Swiss that you leave Taiwan Hong Kong and Macao alone, and we will let you do what you want in 1948 so don't give us this crap that the US would have immediately attacked them. We could have leveled all of Communiist controlled China and Russian could not have stopped us!

...Oh? I bolded that part for emphasis.

You know what would happen if there would be a war between USSR and USA in this era? No? Well then, stop making bold predictions. Stop thinking, "Oh, America can destroy everyone!" Because you don't know.

That sort of nationalistic arrogance is what led the National Socialists to lose WWII. And it could easily cause America to be nuked into obilvion. Not to mention that we could easily overreach and LOSE. Who would have guessed that maybe, had we followed your advice, we'd be speaking Russian and talking of the joys of the Communist society?

Be careful of what you wish for.

Truman in fact had to deal with Curtis Le May's new 'strategic' combat initiative, which would have started the Korean War from the Airforce side with 'blow every North Korean city off the map, and if China complains, take out their rail hubs too.

He wasn;t worried about russian bombs. He was worried about his own idjits.

Idiots, maybe? Of course, said plan would have made the Soviets mad, and that could lead up to WWII. And maybe those "idiots" were afraid of Russian bombs, and was afraid of WWIII, because had WWIII occured, civilization can be destroyed.

China and Russia backed Kim Il Sung for only one reason. They couldn't admit that he had slipped his leash without denying 'communist solidarity

Still, it's a pretty good reason. You don't go and abandon an ally to get destroyed, it makes you weaker on the prestige. And it acts as a way to defend them. Besides, we would defend our allies if they were attacked...And we HAD. So why are you not calling on America's 'only reason' for defending Kuwait is for "solidatry"?

Soviets and Chinese had good reason to attack the Americans.

When I say 'everyone' I mean the Democratic Party ideologues who try to point at all the horrible thing the Republicans have done while ignoring Democratic blunders..

When someone told me that Nixon was to blame for the entire Vietnam war, I pointed out that Truman (Dem) had sent the original troops to occupy Indochina until the French got there, supplied equipment and advisors to them, that that horrible nasty Republican Eisenhower had helped with that, but flatly refused to give them the 70,000 American troops the French demanded in 1953. That while Eisenhower had failed to back the native claim when France was able to break of 'Cochin' which was briefly called South Vietnam, in 56 it was Kennedy(Dem) who sent in extra advisors, it was Johnson(Dem) who upped the ante until we had 100,000+ troops there, then left the mess for Nixon to clean up.

at which point I was labeled a 'Republican ideologue writing revisionist history' and banned from the site.

Understood. I don't disagree with what you say is historical facts, all I disagree with is your interpretions.

YOu obviously do NOT know history. Kennedy tried to withdraw the missiles in 1961 right after he took office, but countries like Turkey complained. When the Russians backed down, Kennedy used that lever to rip the missiles out of Turkey as a face saving gesture for Khruschev. 'See you've prmised not to put them here, and we took them out there'.

Okay.

Remember as you are spouting all this crap, we were the only nation with nuclear weapons until 1948. We were the only ones that could deliver them until 1955.

If those horrible nasty Americans had wanted to take over any nation on the planet, before 1958 we could have done it. And before you squawk about money, it would have cost us less in the long run to Nuke half of Russia ane all of the communist controlled Chinese territory rather than spend money on supporting the French in Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Nationalist Chinese in China, Korea, Vietnam, and every little tin pot war we have assisted in my entire lifetime!

Prove it.

Here is the thing. Think about the possiblity of what would happen HAD Americans launched WWIII, tried to attack Russia...

I do not believe America would have won such a conflict. It seems foolhardy to think such a thing, so arrogant to think we are so...soo mighty. America is a superpower, not an omnipower. Russia also is able to defend itself, and with China as well, they can manage to put up a good fight, and win. Or at least have humanity get wiped out.

Not to mention, what would happen if America defeats the Soviets? Haven't predicted that sort of thing, had you?

Frankly, I understand why people are anti-war. They're tired of killing, murdering, defending, attacking...basically prpearing for pertupal war and fighting it...and NEVER actually enjoying "freedom". Do I agree with them? I do not care nor do I agree with them, no. But I understand why they fear war.

After the total collapse of Communism in Russia, what makes you think I care that they are? Unless you're willing to go to the next step, total agrarian reform (Which China Korea and Cuba will not because they can point at us and scream that we are undermining them) Communism is a national version of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Russia collapsed because they couldn't maintain the monetary pressure of a space race, an arms race, and at the same time, a nuclear proliferation race balanced by the possibility that Star Wars would work. Russia did not decide to go capitalist because they love the concept. they gave up communism because lying about productivity while trying to maintain productivity was no longer working. North Korea has spent the last 54 years systematically starving their people, spending all of their capital on building the third largest army in the area, and a burgeoning 'export economy' while their people have electricity about seven hours a day, a diet of less that 2000 calories per person a day (You need 2500 to do basic labor like office work, 3,000 for heavy work and 6,000 for the average combat troop) and they have succeeded by blaming the US for every problem they have.

China has become an economic powerhouse by ignoring every international copyright and patent law and defies anyone who complains

Interesting facts, but they don't distract from the main issue at hand. So?

Every 'threat' has been them 'claiming' that we had threatened them. primarily for the world press. Where I come from, they call that paranoia and there is medication you use to correct it. And a rogue state with nuclear weapons that was screaming 'death to Israel BEFORE they admitted they were developing them, or Korea saying that we were still threatening them after 50 years of peace by an armstice does not make me think either leader is stable.

And as for a couple of cities. Assume Iran attacks Israel and the US in Iraq;

Baghdad 5.8 million
Tel Aviv 388,000
Jerusalem 743,000

In return, before the US can even think about striking Israel hits;

Tehran 7.18 million
Tabriz 1.5 million
qom 1.1 million
Esfahan 1.6 million.

You are talking more people killed in a six hour period than all of the military combat losses of every nation in wwII

Don't just thorw off 'acouple of cities to me!

You assume Iran would nuke Baghdad. Why would Iran do such a thing?

Also, Iran may be thinking of doing MAD, to protect itself from a USA invasion. Basically, nuclear weapons would deter an American invasion, preventing people from "wiping Iran off the face of the Earth". Not to mention that Iran is very fearful of Israel who, according to them, is pretty likely to have nukes.

Look up the term before you use it then, Scope. The term came from an epic battle of the period ruight after Alexander died when one side lost something like 95% and the 'winning side lost only 90. The Leader of the nation said, 'It was a great victory' and the man who had to lead the troops snapped back 'May the gods save us from such victories'.

Let me explain how I learnt of that term. Phyrrus sent an invasion force to attack the fledging Roman Republic and take that over, because he was fearful of the Romans. The Romans lost a ton of battles, but Phyrrus also lost a lot of troops. It was Phyrrus who said, "Another victory and we would be destroyed utterly."

As for spending money, War is a game of potlach with living counters. If you don;t understand the term I'll explain it. I even promise to use small words.

No need, I'm going to back down out of the argument to prevent it from heating up.

Scope, to quote Chappey Sinclair from Iron Eagle I, and every man who has ever put his life on the line; when men die I Give A SH-T. That goes for every person on BOTH sides. If all you care about is the money you have no business complaining about any war ever fought. We spend so many billions on smart weapons that can kill without a man's hand on the trigger primarily to save lives.It was all of the whining by the anti-war movement in the public press (Where the enemy could use it to judge our resolve) that has caused over two years of bloodshed in Iraq alone.

I'll have you know, during Iraqi freedom, even if you figure in civilian casualties. fewer people have died that even the worst doomsayer would have claimed.

Listen, claim all you want about the anti-war movement, but HAD America won the war, nobody would care about the anti-war movement. The Anti-War Movement was made stronger by America's losses, America's losses were not caused by the Anti-War movement.

Money is far more important than you understand. Far more important. Tell me, how much money we have to pay to arm troops? How much money we have to pay to deploy them? To fight? To use bombs?

We have an infinite amount of money, but a national debt is BAD. It increases intrest rates, it decreases economic growth. This is what I fear, because this is far more important than you understand.

The statement isd BS through and through. less than a week into the present conflict, the Anti-war movement was emoting about how the Iraqis were merely sucking us in so they could smash us. When they held the strategic pause two weeks in they screamed 'see we've already lost!'. So don't tell me no one listened.

Then, I'll tell you: Nobody listened.

Nobody listened when America marched into Baghdad. Nobody listened when America was winning. When America is losing, then people listen.

A ceremonial feast among certain Native American peoples of the northwest Pacific coast, as in celebration of a marriage or an accession, at which the host distributes gifts according to each guest's rank or status.

Between rival groups the potlach could involve extravagant or competitive giving and destruction by the host of valued items as a display of superior wealth.

As i said: War is potlach played with people. Wars don't end because you ran out of money. Just ask the Nazis or the Russians in WWII. It ends when you can no longer maintain your army in the field, with material and personnel
after almost 40 million combined civilian and and military casualties, theRussians were still going. The Germans had to stop after a lousy 8.5.

Oh, but wait a minute According to you 49 million people don't count, it was who could afford the monetary cost, isn't it?

Because the monetray cost is far more important than you give. War takes a toll on the economy, making it weaker, and a weak economy can contribute to Russia and Germany losing the war.
---
We have a ton of resources and servicepeople--we haven't even gone to a draft, for goodness' sake, so we're hardly hurting. Our committment to the war has changed, however.

Of course, but here's the thing. That quote I gave is supposed to be so vague that it could be used to justify anything...I never thought that it would end up being used to attack me. Basically, if we want to win a war, we spend the resources. It depends if we want to, and the price could be too high, but it's unlikely. All I am saying is that you cannot eat your cake and have it in your hand at the same time. You have to make a choice, and when you make that choice, you will regret it.

No thanks, I'm not into Communism and loss of freedom and basic rights, or whatever the Chinese are calling it these days.

"Right of development". I am not making any judgement on if China becoming a superpower is a good idea or not. It just seem pretty likely. If America becomes a Third-World nation (unlikely), I don't want to stay in America and suffer and get hurt. I want to support myself, and if it means that I have to flee America and go to a prosperous First-World China that takes away freedom but gives me bread, so be it.

Edit: You all keep it nice and civil now, please. It's starting to feel a little warm in this thread.

It will be pretty hard to be nice and civil in this thread, and I feel I may be a cause of it. This will be my last post in this thread, because I do not want this to degrade into a flame war.

Welcome to the world, where touchy-feely sentiment overrides practical necessity.

Not necessarily in this case, but generally.

In this case, IMO, it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other...And politicians generally lie regardless...

Then, I'll tell you: Nobody listened.

Nobody listened when America marched into Baghdad. Nobody listened when America was winning. When America is losing, then people listen.


Oh, everybody listened. Listened and saw it, as the merican and english forces invaded Bagdhad, completely ignoring UN. That's what happened.

No thanks, I'm not into Communism and loss of freedom and basic rights, or whatever the Chinese are calling it these days. :)


there is no country out there that... imo... is/was actually practicing this form of government. they call them selfs that... but, they are imo, dictatorships.

Would I call myself anti-war? Yes. Would I call myself 100% anti-war? No.
America fought a war to win its independence from Britain, and I am proud
of what our forefathers did to defend the 13 colonies and set them free.

In the case of the American Revolutionary War and World War II, I consider
these to be honorable and justified, even though many on both sides died.

I also believe our attack against Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban was
cannibalizing their own country and wasting the lives and talents of Afghan
women and girls after they kicked the Soviets' butt. Afghanistan-based Al-
Qaeda members also played a part in September 11th, so we Americans
decided we couldn't just sit on our hands and take no action regarding this.
Even today, I'm not against our fighting in Afghanistan, especially since
the Taliban are making a comeback.

However, the war in Iraq makes me want to spit nails. In fighting a "war
on terror", we Americans are really fighting a war that has no end. We
ended our war with Britain, and the Confederacy and the Union also
made peace (albeit through surrender). Terrorists can come from any
country, any nationality, any religion, and fight for any faction. Iraq
just has boatloads of oil, which they can't refine efficiently right now.

That's what I think the war in Iraq is about. Oil, and the fact that the
American military-industrial complex is making a ton of money off of it.

Why are we still in Iraq? I know three things that are true right now:

1. Saddam Hussein is dead. The Iraqis have executed their former dictator.
2. The Iraqis voted to elect a government, "puppet" rumors notwithstanding.
3. There is a section of Iraq that's prospering now. See www.60minutes.com).

So, if we pull out now, we're not cutting and running. We're avoiding getting
ourselves involved in a bloody and ruthless civil war between two cultures,
Sunni and Shi'ite, that we Americans really don't know that much about.

Is it really the U.S.'s responsibility, or that of any country, to be "World Police"?

Everyone obviously thinks I had bowed out after SS001's last diatribe, but I'm putting all my ducks in a row. His contentions are silly enough that the only way to stop him (Which has never happened when I deal with the pure 'war is evil crowd) is to beat him over the head with nothing but facts. I even had one tell me the 'just because it is a fact, that doesn;t mean it is the truth'.

If you can explain that last statement, maybe you can explain it to me.

The same person called me a liar when in answer to his 'America gave Saddam his chemical Arsenal', I replied with the SIPRI report (STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE) That states that the mustard gas was not made by any process that was standard in Russia Europe or the US, and that the nerve gases were very close to the original German formula of 1936. His reply right before calling me a liar was a Washington post article by a pro Democrat ideologue which made allegations, and use comments out of context. Then claimed the 'every one knew' the iraqis did not have the technoligy to develop the weapons. He then went on to challenge everything but my parentage, and if we had not both been kicked out of that site, we might not have continued that argument (If you want to prove me wrong, use facts not insults) but i would have been ready to take a another punch.

I like debating. My soon to be Ex-wife says I love to argue out of pure orneriness, and she's right. If you make a statement and it's wrong I will challenge it.

So no, I don't back down readily.

I did not agree with your contention that either WW was just. Since the War Between the States, the American government has gotten us into war in a lot of cases out of pique. That war in reality violated our Constitution because the Federal Government did not have the legal right according to that document to force the Confederacy to remain in the Union. It was supposed to be like a gentleman's club where you could leave if the club no longer met your needs.

As for both World Wars, I can give you chapter and verse about why the United States did not have to get into either one. In fact how both Roosevelt and Wilson used psychologtical voodoo and the 'bloody shirt' to convince us that it was right.

Right up to the 'it's all about oil' and 'money for the military/industrial complex', you had me nodding in agreement. I'll take them separately;

When we went into Kuwait to kick out Iraq all of the anti-war pundits were screaming it was about the oil. Yet we signed no sweetheart deals with Kuwait, nor, for that matter, with Iraq's new government. We have not gotten a drop of oil from either nation that has not been bought and paid for at fair market value. when it was loaded. In other words, the instant we put the controls back in Iraqi hands (Less than four months after the occupation), they could sell it to whoever they please. we did control their production, and still do to an extent, but that money is going for their own infrastructre being rebuilt, and some to pay for our own costs.

One person I argued with (Yes, I argue with people not at this site) claimed we had done it to just steal the oil, but we couldn't do that. Four barrels of oil weighs in at just under an English ton, and four barrels (220gallons) only yields about 100 in various fuels including diesel gas and kerosene. So we'd be stealing a standard tank of gas with each ton.

We could get away with a ton of it, after all larger and heavier things have been stolen before. But America uses the equivialent of fifteen Ultra Large crude carriers, the 1 million barrel size, to feed our thirst every year. With every one watching ther is no way we could steal that much.

When I also pointed out that according to the Un charter, an occupying force must pay for such resources they fell back on 'Oh they are just trying to keep it away from China!'

Yet Iraq controls only about 20 percent of the supply (OPEC figures) so saying 'you can;t have these two dimes' to someone who can get the other 80 cents is kind of stupid. There is still Iran, Kuwait, NorthAfrican countries, Indonesia, and venezuela.

so let us put this aside until someone can come up with actual figures to prove it.

As for the 'military industrial complex, there is really no such thing. Every manufacturer of weapons above the hand gun and rifle also make other things.

As to why weinvaded Iraq, I think that Woodward's contention that the Schurb (As my wife calls the younger Bush) thought he was smarter than Daddy and while his Dad couldn;t have dealt with the insurgency that would have followed, he could.

Some of SilentScope's assertions have included that we should've stayed to fight wars like Vietnam

I did? I thought my rhetoric would be seen as defeatism, not military jingoism. Oh well. I don't really know what to do in Vietnam.

When I get home, I'll see if I can add any tips, such as logical fallacies, but I do feel that there are three different goals in debate:

1. Persuade others (say, netural judges) to believe in you.
2. Persuade the person you are arguging against.
3. Learn what the other person's arguments are.

I ususally side with the third goal in debate. The second goal of debate is...in retrospect, silly. How can you persaude someone to join your side when they are persuading you to join their side?

The first goal of debate is also pretty nice, and I believe that is how formal debate works, but...well...usually people make pretty convicing cases in argument and sway me, make me wonder if my position really should be defensible. There is also the possiblity that basically the observers may be biased already, and therefore, they are not really to be trusted in determining what is right and wrong.

The reason I like the third goal is that, since I am an ethical relativist, truth is relative. Different people see the world in different lens, including me, and I need to find out why other people see the way they do. Just because they disbelieve my position doesn't mean they're wrong...in fact, they can very well be right. Therefore, it is nice to respect what other people believe.

I did? I thought my rhetoric would be seen as defeatism, not military jingoism. Oh well. I don't really know what to do in Vietnam.


1. Persuade others (say, netural judges) to believe in you.
2. Persuade the person you are arguging against.
3. Learn what the other person's arguments are.

I ususally side with the third goal in debate. The second goal of debate is...in retrospect, silly. How can you persaude someone to join your side when they are persuading you to join their side?

QUOTE]
I cut and pasted to remove what i would not comment on. I think ED made that comment because you were blase about actual casualties, but adamant that money was the only reason for fighting. As I had said (And you ignored) was that people have continued fighting even without the financial capability because their moral had not been broken because a people fight only when they believe they can win. As Napoleon said, 'morale is to physical (And he would have added monetary if her considered it) as ten is to one'.

Nations with a full army remaining have run away rather than fight, but when you get someone like the 300 Spartans, whose morale would not break, all you can do is kill them.

The reason I am so irritated with the anti-war movement, and the press that has been blasting their views is that Korea was the first war where it was in your face that your men were dying. Before that it was the families themselves that recieved the news, not the entire state they came from. The war did not directly affect you, therefore it was something the country was doing, nothing more. I knew a man in Texas back in the 70s who had been raised in the Hitler Jungen, that had joined the German Paratroopers at the age of seventeen because he believed in the Nazi Cause. When I
spoke to him in 76 he still believed that we had lost ever B17 and B24 we sent against Germany. That they were being flown over, painted, loaded, and they waited for the next flight in because those weren't coming back.

That is what I mean by morale. We 'lost' in Korea and Vietnam because the anti-war movement trumpeted it to anyone that didn't run away the it was wrong or we were losing of that nation wasn't worth the cost. We didn't lose massive amounts of men and material in Somalia, we lost adozen men in one incident, and the press provoked an outcry so vehement that Clinton pulled us out to save face. A victory not of resource, but morale.

The press' fascination with the 'feelings' of a victim does not help. If my family had just died in a plane wreck, I would use the reporter's mike as a suppository when he asked me 'how do you feel about that'.

Oh, BTW, as long as you can promise to use fact and not simply endless 'assumption', I'd be glad to continue our debate where ever we meet. In fact I will be finishing my rebuttal to your last post in the other thread either later today or tomorrow.

I hope you like facts

Oh, BTW, as long as you can promise to use fact and not simply endless 'assumption', I'd be glad to continue our debate where ever we meet. In fact I will be finishing my rebuttal to your last post in the other thread either later today or tomorrow.

I hope you like facts

Listen, I do not want to argue again or continue this debate. It was not fun at all for me, and it seems to be too heated. I hate flame wars, alright. I know that what we were doing is apporaching flaming, and I don't want that to happen.

Still, let me explain to you what I was doing. I am not arguing with facts, I'm merely arguing with your assumptions here. I'm using ED's tactics of attacking your beliefs rather than your proofs. That's it. I do not present any "facts", because facts are...well...facts. You have no proof that your belief is correct, all you do is throw facts around, and think they prove anything. They don't, actually.

I am training to be a historian, and I know that most facts are not disputed. The interpretions of the facts are being disputed here. And there is no way to prove interpertions right or wrong. I admit that my interpertion may be wrong, but you do not.

This is why I don't want to argue. I know this will reach an impasse, and I just know my argument is totally destroyed and damaged. I also know you want me to bring in facts to support my position, but I tell you, I got none. Neither do you.

Let just agree to disagree and end it at that.

As for the 'military industrial complex, there is really no such thing. Every manufacturer of weapons above the hand gun and rifle also make other things.
So you don't agree with President Ike's farewell adress warning of this military industrial complex that was on the verge of ruling the country?

mach, I have never known you to back down from an argument and truth be told, I love it when the old farts tell me off with debate. I do it all the time with my grandpa.

As to war in general, I admit that I don't approve of it but I understand that there is a necessity at times. The American Revolution, I can see the necessity in that hey my rights were tramped on and we are independent and the whole song and dance. From the British point, I can see that they thought the taxation was logical considering that the colonies were properties of the crown.

War is not a pleasant thing. When wars are fought, people die. That is the way of things. Sure we have rules of war regarding engagement of the enemy and treatment of POWs but what is it compared to the slaughter? It is a hard thing to answer.

WWI was a technological/industrial war in that it did usher in a whole new era in warfare. We have the machine gun, the chemical warfare, the tanks, trench war fare all pooping up from this war. WWII gave forth the realization that enemies can target areas where noncombatants live and we also have the atomic age which led to the Cold War and the kerfuffle with that.

I don't mean to make light of history but it is my belief and understanding that it is far easier to judge and criticize in hindsight. Sure we can laugh now at the ridiculous notions that a war could be ended in one big battle but when taken into contenxt at the time, it becomes a whole new ball game. You can also see how technologies are slow to enter into the wars for one side because there are those stubborn generals that think that tried and true methods are the key, regardless of the flaws.

With the war in Iraq, I still has me puzzled as to why we are there and how we got there in the first place. Sure the reasoning was to remove a dictator, that we put into power BTW, but the question is why now? After Sept. 11th there was talk about Afghanistan since Osama was to be hiding there but then we switch gears to Iraq? I am aware this shows how ignorant I am of world affairs but what can you do when you live with a TV Nazi who isn't interested in US foreign policy but is content with using what he has to justify reasoning?

So you don't agree with President Ike's farewell adress warning of this military industrial complex that was on the verge of ruling the country?

Only because people have used that buzz Phrase to condemn anything the government is doing with the military at that time. If he had said that 'Corporate America' wanted to rule the nation I would have applauded, since that is what I believe is either occuring or has occured.


As to war in general, I admit that I don't approve of it but I understand that there is a necessity at times. The American Revolution, I can see the necessity in that hey my rights were tramped on and we are independent and the whole song and dance. From the British point, I can see that they thought the taxation was logical considering that the colonies were properties of the crown.

The entire premise of our entering that war was that we didn't get the right of representation in the government because we were technically living on Crown lands. Of course George III had gone mad, and the Ministers were thikning of the money they would be able to spend. Sort of like Roosevelt reinstituting the Income Tax during the Depression as an Emergency Measure that has now run for over 70 years.


WWI was a technological/industrial war in that it did usher in a whole new era in warfare. We have the machine gun, the chemical warfare, the tanks, trench war fare all pooping up from this war. WWII gave forth the realization that enemies can target areas where noncombatants live and we also have the atomic age which led to the Cold War and the kerfuffle with that.

Actually, it was the War Between the States that caused that. The first modern nation to contemplate using chemical weapons was the Union in that war when it was suggested that a Chlorine gas attack would break the seige of Vicksburg. Lincoln shot it down because it was too horrendous. The first modern tank design (Never constructed) was offered by two British inventors but never purchased. Oh, BTW, if there is any English people on this site, I'd love to have a copy of the patent for the Land Battery. Tghe only major innovation beyond that was the aircraft, but the Mexicans, both Federal and Rebels in 1911 and 12 got the credit for using it in anger.


With the war in Iraq, I still has me puzzled as to why we are there and how we got there in the first place. Sure the reasoning was to remove a dictator, that we put into power BTW, but the question is why now? After Sept. 11th there was talk about Afghanistan since Osama was to be hiding there but then we switch gears to Iraq? I am aware this shows how ignorant I am of world affairs but what can you do when you live with a TV Nazi who isn't interested in US foreign policy but is content with using what he has to justify reasoning?

As I said above, invading Iraq did not make any kind of political or military sense. I even created my own version of a conspiracy theory in regard to it. That theory is we invaded and beat up on Iraq to;

Oyour gonna love this;

Convince Korea to shut down their nuclear weapons program. Both nations had wars with us that ended in ceasefires and an Amristice. Both nation had never resolved that armistice to have an actual peace treaty signed.

For those who don't understand. An armistice is a formal cease fire with conditions that must be applied by the loser to lead to a formal peace. As an example, the end of the war at Appomatax was not the end of the war; it was the armisitice that ended the fighting. Since it was matter of Rebels and a central authority, the war ended with Lee promising not to begin hostilities again. But with a formal armistice, such as at the end of WWI, the Germans were required to sail their fleet into Scapa floe, leave all heavy artillery to be seized, and retreat their armies back within ther original borders and disarm them.

Oh, and I think the misconception that we 'put Saddam in power' comes from the fact that the original king of Iraq (Placed on his throne by the English) was also named Hussein.

When the Allies needed to use Iraq as a base of operations, we supported that king and his successor, but while the legal precept is 'silence implies acceptance' that doesn't mean we put him there. At that time, Saddam was a child.

Saddam came up inside the Ba'ath party which has a lot of traits similar to the Nazis, (Or at leat the National Socialist fomat it was based on) and when he finally took power, we did not praise him, we merely acknowledged that he had de facto and de jure authority. Speaking to him did not mean we 'supported him' any more than our unwillingness to speak directly to Iran implies that we are at war or unremittingly hostile. We spent the better part of thirty years not accepting the government of Red China but that didn't mean we were ready to attack them every minute. Russia under the Communists did not have formal diplomatic relations with us until the mid 1920s.

Edit:

I am training to be a historian, and I know that most facts are not disputed. The interpretions of the facts are being disputed here. And there is no way to prove interpertions right or wrong. I admit that my interpertion may be wrong, but you do not.

This is why I don't want to argue. I know this will reach an impasse, and I just know my argument is totally destroyed and damaged. I also know you want me to bring in facts to support my position, but I tell you, I got none. Neither do you.

Let just agree to disagree and end it at that.

I do have facts, and statistics, and even verifiable account that can prove my contentions.

as for not challenging history...

I spent most of my adult life accepting the claim that Pearl Harbor surprised every one. The Movie Tora Tora Tora even gave me a logical rationale for why and how it could have happened.

But about year ago, I heard about a book entitled 'The Last Secret of Pearl Harbor' which claimed the Administration then in power knew, and did nothing.

So I picked it up. I love conspiracy theories, mainly in debunking them when the premise does not hold up.

But the author was a man on Admiral Kimmel's staff. He was in fact, the man in charge of all Destroyers with the Pacific fleet. He therefore had access to most of the intelligence information the Navy had up until July of 1941 when suddenly Pearl Harbor began to recieve bland reports that told them nothing.

After Kimmel's censure, and the refusal to allow him a formal court martial (Which is like Padilla being thrown in jail and not allowing him either legal representation or a trial) That author began to dig. The final official inquiry into Pearl Harbor wasn't until 1946 when they had a joint Senate House hearing, and he made a comment based on the testimony then which intrigued me. Admiral Stark, CNO of the Navy in Dec 1941 when wuestioned as to why he had not given a more clear warning to Pearl Harbor answered 'I was under orders not to pass that information on.

Before the US Military was combined under Defense, we had a Secretary for both Army and Navy, and a Secretary of War. But while the Navy secretary is 'technically' in charge, he is only in charge of making sure they get their equipment and bases. The Secretary of War has no direct authority except during time of emergency, so until one had been declared, he could not give direct orders to an Admiral or General.

That left only one man with that authority. Roosevelt.

Then I looked at the timing. The code breakers had the first parts of the message in hand long before the 11 Am time given in the movie. They knew when the message was to be delivered (1PM Washington Time) and any man with a brain could look at the map, follow when sunrise would occur, and say' they will attack us here'. But the four senior Military officers in both the Army and the Navy, who could on their own authority send a warning, all of them on the'Magic' list, stood by and did nothing. Only an order from a superior could have caused that.

1PM in Washington was noon in the Canal Zone, 10 Am in San Francisco, 4 Am in the Phillipines (Where everyone expected the attack)

It was 7AM in Hawaii.

Then I looked at the timing. The code breakers had the first parts of the message in hand long before the 11 Am time given in the movie. They knew when the message was to be delivered (1PM Washington Time) and any man with a brain could look at the map, follow when sunrise would occur, and say' they will attack us here'. But the four senior Military officers in both the Army and the Navy, who could on their own authority send a warning, all of them on the'Magic' list, stood by and did nothing. Only an order from a superior could have caused that.
So you are saying that by this testimony, our own government wanted to get us into the war? I really don't have a hard time believing that because I get the impression that the Generals/Joint Chiefs are always looking for a fight. I don't dig into conspiracies but with the lot that is going on, it hard ot to think so.

it was the War Between the States that caused that
I knew that the Civil War or as the southern states call it, the War Between the States, revolutionizd certain things of warfare in of itself. One was the rifling of the barrel in guns and canon. As to the suggestion of chemical warfare, that I didn't know. WWI is the first actual usage I guess you could say of it. The one that really sticks in my mind is the effects of mustard gas. When I was in history class going over this, I remembered senior history at high school. I also read the Guns of August at that time though I need to get a new copy. My kitty ate it. Like I said, I love getting beaten by the old farts who know more than I do. That's what you do: you learn.

All right, I'll admit it. Having some half baked history student lecture me, someone almost twice his age on war really burns me. So instead of just screaming at him, I gave all of you this...

If you look at the borders in 1953, only two borders, the one with Russia and North Korean were Communist. There was 7,000+ miles of borders with those horrible nasty capitalists so that argument doesn't hold water.


Well, increasing those borders would not be good, no? Soviets wanted buffer states, you know, to protect it.

Reply: Except for their own claims, and the brief (1918-1920 invasion of Communist Russia, then the refusal to accept the legal existence of Communist china whch did not include actual attacks on their territory) the US had done nothing but ignore them. Why did they need buffer states? It was Russia’s attempts to reoccupy lands now claimed by Poland and hina’s own attempts at subjugating ‘historically Chinese territory in Indiaand what is now Bangladesh that caused that problem.
Whether you admit it or not it was them trying to grab everyone else’s real estate that caused the need for ‘buffer states.
Quote:
On top of that, the US could deliver Nuclear weapons into over half of Russia and all of China from our forward bases, but except for Alaska and Washington Staes, the US was safe. What do you think Uncle Joe was going to do; Mail it to us? The US had already told Communist China through the Swiss that you leave Taiwan Hong Kong and Macao alone, and we will let you do what you want in 1948 so don't give us this crap that the US would have immediately attacked them. We could have leveled all of Communiist controlled China and Russian could not have stopped us!


...Oh? I bolded that part for emphasis.

You know what would happen if there would be a war between USSR and USA in this era? No? Well then, stop making bold predictions. Stop thinking, "Oh, America can destroy everyone!" Because you don't know.

That sort of nationalistic arrogance is what led the National Socialists to lose WWII. And it could easily cause America to be nuked into obilvion. Not to mention that we could easily overreach and LOSE. Who would have guessed that maybe, had we followed your advice, we'd be speaking Russian and talking of the joys of the Communist society?

Be careful of what you wish for.
Reply: If we moved up to 1948, you might remotely be correct. But Patton was not the only advocate of destroying the Communist way of life, only the most vocal. I looked at historical records and noticed the following.
The entire premise of the argument from my side is that the Russians in 1945 did not have the capability to really stop us if Truman had accepted Patton’s argument that we go to war with Russia in later 1945 early 1946. There were planes on all sides that could have carried the original A bombs. The smaller of the two, the bomb named Little boy weighed in at 8900 pounds and Fat Man 10,300.

When the mushroom cloud dissipated over Nagasaki, exactly six physics packages (The nickname for the atomic bomb’s internal workings) had been built. One had been expended at Trinity site in July of 1945 to test the capability of the plutonium bomb design of Fat Man. No such test was made of Little Boy, because they had already verified that it would work; there was one bomb enroute Marianas, (Little boy design) and two in production (One of each) that would have been sent less than a month later. That works out to a production rate of one bomb every six weeks. We’re not talking mass production yet.

Russia had zip.

America had the B29 and B24 already in Wing strength (72 aircraft per wing) service, with the B32, which saw little service capable of carrying those massive bombs. The British had the Avro Lancaster and the Handley Page Halifax, in fact the Lancaster had already proven she could handle it by dropping 40,000 lb bombs to sink the Tirpitz. Modifying the other would not have been that difficult.

You will notice that all of these planes were already there. There were three squadrons that had planes already modified to carry such a massive bomb, one in the US, the others English.

Russia had only one plane capable of carrying such a bomb if they had it in 1945. Since all of my books are packed, I cannot give you specs on that aircraft. I do know less than 500 were built, it was an open cockpit design and poorly defended (About nine machine guns covering her, and none of them firing directly forward) and that the German’s nicknamed them ‘cooked sausage’ because the ME109 went through them like men at dinner. They didn’t have either superchargers or compressed oxygen in large enough quantity to operate them. They could reach American continental target (Barring Alaska) but only on a one way ‘suicide’ mission. One trip per plane is not cost effective.

The B29 was the largest bomber of her age. She was also the fastest heavy bomber. Since she is also the only bomber to drop a nuclear weapon in anger, let’s look at her specifically. Look at the specs of this plane from the position of a fighter pilot who has to take her down;

Max Speed: 358 miles per hour.

Any fighter built before 1942 would have not been able to keep up. She would have run away from the Zero Spitfires or Messerschmitt of Pearl Harbor and the battle of Britain. The German FW190 and TA 152 (The superior model of that venerated plane built by Kurt Tank in early 1945 that could outrun the P51) the Messerschmitt Me262 and the P51 would have been the only aircraft flying at the time that had a chance of combating them efficiently.
The Japanese had only two planes in 1944 that had a chance chasing them down. They had five by the end of the war, but not in sufficient numbers. The Russians would have had only three types, the Yak 9U, and the Lavochkin models 9 and 11.

Ceiling 31,850 feet.

Without supercharging the engine there was no fighter capable of getting high enough. Again those later planes could, but Saburo Sakai, the highest ranked surviving Japanese Ace of WWII compared trying to fight a bomber at that altitude as trying to guide a car skidding on ice. Before the advent of the Jet, there was nothing that could guarantee blasting every B29 out of a formation. In fact, the American pilots had to go in 10,000 feet lower than this because the Norden Bomb sight wasn’t accurate enough from such a height. Bomb load (according to the site great planes of WWII http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=12) it carried 4100 kg, 9020 for the rest of us, though the original A bombs were much bigger. In fact the Americans created a project code named Silverplate to upgrade that aircraft. According to the Enola Gay and the other 14 upgraded aircraft could carry a 20,000 pound bomb load, twice that of any other B29 at the cost of 782,000 1945 dollars. Try 8,767,088.89in modern day dollars each. Of course the original planes cost 638, 188 each or 7,154,796.58 each, so it wasn’t that big a jump in cost.

A total of 3,967 were built by Boeing.

Range: 5333 miles, 3550 with a full nuclear payload or 10,000 lbs of bombs. That means that from bases in Europe (England, France, Greece and Turkey) from India (Which would not be a free nation until 1948) Japan Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the US could have hit any target in both Russia and China easily. I’m not saying it would have been a cakewalk. But we would have been able to devastate the entire military capability of Russia in a few months, and slaughter an estimate 70 Million Russians if we had wanted to. If it had been China instead, it would have taken a few weeks less, but cost more like 200 million lives.

Pound for pound, nothing made by man before has the capability these little monsters have. In fact if one side has such a weapon and the other does not, there is no way they can win. The nuclear power can destroy five thousand years of effort in one massive orgiastic blast. And accept the piddling little million plus casualties they would take in the process.

Now since you think money is the driving force behind everything, let’s look at the cost, which according to you is the be all and end all of why someone fights. According to [url]http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/MANHATTN.HTM) the Manhattan project cost more that 20 Billion dollars in 1996 dollars from original studies to the first bombs being dropped on Japan. But as I pointed out in the first paragraph above, this was literally hand made piecework. All of that 21.5 billion was research and development. A lot of money I will admit. when you figure as their findings go on, that each of those first two bombs cost an estimated 5 billion dollars apiece in addition to it..

But as anyone will tell you, building anything on an assembly line means the cost plummets. Compare the cost between a Bentley or a VW. Bentleys are rare, right?
As an example, the first protoytpe of the A36 which later became the P51 cost just under 200,000 dollars (2.24 Million each in modern dollar) while the P51D built at the end of the war cost 50985(571598.50) each. But that was after a production run of over 15 thousand planes. Assuming a corresponding drop in cost, we could have gone to mass production and by the 15,000th bomb been paying less than half a billion dollars each. Not that we would have had to use more than say 50. Assuming the costs I have mentioned above, that comes to world domination at less than 20 Billion dollars.

Before you scream about the planes; 7377 Lancasters had already been built, more than half of them still flying in 1945. 6,176 Halifaxs had been built slightly less than half remaining, 18,000 B24s had been built with about 8,000 still capable of operations and over 3,000 B29s not only still flying, but capable of carrying the smaller bomb without alteration. In fact all but the B24s could carry the Little Boy design already, and modification would only be needed for the larger Fat Man design. We had all the planes we need even assuming ruinous losses, because if the one plane with the nuke gets through, you can write off the squadron as a successful attack.

Modern bombs, even with the massive difference in the costs caused by inflation since WWII costs less than the brand new fighter (assuming an F16 at just over 22 million each) that would carry them. In fact you paid more for the fighter than you did for all four of those B61 ‘dial a yield’ bombs.

In comparison we spent 50 Billion dollars keeping the Allies afloat during WWII, (1994 dollars) none of which was ever repaid. According to the State Department’s green book http://qesdb.usaid.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe) which lists aid given to foreign countries in the years between 1946 and the present we have given away over 1.093 trillion dollars helping just about every one get their industries running properly (95.8 billion of it rebuilding the European and Asian economies) then arming them against the Russians and the Chinese. We gave away every necessary weapon to our allies, and even added three old enemies to that list thanks to Korea, Germany and Japan and Italy.

But while you’re screaming about us ‘surrounding and attacking them’ remember this verifiable fact:

After the UN finally sat down in full sessions in 1946, Truman offered to turn over every scrap of the research and the technology of the bomb to the UN. The plan called for every country (At the time seven) with the capability would turn over all research and the people who could make them to UN care.

Americans would NOT have the bomb. No one would. Oddly enough, these ‘peace loving’ Russians you tout so vehemently were the ones who refused. They claimed not to even be working on them.

Yeah right, that was a natural gas explosion in January of 1948, right?
Quote:
Truman in fact had to deal with Curtis Le May's new 'strategic' combat initiative, which would have started the Korean War from the Airforce side with 'blow every North Korean city off the map, and if China complains, take out their rail hubs too.He wasn;t worried about russian bombs. He was worried about his own idjits.


Idiots, maybe? Of course, said plan would have made the Soviets mad, and that could lead up to WWII. And maybe those "idiots" were afraid of Russian bombs, and was afraid of WWIII, because had WWIII occured, civilization can be destroyed.

My reply: Thanks to two things, the Russians did later have the bomber necessary. Four American B29s either crash landed or made emergency landings in Russia before January of 1945. But they did not have the technical capability at that time to build them. When the first reports were mentioned in 1946 that the Russians were building a ‘bolt for bolt copy’ of the B29, no one believed it. Later records (With 60 years of 20/20 hind sight) show that Truman in his bid to get Boeing into the airline business rather than the bomber business helped them convert the basic B29 bomber design into the Boeing ‘Stratocruiser’.

The landing gear and flight controls for those two planes were identical. The Russians, who were at that time still on relatively good terms with us bought the landing gear plans legally, the only part of the plane they couldn’t make for themselves yet.

Then at the May Day celebration of 1947, the Russians revealed that they had built the plane. In fact photos taken later by agents of several of the Tu4s showed that the Russians had so slavishly copied the design that there were areas of the Russian aircraft that were marked as if they had been patched up corresponding to the battle damage reported by the crew of the Hap Arnold Express, one of those lost planes.

The Tu-4 was assigned the code name "Bull" in the NATO code naming system. The entrance into service of the Tu-4 threw the USAF into a virtual panic, since the Tu-4 possessed sufficient range to attack Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York with a worthwhile load on a one-way "suicide" mission. From seized airfields in Iceland, Soviet Tu-4s were even capable of hitting targets in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and from bases in Greenland they could hit targets as far away as New Orleans or Denver.

Approximately 1200 Tu-4s are believed to have been built in the Soviet Union, with some going to China during the later 1950s.

However things had changed. The massive bomber that was able to carry through regardless in WWII was no more. The advent of the Jet fighter had doomed it.
In one battle during Korea, 30 Russian Made MiG 15s had not only sidestepped the P84 escorts, but were able to not only decimate but totally destroy 19 out of 20 B29s on one strike. The TU4s we had been so terrified by less than three years previously would not have gotten within a thousand miles of their targets.

Quote:
China and Russia backed Kim Il Sung for only one reason. They couldn't admit that he had slipped his leash without denying 'communist solidarity


Still, it's a pretty good reason. You don't go and abandon an ally to get destroyed, it makes you weaker on the prestige. And it acts as a way to defend them. Besides, we would defend our allies if they were attacked...And we HAD. So why are you not calling on America's 'only reason' for defending Kuwait is for "solidatry"?

Soviets and Chinese had good reason to attack the Americans.

Reply: No, except for sheer bloody they had no reason beyond their belief (Proven true) that the US would never admit what had happened. If the truth as known in December of 1950 had been broadcast; that two nations claiming to be neutral had actively assisted in thwarting us, we would have gone into a 3rd world war which the US (With more nuclear weapons) would have won. As much as you disagree, think of it this way; In a naval war, who wins, the guy with ten battleships, or the guy with 2?

Quote:
Remember as you are spouting all this crap, we were the only nation with nuclear weapons until 1948. We were the only ones that could deliver them until 1955. If those horrible nasty Americans had wanted to take over any nation on the planet, before 1958 we could have done it. And before you squawk about money, it would have cost us less in the long run to Nuke half of Russia ane all of the communist controlled Chinese territory rather than spend money on supporting the French in Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Nationalist Chinese in China, Korea, Vietnam, and every little tin pot war we have assisted in my entire lifetime!


Your commetn: Prove it.

Rebuttal: the ability to wage a major war is based on three things: Resouces on hand this very minute, resources that can be directed toward such a war, and the willingness of the people to fight that war. I have already directed one and two in my dissrertation above.



Your comments: Here is the thing. Think about the possiblity of what would happen HAD Americans launched WWIII, tried to attack Russia...

I do not believe America would have won such a conflict. It seems foolhardy to think such a thing, so arrogant to think we are so...soo mighty. America is a superpower, not an omnipower. Russia also is able to defend itself, and with China as well, they can manage to put up a good fight, and win. Or at least have humanity get wiped out.

Not to mention, what would happen if America defeats the Soviets? Haven't predicted that sort of thing, had you?

Frankly, I understand why people are anti-war. They're tired of killing, murdering, defending, attacking...basically prpearing for pertupal war and fighting it...and NEVER actually enjoying "freedom". Do I agree with them? I do not care nor do I agree with them, no. But I understand why they fear war.

Reply: With both sides throwing less than five megatons of bombs, the Human race would have survived though in the words of Ensign Checkov from Star Trek they ‘wouldn’t have enjoyed it’. While the Russians had the Atomic bomb thee US had already fielded and deployed the Hydrogen bomb (1948). Not 20 measley kilotons, we're talking a megaton. A bomb you can drop five miles away from your target city and still kill it! Plus by June of 1951 those horrible Nasty Warlike Americans field Hiroshima and larger style bombs that weighed less than a metric ton. The B61 'Dial a vield' bomb used by the navy, which can be preset on the aircraft carrier can be set from ten kilotons to one megaton, and are small enough that an A6 (Considered modern in 1954) could carry eighteen of them!

Quote:
Every 'threat' has been them 'claiming' that we had threatened them. primarily for the world press. Where I come from, they call that paranoia and there is medication you use to correct it. And a rogue state with nuclear weapons that was screaming 'death to Israel BEFORE they admitted they were developing them, or Korea saying that we were still threatening them after 50 years of peace by an armstice does not make me think either leader is stable.And as for a couple of cities. Assume Iran attacks Israel and the US in Iraq;Baghdad 5.8 millionTel Aviv 388,000Jerusalem 743,000In return, before the US can even think about striking Israel hits;Tehran 7.18 millionTabriz 1.5 millionqom 1.1 millionEsfahan 1.6 million.You are talking more people killed in a six hour period than all of the military combat losses of every nation in wwIIDon't just thorw off 'acouple of cities to me!


Your comment: You assume Iran would nuke Baghdad. Why would Iran do such a thing?

Reply: The reason Baghdad is part of that list is because the Iranians as of the time I am writing this cannot deliver a nuclear weapon to the US without hiring a shipping container and having a ship deliver it. All of the cities named are withing the range of the missiles or aircraft they are known and verified to have

Comments: Also, Iran may be thinking of doing MAD, to protect itself from a USA invasion. Basically, nuclear weapons would deter an American invasion, preventing people from "wiping Iran off the face of the Earth". Not to mention that Iran is very fearful of Israel who, according to them, is pretty likely to have nukes.

Reply: Mad works only if you can guarantee Mutual annihilation. But having Iran which has yet to prove even one bomb claim MAD as their reason is like the Crips in LA claiming parity in firepower with the California National Guard. They can pop off several .22 shots at the local police, but if it is even LAPD, they will get a firestorm of hurt. If I used the National Guard with tanks anti tank weapons and artillery instead, it is like Zimbabwe challenging the US.
Quote:
Look up the term before you use it then, Scope. The term came from an epic battle of the period ruight after Alexander died when one side lost something like 95% and the 'winning side lost only 90. The Leader of the nation said, 'It was a great victory' and the man who had to lead the troops snapped back 'May the gods save us from such victories'.


Your comment:Let me explain how I learnt of that term. Phyrrus sent an invasion force to attack the fledging Roman Republic and take that over, because he was fearful of the Romans. The Romans lost a ton of battles, but Phyrrus also lost a lot of troops. It was Phyrrus who said, "Another victory and we would be destroyed utterly."

Reply: Very good! As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, a touch I do confess! But the term actually came from much earlier. The battle was fought near a city named Pyrris by two of the factions created by the death of Alexander the great almost 200 years earlier.

Quote:
Scope, to quote Chappey Sinclair from Iron Eagle I, and every man who has ever put his life on the line; when men die I Give A SH-T. That goes for every person on BOTH sides. If all you care about is the money you have no business complaining about any war ever fought. We spend so many billions on smart weapons that can kill without a man's hand on the trigger primarily to save lives.It was all of the whining by the anti-war movement in the public press (Where the enemy could use it to judge our resolve) that has caused over two years of bloodshed in Iraq alone.I'll have you know, during Iraqi freedom, even if you figure in civilian casualties. fewer people have died that even the worst doomsayer would have claimed.


Your comment: Listen, claim all you want about the anti-war movement, but HAD America won the war, nobody would care about the anti-war movement. The Anti-War Movement was made stronger by America's losses, America's losses were not caused by the Anti-War movement.

Reply: Your could never be more wrong. A war is not only fought on the physucal (equipment on hand) and monetary (What you can replace) but also on the Morale (Is that man willing to fight) level.
As a veteran of the Vietnam era, I caught a lot of flak during that war. People calling me names, spitting on me, calling me a baby burner. All of it very up close and my clothes that had to be cleaned personal. Why do they bother me?
Because I had joined the Coast guard, which sent less than 1,000 personnel to Vietnam during the entire bloody war. The closest I ever was to Vietnam was San Francisco. To be accused of atrocities as Kerry did in 1975 (Yes I am proud to count myself among the ones he accused. All because I voluntarily put on a uniform) when all I had done was risk my own life to save others hurt more than any peacenik can imagine.

Your comments:
Money is far more important than you understand. Far more important. Tell me, how much money we have to pay to arm troops? How much money we have to pay to deploy them? To fight? To use bombs?

My rebuttal: Can I give you a list? Unlike you I have actually figured it out. The US supplies 109 pounds of supplies per man per day as of 1991 for combat operations. That is not only food clothing ammunition POL he uses himself, etc. It is bombs for the planes that fly support missions for that guy on the ground. The fuel and weapons used by the Naval ships that fire support, the repairs of every piece of equipment they use from the 9mm pistol on his hip to the B2 flying interdiction missions, the fighters that fly air superiority, the Harriers that fly ground attack, and everything in between.

Oh yes my little friend, I know exactly what it costs.

Your complaint:
We have an infinite amount of money, but a national debt is BAD. It increases intrest rates, it decreases economic growth. This is what I fear, because this is far more important than you understand.

Oh really. Did you realize that the national debt retired by President Clinton included debts from as far back as 1941? That WWII in modern day dollars cost us more than we would spend if the Iraq War lasted until 2030? That the Surplus the Democratcs whined about in 2001 after Buash took office had been made because they hadn't lowered the tax burden even though those debts had bee paid five years earlier

If one Democrat had stood up and said 'But we'll need that when the baby boomers reach Social security' I think Bush's tax cuts that year would have failed. Instead they whined like a kid who had been told his allowance had been cut.

Quote:
The statement isd BS through and through. less than a week into the present conflict, the Anti-war movement was emoting about how the Iraqis were merely sucking us in so they could smash us. When they held the strategic pause two weeks in they screamed 'see we've already lost!'. So don't tell me no one listened.


Your comment: Then, I'll tell you: Nobody listened.

Nobody listened when America marched into Baghdad. Nobody listened when America was winning. When America is losing, then people listen.

Reply: someone else has already addressed this. Obviously the only person that was not paying attention when Peter Arnette went on the Iraqi Television News and said we had failed 2 weeks in was you.
Quote:
A ceremonial feast among certain Native American peoples of the northwest Pacific coast, as in celebration of a marriage or an accession, at which the host distributes gifts according to each guest's rank or status.Between rival groups the potlach could involve extravagant or competitive giving and destruction by the host of valued items as a display of superior wealth.As i said: War is potlach played with people. Wars don't end because you ran out of money. Just ask the Nazis or the Russians in WWII. It ends when you can no longer maintain your army in the field, with material and personnelafter almost 40 million combined civilian and and military casualties, theRussians were still going. The Germans had to stop after a lousy 8.5.Oh, but wait a minute According to you 49 million people don't count, it was who could afford the monetary cost, isn't it?


Your comment: Because the monetray cost is far more important than you give. War takes a toll on the economy, making it weaker, and a weak economy can contribute to Russia and Germany losing the war.

Reply: How much did it cost to put the 300 Spartans on the plains of Thermoplae? But like those men, money does not matter when you must do something. Facing what is now estimated as 800,000 men, that three hundred and the 2700 other Greeks there stood and died for three days for only one reason. They thought it was important and their lives meant nothing in comparison. The Russians who later stood at Stalingrad, the Germans who faced the Russians outside of Berlin, the few who stood at Agincourt against five times their number, even (As a Texan I must mention them) the 200 odd who said ‘we aren’t retreating’ at the Alamo. All will tell you that money doesn’t mean crap when you have to stand.

You assume Iran would nuke Baghdad. Why would Iran do such a thing?

Also, Iran may be thinking of doing MAD, to protect itself from a USA invasion. Basically, nuclear weapons would deter an American invasion, preventing people from "wiping Iran off the face of the Earth". Not to mention that Iran is very fearful of Israel who, according to them, is pretty likely to have nukes.


I had forgotten to answer this: why would Iran nuke Baghdad?

Because the missiles and aircraft they have on hand at this very moment are short ranged the SCUD D they have will reach Israel or Northern Saudi, but do not have the range to hit Qatar which is just about 150 miles too far away. But Baghdad is the showpiece of American controlled Iraq and has the largets concentration of US troops out of Qatar. And if liberal conspriacy theorists want to claim that the US was so irritated and stupid as to actively supply Iraq with everything up to and including bio and chemical weapons, why should Iran be exempted from it if they blew up Baghdad to punish the Iraqis for the war?

As I joked about Stalin, the only way Iran could deliver a nuclear weapon to the US is by putting it in the mail, amd marking it ex[ress delivery.

I had forgotten to answer this: why would Iran nuke Baghdad?

Because the missiles and aircraft they have on hand at this very moment are short ranged the SCUD D they have will reach Israel or Northern Saudi, but do not have the range to hit Qatar which is just about 150 miles too far away. But Baghdad is the showpiece of American controlled Iraq and has the largets concentration of US troops out of Qatar. And if liberal conspriacy theorists want to claim that the US was so irritated and stupid as to actively supply Iraq with everything up to and including bio and chemical weapons, why should Iran be exempted from it if they blew up Baghdad to punish the Iraqis for the war?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but... Isnt' the vast majority of Iraq's population the exact contrary of Saddam's religion? Xihit (Or whatever you call them on english), the same official religion of Iran. Thing is that they're "brother's", they wouldnt dare to nuke each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... Isnt' the vast majority of Iraq's population the exact contrary of Saddam's religion? Xihit (Or whatever you call them on english), the same official religion of Iran. Thing is that they're "brother's", they wouldnt dare to nuke each other.

You're right, but I'm not sure where you get "Xihit" from. It's Shi'a Islam that is the majority in Iraq and Iran. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, which is a minority in Iraq, but is a majority around the world.

Confusing, eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... Isnt' the vast majority of Iraq's population the exact contrary of Saddam's religion? Xihit (Or whatever you call them on english), the same official religion of Iran. Thing is that they're "brother's", they wouldnt dare to nuke each other.

A brief history lesson: The Shi'a what we call Shiite Moslems are a sect that broke away from the basic faith around the time of the 4th Caliph on the grounds that you had to be a descendant of Mohamed to be caliph. The one who had just taken the title was the Nephew of Mohamed, instead of his son.

The Shi'a supplied the Hashashim (The basis of the word Assassin) of the 10th to 13th century. The Best description would be to compare the Basic Sunnis majority as the Anglican church and the Shi'a as the Baptists.

Not accurate, but it gives you an idea of how far apart their ends are.

As for nuking someone some religions on this planet (Including different sects of Christianity) have accept mass slaughter of those not of that faith. Dumping nevre and mustard gas on the Kurd (Who are also the same religion) comes to mind.

A brief history lesson: The Shi'a what we call Shiite Moslems are a sect that broke away from the basic faith around the time of the 4th Caliph on the grounds that you had to be a descendant of Mohamed to be caliph. The one who had just taken the title was the Nephew of Mohamed, instead of his son.

Seeing that I am part of the Muslim faith, I should make a tiny bit of a correction, as to elborate on what happened and how the Sunni and Shia faiths cam eto be:

The Shia broke away because they believe you have to be connected to Mohammed to be a caliph. The Nephew of Mohammed, Ali, is connected to Mohammed, and therefore, the Shias actually are the supporters of Ali (just like the Sunnis). [Mohammed had no living sons, all his sons died in infancy.]

Of course, the Shias claimed that Ali should have been the first Caliph, and not the fourth. Shias are pretty upset that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman all claimed the title of Caliph, and not allowed Ali, the true successor. Ali did not contest their claims, not wanting to cause a civil war (at least according to the Shias). Sunnis are fans of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthaman, because they were elected by the "Shrua", but they also like Ali as well, and are okay with him being a Caliph.

The problem is that after Uthaman, the third Caliph, was murdered, Muwayiah, a person who is aligned to the same clan as Uthamn was pretty worried that Ali has cancelled investigation into the murder, and I speculate Muwayiah feared that Ali may have secretly plotted the assianation to gain the title of Caliph. Muwayiah therefore led a rebellion against Ali, with the main goal of overthrowing Ali and claiming the title for himself.

Ali and Muwaiyah fought each other at the Battle of Siffn (I think it's in Syria), and then decided to enter into a cease-fire agreement. Bsaically, they started up an investigation committie to figure out who really did kill Uthaman. The investigation committie failed to sastify both parties, and war started up again. Meanwhile, a group of people who were allied with Ali decided to break that alliance. These people, known as the Kharjarites, were angry that Ali would talk to Muwaiyah, who they see as a sinful person for rebelling against Ali. Because of this, the Kharjaites saw Ali himself as sinful, since if Ali really was a Caliph chosen by God, he wouldn't talk to Muwaiyah, he would send his army and annihlate him. Therefore, the Kharjaites decided to try and murder off both Ali and Muwayiah and then send their army to take over the Muslim world.

The Kharjaites succeded in murdering off Ali but only wounded Muwaiyah. Ali's son, Husyan, worried of being attacked by Muwaiyah's forces, signed a peace treaty and given up his claim to the title of Caliph. The current crisis in Islam is over, and Muwayiah declares himself Caliph.

Today, the Khajarites are an almost non-existant sect in Islam, and most of them are very peaceful, which is why you don't hear of them very much. The thing you should know is that after Muwayiah's death, his son Yazid became Caliph, and Husyan decided that he should attack Yazid and take back the title of Caliph. Husyan and Yazid fought in Iraq, and Yazid killed off Husyan. This is the real begining of the Sunni-Shia divided, as the Shias are the backers of Ali, Husyan, and his descendants, and the Sunnis are backers of Yazid, the Ummayad, and later the Abbasid dynasties. Many of today's [moderate] Sunnis actually said that they support Husyan's crusade against Yazid and see Yazid as a bad person, but their hatred of Shias styimes from what they see as the Shias "worshipping" Ali and Husyan, and by talking bad about the other Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman).

I think a more apt description would be that the Shia are the Catholic Church and that the Sunnis are the Protestants. This is because the Shias have codified rules, guidelines, and laws concering their religion, while the Sunnis basically can read the Quran and interpret it however they so desire. The Khajarites are likely to be considered Militant Anabapitsts.


As for nuking someone some religions on this planet (Including different sects of Christianity) have accept mass slaughter of those not of that faith. Dumping nevre and mustard gas on the Kurd (Who are also the same religion) comes to mind.

But, well, I think the reason that it is unlikely Iran would nuke Iraq is because the Shias and the government of Iraq are very friendly to Iran. After all, a political party that was exiled from Iran, SCIRI, calls for an Islamic Revolution and is pro-Iranian, as well as most of the Shias in Iraq. I think some could argue that Iran is forming a puppet government in Iraq, helping out the US. Regardless of wheter the allegations are true or not, I think that Iran nuking Iraq would be tantamount to the USA nuking United Kingdom.

Thank you, Scope. I stand corrected.

In the thread about constructing your arguments, you already understand the basics of it. Find something beyond conjecture to stand on, and you will not fail.