NationStates Jolt Archive

In the latest news, Monday President bush admits he can't win the war against terrorism.

Bush sought to emphazise the economy-- New Hamspire's appears to be on the rebound--- but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention.
In an interview on NBC TV's "today:" show Bush vowed to stay the course on the watr on terror, saying perseverence in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.
Asked, "Can we win the war?" Bush said, " I don't think you can win the it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ---those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Democrats, looking for ways to deflect the spolight from the Republicans as they opened their convention in New York, pounced.

Afger months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on a singluar ability to wih the war on terror, the President says we can't win the the war on terror, said Democratic vice President candidate John Edwarsds, " This is no time to admit defeat."

So what do you think? Is Bush flip-flopping all those times he said we are winning the war against terror? Does Bush know what he is saying?
Democrats jumped on this fast, but I wonder if Bush is hurting his convention since its mainly emphasizes strong leadership on war against terror.

yes a good answer speaking of the truth.
bush keeps saying more and more logical things lately.

thats like trying to win the war against drugs, or the war against crime, or the gang wars.....

lets get past the flip flopping thing.
ALL politicians and people do it, as long as they keep an open mind and are willing to admit when their wrong.

the war on terror just happens to be the most dominant issue now a days besides the economy. So it makes sense that he is speaking about it. PLus it shows us all a time where he seemed to be a good leader. He had a huge approval rating at that time, So of course hes gunna try and resurrect it.

I dont think it will hurt him, i still think this presidency will be decided during the debates and such. Thats when ill make my final choice anyways.

The reality is, you can never completely eliminate terrorism. Even if you mass-killed every terrorist, more would be born in time. You can only hope to control terrorism. So what he said in this case is pretty much true.

I might remind everyone that he never actually said he'd defeat it. Seriously, as long as one group of people hates another, there will be terrorists. When a cause needs recognition, there will be terrorists. When a country needs to liberate itself, there will be terrorists.

I ask you to think of this, when America started, did we not use terrorism to defeat the British? I know most people say we were patriots with minutemen. Instead think of them as terrorists in a mighty regime capable of throwing the british empire out of its country. If bush was alive back then would he have been able to battle against that kind of resolve? If the mightiest empire of the day couldn't, why would he. terrorism isn't going to go away, we just hope to eliminate certain causes and areas where it is prominant.

The earth is round.

Are you impling that these terrorists in the Middle East attacked us because they felt that New York City should be theirs to live in? These terrorists just hate us. They do not want to gain freedom from us, they want to kill us.

I dont see why this is a surprise, the 'war' will never be won as it is impossible to do so.

It's not a war at all. It's propaganda.

Are you impling that these terrorists in the Middle East attacked us because they felt that New York City should be theirs to live in? These terrorists just hate us. They do not want to gain freedom from us, they want to kill us.
Who?

Who?

I think he meant Shentoc, who referenced the Americans vs. the British. Though in fairness, the wider point I think they meant to state (and this is purely guesswork on my part) is that people dedicated to a cause will resort to what we deem terrorism if needed, but that we need to prevent certain kinds of terrorism.

I think what he was saying was that the war on terror won't have a set end date, like WW2 or a conventional conflict. (Yes, similar to the war on drugs, poverty or any other human-condition as opposed to political-conditions).

However, the war on drugs has been fairly successful -- at least in my area of the US (the Northeast). While you can still get drugs, they are generally more expensive (ok, except pot, which is mostly Canadian or home-grown anyhow), and I *think* there are fewer addicts out there. The cities are certainly better off than they were in the late 80s, especially NYC, Bridgeport, New Haven, Providence, and Boston.

I'm still not sure whom I will vote for in November. But Bush is trying to change the Arabic world. My worry (ala historian Barbara Tuchman) is that "one cannot force democracy on an unwilling people". Will Afghanistan and Iraq become prosperous, civil-rights loving nations? Maybe. But anyone whom thinks it'll happen in less than a generation is fooling themselves.

In short, the US has committed itself to these two countries, as it did Japan and West Germany after WW2, and South Korea and South Vietnam after their wars.
The questions are:
1) Which way will the countries end up?
2) Which man (Bush or Kerry) can do the best job?

IMHO, the world was made better after WW2, Gulf War 1, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Revolution. The world was NOT made better after WW1, Vietnam, Crimean War, or the Boer War.
(I call Korea, the US Civil War, and the Wars of German Unification/Italian Unification "pushes", as they mostly put things back to a "status quo", and had generally little impact on the rest of the world AT THAT TIME.)

Pulling out of the Middle East at this point is not acceptable, and would only make the world a more dangerous place. The chance is always there to improve the world after conflict, and this must be done else everthing will have been for naught.

That's what the War on Terrorism means to me, in a nutshell. Either the world is improved, or it isn't. If it isn't, we're in for a bumpy century. Again.

The war on terror cannot be won. The ONLY way to accomplish this is to deal with the SOURCE of the problem.

1. The Middle East. The Israli-Arab conflict most have a WORKABLE solution which is SUPPORTED by a majority of people on both side.
2. America must STOP trying to be the world's policeman. America has NO RIGHT to impose its systems of living on other people.
3. Stop mistreating your prisoners (Cuba [I can't spell the name of the bay] and the prision in iraq [abu grad or something like that])
4. Respect other nations, stop keeping other countries poor to the point of disaster just to earn your "fat cats" millions more

If all these are met, and America appears to respect the existance of other nations, just maybe terrorism must be put behind all of us all over the world.

I think he meant Shentoc, who referenced the Americans vs. the British. Though in fairness, the wider point I think they meant to state (and this is purely guesswork on my part) is that people dedicated to a cause will resort to what we deem terrorism if needed, but that we need to prevent certain kinds of terrorism.
OK
BTW "we need to prevent terrorism" is another kind of the earth is round assertion, just like "we need to prevent hunger", or "AIDS is bad". Saying it does not mean you do it.
Oh and BTW the war on Afghanistan and on Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. The former is about islamic fundamentalism and the second is about oil.

In short, the US has committed itself to these two countries, as it did Japan and West Germany after WW2, and South Korea and South Vietnam after their wars.
The questions are:
1) Which way will the countries end up?
2) Which man (Bush or Kerry) can do the best job?

IMHO, the world was made better after WW2, Gulf War 1, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Revolution. The world was NOT made better after WW1, Vietnam, Crimean War, or the Boer War.
(I call Korea, the US Civil War, and the Wars of German Unification/Italian Unification "pushes", as they mostly put things back to a "status quo", and had generally little impact on the rest of the world AT THAT TIME.)
A big error here. The world was worse after WW2.
BTW Germany was the most technologically advanced country on earth before the war. After the US helped Germany, it was the US which was the most advanced and Germany took several decades to recover.
Had the nazis never started the war, Germany would be in a much much better shape than it is now. The US would still be a 2nd world country.

The US would still be a 2nd world country.

Win did we get a promotion?

Seriously, the US would have been happier AND better off if we had stayed OUT of WWII. Or at least the European theatre. Alas, that was not to be.

Actually, Bush is right - it would be impossible to "win" the war on terror - you simply can't do that unless we were to either nuke the whole world or become an uber-oppresive world power (in those cases we are now terrorists). The way I see it is once today's extremist groups are done with, others will forever spring up. However the way I see it, the moment some group like this comes into existance, the whole world is going to "pounce" on them per se, and said group will be destroyed before it can even grow

Actually, Bush is right - it would be impossible to "win" the war on terror - you simply can't do that unless we were to either nuke the whole world or become an uber-oppresive world power (in those cases we are now terrorists). The way I see it is once today's extremist groups are done with, others will forever spring up. However the way I see it, the moment some group like this comes into existance, the whole world is going to "pounce" on them per se, and said group will be destroyed before it can even grow

Exactly....the difference between Bush's methods and what Kerry would do is this....

Kerry would go into a defensive mode and withdraw into "Fortress America."

Bush is taking both defensive and offensive measures and there are those who think the offensive measures are too much. Those are the people who will be beaten up in their own homes one day by those who they think are being wronged. :rolleyes:

Win did we get a promotion?

Seriously, the US would have been happier AND better off if we had stayed OUT of WWII. Or at least the European theatre. Alas, that was not to be.
Not to mention we would still the world's foremost industrial and economic power.

I really wish politicians would stop refering to things such as terrorism and drugs as entities. You can't simply wage war on such things, as they're symptoms of the state of the world, rather than concrete "enemies".

Apologies if this seems like a trivial semantics argument :D

Seriously, the US would have been happier AND better off if we had stayed OUT of WWII. Or at least the European theatre. Alas, that was not to be.

Errr... not really...
USA keeps out of War in Europe
Hitler/Stalin overuns Europe
Europe is a Nazi/Communist superstae

Now you have the cold war, excerpt this time, you have no allies in Europe, and
Europe will develop the atom bomb first (because America wouldnt be pouring millions into weapons research)

America is screwed.

Actually, Bush is right - it would be impossible to "win" the war on terror - you simply can't do that unless we were to either nuke the whole world or become an uber-oppresive world power (in those cases we are now terrorists). The way I see it is once today's extremist groups are done with, others will forever spring up. However the way I see it, the moment some group like this comes into existance, the whole world is going to "pounce" on them per se, and said group will be destroyed before it can even grow
No it will never work because the whole world is not united.
Other countries couldn't give a shit about US terrorism, just like the US doesn't give a shit about IRA, ETA or Chechnya.

Not to mention still the world's foremost industrial and economic power.

Maybe...but we hardly were before WWII. We would be a very different country thats for sure. Europe would probably be German though.

Errr... not really...
USA keeps out of War in Europe
Hitler/Stalin overuns Europe
Europe is a Nazi/Communist superstae

Now you have the cold war, excerpt this time, you have no allies in Europe, and
Europe will develop the atom bomb first (because America wouldnt be pouring millions into weapons research)

America is screwed.

Nope...Hitler attacked Russia before the US was in WWII. England and Russia could have taken Hitler out. As for the Atom bomb....doubtful that Germany would have created it. They really were not going anywhere with their program.

I really wish politicians would stop refering to things such as terrorism and drugs as entities. You can't simply wage war on such things, as they're symptoms of the state of the world, rather than concrete "enemies".

Apologies if this seems like a trivial semantics argument :D

I agree....just like the "war on poverty" in the 1960's.

Errr... not really...
USA keeps out of War in Europe
Hitler/Stalin overuns Europe
Europe is a Nazi/Communist superstae

Now you have the cold war, excerpt this time, you have no allies in Europe, and
Europe will develop the atom bomb first (because America wouldnt be pouring millions into weapons research)

America is screwed.The USA did not have the choice it was attacked anyway.
The choice was between surrendering and fighting, staying out was not an option.

Maybe...but we hardly were before WWII. We would be a very different country thats for sure. Europe would probably be German though.
More likely russian.

Maybe...but we hardly were before WWII. We would be a very different country thats for sure. Europe would probably be German though.
We were dominant before WWII, especially after WWI when New York replaced London as the most important city.

We were dominant before WWII, especially after WWI when New York replaced London as the most important city.

I'm not so sure about that. The depression really took a toll on the US, although the potential was certainly there and the US does have a track record of doing things that other countries can only dream of.

We were dominant before WWII, especially after WWI when New York replaced London as the most important city.Technologically no.
When the WW2 started, Germany had a decade head start in technology.

Technologically no.
Techologically - military technology (which obviously can lead to some pracitcal applications) - we might not've been as advanced as Germany. But our GDP was more than Germany, Japan, and Italy combined in 1938.

Techologically - military technology (which obviously can lead to some pracitcal applications) - we might not've been as advanced as Germany. But our GDP was more than Germany, Japan, and Italy combined in 1938.

True....where the US was and is strong is in natural resources. Industry is another area that the US was strong in, but the depression had taken its toll on that as well. Fortunately we are idea people and have a way of overcoming adversity.

Anyway it doesn't matter. Germany was still wrong to declare WW2. And the world is still worse off after WW2 than before.

Anyway it doesn't matter. Germany was still wrong to declare WW2. And the world is still worse off after WW2 than before.

Worse in many ways....better in many ways...it is a toss up I think.

Fortunately we are idea people and have a way of overcoming adversity.

Not to mention a huge population.

Not to mention a huge population.

That helps too. ;)

I might remind everyone that he never actually said he'd defeat it. Seriously, as long as one group of people hates another, there will be terrorists. When a cause needs recognition, there will be terrorists. When a country needs to liberate itself, there will be terrorists.

I ask you to think of this, when America started, did we not use terrorism to defeat the British? I know most people say we were patriots with minutemen. Instead think of them as terrorists in a mighty regime capable of throwing the british empire out of its country. If bush was alive back then would he have been able to battle against that kind of resolve? If the mightiest empire of the day couldn't, why would he. terrorism isn't going to go away, we just hope to eliminate certain causes and areas where it is prominant.

No, we didn't use fucking terrorism. We regularly ambushed them, but that isn't terrorism. Murdering civilians by the hundreds is terrorism.

Nope...Hitler attacked Russia before the US was in WWII. England and Russia could have taken Hitler out. As for the Atom bomb....doubtful that Germany would have created it. They really were not going anywhere with their program.

The Russians and British were being butchered. The kill ratio was over six to one in favor of the Germans on the Western front. They killed like a fifth of the whole country. And actually, if it weren't for a single commando raid in the early war that destroyed Germany's store of something or other, the Germans would've had the bomb in 1944.

The Russians and British were being butchered. The kill ratio was over six to one in favor of the Germans on the Western front. They killed like a fifth of the whole country. And actually, if it weren't for a single commando raid in the early war that destroyed Germany's store of something or other, the Germans would've had the bomb in 1944.

Doubtful that they ever would have had the bomb. Their "heavy water" experiments at Nordhousen were light years away from anything meaningful in that direction. Who created the bomb in the first place? Scientists that had fled from Hitler....

After Stalingrad the war was over for the Germans in Russia and that was BEFORE the US got there.

The Russians and British were being butchered. The kill ratio was over six to one in favor of the Germans on the Western front. They killed like a fifth of the whole country. And actually, if it weren't for a single commando raid in the early war that destroyed Germany's store of something or other, the Germans would've had the bomb in 1944.The western front was not where the war was happening. It happened mainly in the balkans, in Russia and in China.

Nope...Hitler attacked Russia before the US was in WWII. England and Russia could have taken Hitler out. As for the Atom bomb....doubtful that Germany would have created it. They really were not going anywhere with their program.

I was thinking the other way round. The USSR would have over-run Germany, then would have continued west and "liberated" France, Italy, Spain and ultimatly Britain. Then America has NO allies in Europe, and the Soviets have the cream of European scietists to develop the atom bomb.

The Germans WERE close to the atomic bomb... they only needed to make one final logic jump, about the number of neutrons that had to hit other atoms for a chain reaction to take place.

I was thinking the other way round. The USSR would have over-run Germany, then would have continued west and "liberated" France, Italy, Spain and ultimatly Britain. Then America has NO allies in Europe, and the Soviets have the cream of European scietists to develop the atom bomb.

The Germans WERE close to the atomic bomb... they only needed to make one final logic jump, about the number of neutrons that had to hit other atoms for a chain reaction to take place.

You seem to forget that those scientists were in the US. Einstien, Teller, Oppenhiemer....all of them were in the US before Hitler invaded Poland. Plus Russia, even after defeating the Germans was unable to produce much of anything as their production had been severely mauled.

You seem to forget that those scientists were in the US. Einstien, Teller, Oppenhiemer....all of them were in the US before Hitler invaded Poland. Plus Russia, even after defeating the Germans was unable to produce much of anything as their production had been severely mauled.
They recovered damn fast though. Don't forget they were a superpower soon after WW2.

They recovered damn fast though. Don't forget they were a superpower soon after WW2.

Yeah, but they never really recovered at all. They did produce a lot of military hardware, but really no consumer goods to speak of. Plus if you go there today you will STILL find buildings and ruins that have not been repaired from WWII. Do you find such things in what was West Germany? No, but you would have in East Germany until the reunification.

The Russians and British were being butchered. The kill ratio was over six to one in favor of the Germans on the Western front. They killed like a fifth of the whole country. And actually, if it weren't for a single commando raid in the early war that destroyed Germany's store of something or other, the Germans would've had the bomb in 1944.

Highly doubtful, the German Atomic Research was waaaay behind the US/British, and they also had absolutely no access to any of the materials necessary to complete an atomic bomb.

They recovered damn fast though. Don't forget they were a superpower soon after WW2.

They recovered by raping Eastern Europe of it's industrial base (And Manchuria) to replace the losses in industry the Soviet Union had taken, not too mention the huge influx of material from the US under Lend-Lease, which was critical to the Soviet victory (for once I finally have the tables on hand, so I won't have to completely re-type it).

Yeah, but they never really recovered at all. They did produce a lot of military hardware, but really no consumer goods to speak of. Plus if you go there today you will STILL find buildings and ruins that have not been repaired from WWII. Do you find such things in what was West Germany? No, but you would have in East Germany until the reunification.Western Europe would not have recovered as fast without the US. The USSR could easily have invaded the rest of Europe.

Western Europe would not have recovered as fast without the US. The USSR could easily have invaded the rest of Europe.

IF the US was not there they could have. However, they were and that was that. The US had the bomb and the Soviets did not until 1949. Stalin would have marched through Europe if he thought he could get away with it. Luckily for Europe he did not think he could.

After Stalingrad the war was over for the Germans in Russia and that was BEFORE the US got there.

They recovered quite well after Stalingrad actually (look at Manstien's Kharkov offensive), it was after Kursk that they were really screwed. And the Russian Winter offensives owe a lot to American industry (13 million pairs of felt boots, built to Soviet specifications in American factories, and shipped over under Lend-Lease, the Germans in their nailed boots would have given anything for these things, not to mention the absurd number of trucks the US sent the Soviets).

They recovered quite well after Stalingrad actually (look at Manstien's Kharkov offensive), it was after Kursk that they were really screwed. And the Russian Winter offensives owe a lot to American industry (13 million pairs of felt boots, built to Soviet specifications in American factories, and shipped over under Lend-Lease, the Germans in their nailed boots would have given anything for these things, not to mention the absurd number of trucks the US sent the Soviets).

After Stalingrad the Germans were on the defensive only. They never won another battle on the Eastern Front after that loss. It was just a matter of time and although lend-lease did provide a lot of material to the Soviets, the numbers of men available to the Soviet generals vs the German generals is what tipped the balance.

After Stalingrad the Germans were on the defensive only. They never won another battle on the Eastern Front after that loss.

The Kharkov Offensive was a stunning victory for the Germans, and it was after Stalingrad, and they blunted several Soviet offensives as well. Kharkov showed that the Whermacht (said becuase it was both the Heer, Waffen SS, and Luftwaffe) could still put a hurt on the Soviets, with a good commander and tank reserves. Kursk wiped out that tank reserve in a spectacular fashion.

It was just a matter of time and although lend-lease did provide a lot of material to the Soviets, the numbers of men available to the Soviet generals vs the German generals is what tipped the balance.

Men are little good for anything except encirclement and slaughter without weapons, ammunition, food, supplies, or the materials to build tanks, planes, etc. The Soviets also never really outnumbered the Germans by the astronomical numbers some people might think, at the worst times it was by about two to one, offensive favors 3-1 odds.

The Kharkov Offensive was a stunning victory for the Germans, and it was after Stalingrad, and they blunted several Soviet offensives as well. Kharkov showed that the Whermacht (said becuase it was both the Heer, Waffen SS, and Luftwaffe) could still put a hurt on the Soviets, with a good commander and tank reserves. Kursk wiped out that tank reserve in a spectacular fashion.



Men are little good for anything except encirclement and slaughter without weapons, ammunition, food, supplies, or the materials to build tanks, planes, etc. The Soviets also never really outnumbered the Germans by the astronomical numbers some people might think, at the worst times it was by about two to one, offensive favors 3-1 odds.

Kharkov was a holding action at best and a Pirric victory. While it did blunt the Soviet offensive, it did not stop it, and it cost precious men and material that could have been best used elsewhere. The Germans, although vastly superior in arms and training, just could not hope to defeat the much larger Soviet armies arrayed against them. Kursk was the death of the German forces in the East. Stalingrad was the point that the tide turned and it was backwards for the Germans after that. Sure, there were delaying actions, but the germans were never on the offensive again.

8 out of 10 german causalties were on the eastern front.

Kharkov was a holding action at best and a Pirric victory. While it did blunt the Soviet offensive, it did not stop it, and it cost precious men and material that could have been best used elsewhere.

Your right, it didn't stop the Soviet offensive, it completely mauled and destroyed it, Popov's offensive was beaten back, with little compartive losses on the Germans. The forces used could not have been used elsewhere at Kharkov, since that was the best place for them to be used, the forces allotted to Citadel should have been used elsewhere.

The Germans, although vastly superior in arms and training, just could not hope to defeat the much larger Soviet armies arrayed against them. Kursk was the death of the German forces in the East. Stalingrad was the point that the tide turned and it was backwards for the Germans after that. Sure, there were delaying actions, but the germans were never on the offensive again.

It definitely was a turning point, but the fact remains, the Germans went on the offensive many times again after Stalingrad, and didn't always lose.

8 out of 10 german causalties were on the eastern front.

Heer casualties, 90% of the Luftwaffe was defeated by the Western Allies, and almost all of the Kriegsmarine.

Your right, it didn't stop the Soviet offensive, it completely mauled and destroyed it, Popov's offensive was beaten back, with little compartive losses on the Germans. The forces used could not have been used elsewhere at Kharkov, since that was the best place for them to be used, the forces allotted to Citadel should have been used elsewhere.



It definitely was a turning point, but the fact remains, the Germans went on the offensive many times again after Stalingrad, and didn't always lose.

Going on the offensive and following through are two different things. The Germans did not have the manpower to exploit their offensives. Not ONE of the offensives you quote actually pushed the Soviets back or put them on the defensive. The Soviets on the other hand did not worry about losses in manpower. Had the Germans had the manpower to exploit their successes things might have turned out differently, but it did not happen that way and they were pushed back and defeated.

Going on the offensive and following through are two different things. The Germans did not have the manpower to exploit their offensives.

Not until After Kursk did they not have the manpower too, Kursk was the expliotation of the Kharkov Offensive, but it was plagued by faulty intelligence (The Russians knew far in advance) and the steadfastness of the minds that thought it up, even Hitler was beginning to get cold feet about it. Kursk utterly destroyed the German tank force, ensuring that they could not exploit their offensives as they had the previous two years.

Not ONE of the offensives you quote actually pushed the Soviets back or put them on the defensive.

.....Kursk was a defensive action for the Soviets, that would mean Kharkov put them on the defensive, and pushed them back, far back.

The Soviets on the other hand did not worry about losses in manpower. Had the Germans had the manpower to exploit their successes things might have turned out differently, but it did not happen that way and they were pushed back and defeated.

No one is arguing that point about Soviet manpower, just when was the Death Sentence in stone for the Ostheer is apparently the center of debate.

No one is arguing that point about Soviet manpower, just when was the Death Sentence in stone for the Ostheer is apparently the center of debate.

Since Stalingrad was the furthest point that the Soviets were pushed back, and the Germans never managed to get back to that point, then Stalingrad is pretty much it. The Soviets were pushing the Germans back after that point and in the end captured Berlin even though it cost them approx. 1,000,000 men to do so.

Since Stalingrad was the furthest point that the Soviets were pushed back, and the Germans never managed to get back to that point, then Stalingrad is pretty much it.

I guess that is one way to look at it (in which case, the Caucasus are actually the furthest the Germans got), but that still doesn't hold that it was the definitive end of the German chance for victory in the East, had Citadel been cancelled in favor of another offensive, they could have reached Stalingrad again the next summer.

The Soviets were pushing the Germans back after that point and in the end captured Berlin even though it cost them approx. 1,000,000 men to do so.

Not quite sure where you are starting from to get 1,000,000 casualties. The Battle itself cost them about 357,000 casualties, combining the offensive across the Oder by Konev and Zhukov, the total comes to about half a million.

I guess that is one way to look at it (in which case, the Caucasus are actually the furthest the Germans got), but that still doesn't hold that it was the definitive end of the German chance for victory in the East, had Citadel been cancelled in favor of another offensive, they could have reached Stalingrad again the next summer.



Not quite sure where you are starting from to get 1,000,000 casualties. The Battle itself cost them about 357,000 casualties, combining the offensive across the Oder by Konev and Zhukov, the total comes to about half a million.

Well....after Stalingrad there were no further gains, it became a war of attrition at that point. One the Germans could not even hope to win.

The 1,000,000 number I have read somewhere. it may include the outer battles from the Vistula onwards, I am not sure since I do not have the material at hand right now and am going from memory, which is always risky. ;)

They recovered quite well after Stalingrad actually (look at Manstien's Kharkov offensive), it was after Kursk that they were really screwed. And the Russian Winter offensives owe a lot to American industry (13 million pairs of felt boots, built to Soviet specifications in American factories, and shipped over under Lend-Lease, the Germans in their nailed boots would have given anything for these things, not to mention the absurd number of trucks the US sent the Soviets).

and spam, an army marches on thier stomaches.

and the germans were making dirty bombs. they were not at the point of making an atom bomb like we were. thier bomb woulda made some cool lights, some cool streaks. and given everyone cancer in a few years.

Well....after Stalingrad there were no further gains, it became a war of attrition at that point. One the Germans could not even hope to win.

The 1,000,000 number I have read somewhere. it may include the outer battles from the Vistula onwards, I am not sure since I do not have the material at hand right now and am going from memory, which is always risky. ;)

Well, it's obvious neither of us is going to decisevily win this argument, so agree to disagree as it were.

And as for the 1,000,000 number, it is tossed around a lot when referring to it, I just happen to have the unfair advantage of literally just finishing my umpteenth time re-reading The Second World War, which is the only reason I knew the casualty figures so rapidly, I probably would have said 1,000,000 if I hadn't just finished since the bulk of my WWII readings this year have been on the PTO, instead of the ETO.

and spam, an army marches on thier stomaches.

80% of all canned meat to be precise.

No, we didn't use fucking terrorism. We regularly ambushed them, but that isn't terrorism. Murdering civilians by the hundreds is terrorism.


Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

While killing civilians may be an act of terrorism, it isn't the only way people can be made terrorists. Revolting against the government and attacking their people, in an attempt to rid them from the country, is a terrorist act. So yes, Shentoc was right according to the acuall definition of terrorism. (Definition from dictionary.com)

ww2 did alot of good for america though, it helped make it a power to be reckoned with, and not just a sleeping giant.
1) Montgomery GI Bill, after the war alot of people went to school and furthered thier education
2) created loads of jobs and got us out of the depression
3) we made money. we loaned other countries lots of money, you all know that. they repaid us with thier gold coffers. its one of the few times in history where the US dollar was deflated alot. Farmers didnt like it too much but it sure was good for everyone else.
4) stolen german technology.
5) researched technology that never would have been emphasised as much.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

While killing civilians may be an act of terrorism, it isn't the only way people can be made terrorists. Revolting against the government and attacking their people, in an attempt to rid them from the country, is a terrorist act. So yes, Shentoc was right according to the acuall definition of terrorism. (Definition from dictionary.com)

Terrorism n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Your definition is fro the American Heritage Dictionary, this one from Wordnet is just a tad bit closer to what most people consider terrorism, who's defining characteristic that seperates it from Guerilla warfare (like the US Revolution, or the insurgents battle against the US Army, most of it anyway) is that it delibaretly targets civilians.

Ugh - Bush has gone and flip-flopped saying we can win the war on terror - MAKE UP YOUR MIND MAN!

Well, it's obvious neither of us is going to decisevily win this argument, so agree to disagree as it were.

And as for the 1,000,000 number, it is tossed around a lot when referring to it, I just happen to have the unfair advantage of literally just finishing my umpteenth time re-reading The Second World War, which is the only reason I knew the casualty figures so rapidly, I probably would have said 1,000,000 if I hadn't just finished since the bulk of my WWII readings this year have been on the PTO, instead of the ETO.

Fair enough....it has been awhile since I read anything about WWII. I might recommend the book "Enemy at the Gates." it is about Stalingrad and goes into great detail with personal accounts. A VERY good book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568523688/qid=1093971927/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3369821-1414354?v=glance&s=books

A big error here. The world was worse after WW2.
BTW Germany was the most technologically advanced country on earth before the war. After the US helped Germany, it was the US which was the most advanced and Germany took several decades to recover.
Had the nazis never started the war, Germany would be in a much much better shape than it is now. The US would still be a 2nd world country.

World was worse after WWII? I think 6,000,000 of my people would disagree with you. Exposing the camps was a great thing for the world. Just as it has been great for the world to see what happened in Rwanda, and South Africa. The Nazis would have had to start the war because National Socialism appealed to "manifest destiny." The capaign of Adolph Hitler would not have been accomplished had he not invaded other countries. It was the only way to maintain his shaky power base. Though, I suppose you could make the argument that for Germany (and the axis in general) the depressions suffered after the war was crippling, but I don't consider that as bad as if the other nations had stood by and done nothing while people were being slaughtered. Though, we've already done that recently, waiting forever to get involved with stopping the killing of ethnic Albanians, but that's just my opinion I suppose.

Terrorism n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Your definition is fro the American Heritage Dictionary, this one from Wordnet is just a tad bit closer to what most people consider terrorism, who's defining characteristic that seperates it from Guerilla warfare (like the US Revolution, or the insurgents battle against the US Army, most of it anyway) is that it delibaretly targets civilians.

I agree that it is what most people describe as terrorism, but out of the 5 definitions givin, only 1 pinpoints civilians as the main target. Looking at the recent terroist activities most people would consider it an act against civilians so they make the word mean that. Whereas the main definition wasn't used in that context at all and was an act against anyone (people, government, your neighbours dog) in an attempt to frighten the reigning government.

if america stayed out of ww2 russia would be occupied. but it would be a costly occupation because of Russian partisans. russia was begging america and england to open a western front because the russians were getting slaughtered. Germany would have beaten russia militarily but they would not have taken the countries peoples. and without america england would have been crushed. they were having a hard enough time with thier rationing even with our help. the U boats would have isolated england and she would have surrendered. and German factories would not have to worried about american super fortresses if america wasnt in the war. or the P51-Mustang or teh P52 (after it got all its kinks out). french resistance would have had a bit of a problem because they wouldnt be able to get thier sabatoge materials as easily if america didnt enter the war. Japan could focus on moving westard and conquor the asian islands and stop at the border with Russia because they had that shaky alliance. Australia would be under japans rule. Germany and italy would have taken the Suez canal, and gained the some oil reserves from that area.

Win did we get a promotion?

Seriously, the US would have been happier AND better off if we had stayed OUT of WWII. Or at least the European theatre. Alas, that was not to be.
Germany and Italy declared war on US first!

Germany and Italy declared war on US first!

Thats true, but they could hardly act on it. Germany was bogged down and losing in Russia. Italy? Well, it has been a LONG time since Rome ruled anything. Although they declared war, they could not actually attack us except with their submarines and we were already fighting those.

if america stayed out of ww2 russia would be occupied.

Without direct US Participation, it's still highly viable that Germany loses, unless by staying out you mean no Lend-Lease, in which case Germany gets the favor.

but it would be a costly occupation because of Russian partisans. russia was begging america and england to open a western front because the russians were getting slaughtered. Germany would have beaten russia militarily but they would not have taken the countries peoples.

Assuming they beat the Red Army anyway.

and without america england would have been crushed. they were having a hard enough time with thier rationing even with our help. the U boats would have isolated england and she would have surrendered.

There is little doubt that without the US (Provided bases, it's massive shipbuilding capacity, and the B-25), that the Battle of the Atlantic may have turned out different, but the British could still have limped along with some luck.

and German factories would not have to worried about american super fortresses

You mean Flying Fortresses (B-17), the Super Fortress (B-29) was not used extensively in the ETO.

if america wasnt in the war. or the P51-Mustang or teh P52 (after it got all its kinks out).

.....the P-51 is shared between the US and GB, since it was a Merlin engine that made it the great long-range fighter that it was, and since the British were ordering early versions, there is nothing that means the British would not have just bought the design from the US, fused it with the Merlin, and had their own variant. As for the P-52..... errr.... there never was a P-52... not sure what your talking about.

french resistance would have had a bit of a problem because they wouldnt be able to get thier sabatoge materials as easily if america didnt enter the war.

The French Resistance was negligible, and did not began to become even a minor pain until Overlord (not becuase of the people, but geography, France just does not favor Irregular Warfare).

Japan could focus on moving westard and conquor the asian islands and stop at the border with Russia because they had that shaky alliance.

They already were at Russia's border......

Thats true, but they could hardly act on it. Germany was bogged down and losing in Russia. Italy? Well, it has been a LONG time since Rome ruled anything. Although they declared war, they could not actually attack us except with their submarines and we were already fighting those.
They were allied with Japan though.

The French Resistance was negligible, and did not began to become even a minor pain until Overlord (not becuase of the people, but geography, France just does not favor Irregular Warfare).
That's false.
The french resistance played a major role in the western front.
Why didn't the german take all of France in your opinion?
The maquisars were a major force.

I just wanted to point out here that today, Bush has changed his mind (evidently, or at least decided to emphasize a different theme) about this and now says "we will win the war on terror" again.

While it is true that all politicians tune their speeches to fit a specific group of people that they are addressing, if this is not a "flip-flop" I really don't know what is.

The only reason I point out the "flip flop" is because the Bush campaign has made it a central to it's theme "why you can't trust John Kerry". It seems to me that this is typical political hypocrisy. You point your finger at someone for doing something then do the same thing yourself.

They were allied with Japan though.

Thats true and Japan did attack us directly. Hitler did not HAVE to declare war on us so I wonder why he actually did.

Thats true and Japan did attack us directly. Hitler did not HAVE to declare war on us so I wonder why he actually did.I think he didn't think the US was a serious threat to Germany.
He declared it so as to support Japan, I suppose.

I just wanted to point out here that today, Bush has changed his mind (evidently, or at least decided to emphasize a different theme) about this and now says "we will win the war on terror" again.

While it is true that all politicians tune their speeches to fit a specific group of people that they are addressing, if this is not a "flip-flop" I really don't know what is.

The only reason I point out the "flip flop" is because the Bush campaign has made it a central to it's theme "why you can't trust John Kerry". It seems to me that this is typical political hypocrisy. You point your finger at someone for doing something then do the same thing yourself.Whatever he says, his actions speaks louder than his words.
His actions are enough to make him a criminal.

I think he didn't think the US was a serious threat to Germany.
He declared it so as to support Japan, I suppose.

Hitler was not the first, or the last to underestimate the US. Yet he did not HAVE to declare war on the US. Japan SHOULD have attacked the Soviet Union and then they would have been finished. THEN the UK would have been defeated and that would have been that.

Without direct US Participation, it's still highly viable that Germany loses, unless by staying out you mean no Lend-Lease, in which case Germany gets the favor.

yep, im playing this out as if america just sat in northamerica trying to get out of the depression


Assuming they beat the Red Army anyway.

they were well on thier way beating the reds. without america there would have been no operation overlord so all the battle of bulge units could be redirected torwards the russians, plus if america was out i doubt they would have emphasised the atlantic wall such as they did.


There is little doubt that without the US (Provided bases, it's massive shipbuilding capacity, and the B-25), that the Battle of the Atlantic may have turned out different, but the British could still have limped along with some luck.

limped along and then starved to death. england has always relied on other countries, friendly or imperialised, to supply it.


.....the P-51 is shared between the US and GB, since it was a Merlin engine that made it the great long-range fighter that it was, and since the British were ordering early versions, there is nothing that means the British would not have just bought the design from the US, fused it with the Merlin, and had their own variant. As for the P-52..... errr.... there never was a P-52... not sure what your talking about.

(p52) I hate dealing with numbers and i forget what the planes name is. ill figure it out in a bit when I google it. As for the P51, that was designed by an american company under contract by the british. at least that is how I remember it being done.


The French Resistance was negligible, and did not began to become even a minor pain until Overlord (not becuase of the people, but geography, France just does not favor Irregular Warfare).

they helped downed pilots get out and little things like that. and provided intel to the allied forces. im not gonna say they were a war deciding factor such as the m1 garand, but they did thier part and saved allied lives during the war.


They already were at Russia's border......
yea that was a bit of a typo on my part

Hitler was not the first, or the last to underestimate the US. Yet he did not HAVE to declare war on the US. Japan SHOULD have attacked the Soviet Union and then they would have been finished. THEN the UK would have been defeated and that would have been that.

true but america was leaning torwards the allies and it is a gamble, which they lost, to let a country get ready and then have them declare war on you, or blind side them and knock out thier pacific fleet. I think it was Admiral Yamamoto that said something like the only way we can take out america is by hitting them hard and fast before they hit us. and then he went on to mention how once america goes into thier war economy japan would stand no chance.

Hitler was not the first, or the last to underestimate the US. Yet he did not HAVE to declare war on the US. Japan SHOULD have attacked the Soviet Union and then they would have been finished. THEN the UK would have been defeated and that would have been that.Actually, there was also China and Korea to care about.

I just wanted to point out here that today, Bush has changed his mind (evidently, or at least decided to emphasize a different theme) about this and now says "we will win the war on terror" again.

While it is true that all politicians tune their speeches to fit a specific group of people that they are addressing, if this is not a "flip-flop" I really don't know what is.

The only reason I point out the "flip flop" is because the Bush campaign has made it a central to it's theme "why you can't trust John Kerry". It seems to me that this is typical political hypocrisy. You point your finger at someone for doing something then do the same thing yourself.

Ok, this isn't Bush flip-flopping, this is desperation on the part of leftists trying to play with semantics. I think it is painfully obvious and is going to blow up on them. Bush was making a statement in regards to the war on terrorism not being a war where there is going to be a clear ending, and the left is taking that statement and trying to make it mean more than that.

Wow, my Topic is popular lol
Isn't it kinda desparation on Bush's part to redefine the meaning of how you can't win the war?
Before he never made it clear you couldn't, so its not leftist desparation.
He always before made it sound like you could win but only with him.

Bush just said today at 2:31 opn MSN, "we won't have a peace table but we are fighting and we will win!" Isn't that another flip?
Bush doesn't know what he means I think...

Actually, there was also China and Korea to care about.

China maybe....but Korea was defeated by the Japanese in 1910 and was a Japanese territory.

China maybe....but Korea was defeated by the Japanese in 1910 and was a Japanese territory.
Indeed, there could have been an uprising in Korea.
Anyway, China was one piece of a cake. We don't talk too much about it in the west, but I think China paid more than half the price of WW2.

Indeed, there could have been an uprising in Korea.
Anyway, China was one piece of a cake. We don't talk too much about it in the west, but I think China paid more than half the price of WW2.

Well, the Koreans did not rise up until 1945 when they were freed from Japanese domination.

China was fighting itself as well as the Japanese so it is hard to tell what was going on there.

Wow, my Topic is popular lol
Isn't it kinda desparation on Bush's part to redefine the meaning of how you can't win the war?
Before he never made it clear you couldn't, so its not leftist desparation.
He always before made it sound like you could win but only with him.

Bush just said today at 2:31 opn MSN, "we won't have a peace table but we are fighting and we will win!" Isn't that another flip?
Bush doesn't know what he means I think...

It is 100% leftist desperation. They are trying to snag some kind of headline in the middle of a convention that is already shaping up to be much more successful than the DNC by attacking Bush on semantics. The only victory in the war on terror will be in terms of goals we set. As long as there are people, terrorism will have no true end, and everybody knows that. This is just a dumb cheap shot, and I think people are going to see it as what it is and it's gonna hurt kerry more than help him.

In the latest news, Monday President bush admits he can't win the war against terrorism.

Bush sought to emphazise the economy-- New Hamspire's appears to be on the rebound--- but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention.
In an interview on NBC TV's "today:" show Bush vowed to stay the course on the watr on terror, saying perseverence in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.
Asked, "Can we win the war?" Bush said, " I don't think you can win the it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ---those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Democrats, looking for ways to deflect the spolight from the Republicans as they opened their convention in New York, pounced.

Afger months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on a singluar ability to wih the war on terror, the President says we can't win the the war on terror, said Democratic vice President candidate John Edwarsds, " This is no time to admit defeat."

So what do you think? Is Bush flip-flopping all those times he said we are winning the war against terror? Does Bush know what he is saying?
Democrats jumped on this fast, but I wonder if Bush is hurting his convention since its mainly emphasizes strong leadership on war against terror.

To be blunt, you dont know what your talking about, so drop it.

This article was interesting to me

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_31

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

Mostly because of the last paragraph (off topic from this thread, but of some concern)

"Earlier this month, Iran confirmed it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade, and declared it should have the right to advanced nuclear technology."

BastardSword - Yes of course it's a flip flop and Bush is in no shortage of doing so. They just have a habit of attacking the other guy with semantics that when the DNC fights back using the RNC's own game, they cry foul.. pretty funny.

BastardSword - Yes of course it's a flip flop and Bush is in no shortage of doing so. They just have a habit of attacking the other guy with semantics that when the DNC fights back using the RNC's own game, they cry foul.. pretty funny.

Where did they attack Kerry on semantics? They attacked him on his Senate votes, not on his word choice.

Where did they attack Kerry on semantics? They attacked him on his Senate votes, not on his word choice.

They distort it and if you don't know that yet, once you're older or more politically informed you will learn it if you wish to. My husband wrote a thread naming just a few flip-flops on Bush.. it was a full page. Don't forget, While Bush was out getting drunk and stoned he has no record to examine.. Kerry has been in government for a long time and if he had never changed his positions in a 20 year period, then I'd worry. If you want to stack Kerry's life up against Bush's life, I'm sorry to tell you Bush would lose horribly.

well of course he can't win the war on terror, but he could possibly win the war on terrorists

They distort it and if you don't know that yet, once you're older or more politically informed you will learn it if you wish to. My husband wrote a thread naming just a few flip-flops on Bush.. it was a full page. Don't forget, While Bush was out getting drunk and stoned he has no record to examine.. Kerry has been in government for a long time and if he had never changed his positions in a 20 year period, then I'd worry. If you want to stack Kerry's life up against Bush's life, I'm sorry to tell you Bush would lose horribly.

Well...if Kerry has had such a successful career then why is he not running on it?

I will be thinking about you guys while I am casting my vote for Bush in Nov. You being Canadian and not having a vote will make that all the funnier. ;)

To all the dumbass Liberals,

There is a difference in flip-flopping and being smart. Kerry is a flip-flop, I dont even have to say why, we all know it. You can win the war on terror and still not win. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR. There will always be someone, somewhere, that wants to attack something. If you were to win the war on terror, then there would be no use for arms because there would be complete piece. The way you win, is if you stomp out what you can at the source, before it reaches you, then your still not 100% sure.

There is a difference in flip-flopping and being smart. Kerry is a flip-flop, I dont even have to say why, we all know it. You can win the war on terror and still not win. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR.

I'll just give you some time so that what you just said really sinks in...."You CAN win the war on terror" followed with "It is IMPOSSIBLE to win the war on terror". Hmm...

Please don't make me break out the Bush flip-flop links. =P

There is a difference in flip-flopping and being smart. Kerry is a flip-flop, I dont even have to say why, we all know it.

I can say the same about Bush...

Flip-Flop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855)

They distort it and if you don't know that yet, once you're older or more politically informed you will learn it if you wish to. My husband wrote a thread naming just a few flip-flops on Bush.. it was a full page. Don't forget, While Bush was out getting drunk and stoned he has no record to examine.. Kerry has been in government for a long time and if he had never changed his positions in a 20 year period, then I'd worry. If you want to stack Kerry's life up against Bush's life, I'm sorry to tell you Bush would lose horribly.

I am older and politically informed....here's a little advice, just because it comes from the left, doesn't make it more informed. The right is attacking Kerry's voting record. The left can't attack Bush on his record on terrorism, because he's stuck to his guns, so they are trying to make something out of an answer to a question that it is not. Everybody with half a brain understands what Bush meant by his answer. It's a cheap shot, and not a very good one, and it's going to backfire because it looks like a desperate cheap shot. Kerry has been all over the place on Iraq, both in his comments and his voting record. To the point where people don't really know what he is going to do or see any solid plan. That's the flip flopping.

I like how everyone's all OK with the concept of not winning the war on terror now. Bush really hit it with this one, he'll force Kerry to either take the opposite policy or tag along.

Iraq has managed to demoralize Americans in general, it seems; everyone is perhaps a bit jaded with fighting a war against terrorists just because of our ailing occupation of Iraq.

I've always held that the war on terror is unwinnable (and a dumb media concept that everyone bought into for all this time) and gotten called many names, by both sides, cuz of that. If you even BREATHED something like that during the months immediately after 9/11, you'd get smacked with eight dozen calls of U TERRORIST OMG WELL NUKE UR ARAB ASS!! Now, apparently the same good old boys who used to say that sort of thing are admitting to the truth on the matter, but completely forgetting that they used to buy totally into the media buzzwords: WAR ON TERROR. WIN. JUST DO IT. HUAH.

In fact I bet someone would think I'm a liberal just by reading this. I'm not, I'm just a critical bastard.

Anyway, someone posted an interesting definition of terrorism:

"Terrorism n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear "

To refer to a thread I made back on this subject, wouldn't the above definition mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist events?

Calculated - months of planning
use of violence - atomic explosions
against civilians - tens of thousands
attain goals that are political - unconditional surrender of Japan
instilling fear - we will keep nuking you til you give up

Now right or wrong, it seems to fit the definition. But I would bet many people agree with that political or idealogical goal, and thus to you it makes the incident not qualify as 'truly' terrorist... perhaps you will say it was 'just war.' Interesting how when YOU agree with the terrorists, it ceases to become terrorism, eh?

Assuming that definition is acceptable, of course. Am I right or what?
:sniper:

I am older and politically informed....here's a little advice, just because it comes from the left, doesn't make it more informed. The right is attacking Kerry's voting record..

Bush doesn't have a voting record.. he was out getting drunk & stoned while Kerry was serving his country in the Senate. If using a political ad for the 2004 election that claims Kerry wanted to raise gas tax by 50 cents is not a little misleading, well.. I'm not sure what is. That was 10 years ago. Also, you might want to read the supplemental that was added to the 87 billion dollar bill he was going to vote for till they added the supplemental and then voted against it. People can take any ones' record out of context and make it look like he didn't support the troops.. it's utter bullshit.. and what is even sadder is so many people believe the misinformation at it's word.

Wow, that's the most intellegent and Un Bushlike thing I've every read him quoted as saying.

It would be good if Bush understands the situation, and, finally, if he were getting a little more intellegent...perhaps he's finally noticed how much he's being made fun of, or that things are getting out of hand. It would be for the good of the world if he smartens up.

Bush doesn't have a voting record.. he was out getting drunk & stoned while Kerry was serving his country in the Senate. If using a political ad for the 2004 election that claims Kerry wanted to raise gas tax by 50 cents is not a little misleading, well.. I'm not sure what is. That was 10 years ago. Also, you might want to read the supplemental that was added to the 87 billion dollar bill he was going to vote for till they added the supplemental and then voted against it. People can take any ones' record out of context and make it look like he didn't support the troops.. it's utter bullshit.. and what is even sadder is so many people believe the misinformation at it's word.

Here's a little hint, all political advertisements are misleading....if you think the right has a corner on that market you are kidding yourself. The "utter bullshit" is coming just as heavily if not more from the left than the right. There are alot more left sponsored 527 groups than right.

But the bottom line is Kerry is all over the place on Iraq. You say the him voting against giving money to Iraq is about the supplemental, I say it is about his coming presidential campaign. In a time of war, that is not the leader you need to have. By the way, Bush has the last 4 years of leadership in the war on terror to go on. And he's done an excellent job.

Here's a little hint, all political advertisements are misleading....if you think the right has a corner on that market you are kidding yourself. The "utter bullshit" is coming just as heavily if not more from the left than the right. There are alot more left sponsored 527 groups than right.

But the bottom line is Kerry is all over the place on Iraq. You say the him voting against giving money to Iraq is about the supplemental, I say it is about his coming presidential campaign. In a time of war, that is not the leader you need to have. By the way, Bush has the last 4 years of leadership in the war on terror to go on. And he's done an excellent job.

Correct...I don't want Kerry as a leader with a war going on, rather go with what we have for now.

Bush doesn't have a voting record.. he was out getting drunk & stoned while Kerry was serving his country in the Senate. If using a political ad for the 2004 election that claims Kerry wanted to raise gas tax by 50 cents is not a little misleading, well.. I'm not sure what is. That was 10 years ago. Also, you might want to read the supplemental that was added to the 87 billion dollar bill he was going to vote for till they added the supplemental and then voted against it. People can take any ones' record out of context and make it look like he didn't support the troops.. it's utter bullshit.. and what is even sadder is so many people believe the misinformation at it's word.

You should be an advisor for Kerry. Why is he running on Vietnam instead of his Senate record? Two reasons...

1. He was trying to squash those persistent cries that the Democrats are soft on defense (they are). So he "reported for duty." Too bad about all that testimony in front of Congress in 1971. Had he just come home and gotten on with his political career (he is a political animal) then he would be a shoe-in.

2. He has no Senate record to speak of. He sponsored NO major legislation. He was ABSENT 76% of the time from his committee meetings PRIOR to 9-11 and 100% of the time after. He has showed up for work ONE day so far in 2004 and THAT became a political event because the vote he wanted to cast was postponed due to some rider being added.

Kerry SHOULD be way out ahead of Bush, but he isn't. People see that he would be an indecisive leader at best and a disaster at worst. In the end I think he will be an also ran and relagated to the scrapheap of those politicians who stumbled into the position they found themselves in.

The left can't attack Bush on his record on terrorism, because he's stuck to his guns, so they are trying to make something out of an answer to a question that it is not.

Bush has stuck to his guns? I suppose that's true in the sense he might be the only one left (well, Dick Cheney too) who thinks Iraq has WMD.

But you might have missed that one flip flop by Bush that he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore...

But you might have missed that one flip flop by Bush that he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore...

Lets put that into context shall we? Bush was constantly being asked where Bin Laden was. He replied that he did not care WHERE Bin Laden was anymore. Making Bin Laden the center of attention in the fight against terrorism would be a HUGE mistake and Bush saw that. By constantly harping on Bin Laden he becomes more important and powerful in the eyes of his followers every day that he remains free. By discarding him in the eyes of the public his importance is diminished.

Bush has stuck to his guns? I suppose that's true in the sense he might be the only one left (well, Dick Cheney too) who thinks Iraq has WMD.

But you might have missed that one flip flop by Bush that he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore...

Ah, the time honored left WMD come back.... :D I mean, let's forget that the bi-patisan 9/11 commision basically cleared up those "Bush was lying" comments, and that before the war, most of the major intelligence services in the world thought Saddam had them.

But you might have missed that one flip flop by Bush that he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore...

Of course he cares about Bin Laden. There was just a policy shift to reflect more meaningful goals in the war on terror...catching Bin Laden can't be the #1 priority....breaking up the terrorist networks has to be. They captured and killed an estimated %75 of Al Qaeda....to say there was no success in that because the one worm got away didn't really make much sense, did it? They are not going to parade around emphasising that Bin Laden has not been caught, it only emboldens terrorists. The disrupting of these networks is the battle here, not one man.

Lets put that into context shall we? Bush was constantly being asked where Bin Laden was. He replied that he did not care WHERE Bin Laden was anymore. Making Bin Laden the center of attention in the fight against terrorism would be a HUGE mistake and Bush saw that. By constantly harping on Bin Laden he becomes more important and powerful in the eyes of his followers every day that he remains free. By discarding him in the eyes of the public his importance is diminished.

Partially correct, Bush did state he did not know WHERE Bin Laden was anymore, but he also went on to specifically state, "I truly am not that concerned about him."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Personally, I would much rather KNOW Bin Laden was either dead or in a prison somewhere then out there somewhere plotting from the shadows.
When Saddam was captured, Bush was quick to get up and tell the people of Iraq they would not have to fear the rule of Saddam ever again. In the same way Iraqi's were concerned about Saddam returning, we should be concerned about Bin Laden returning.

My take on all this is:

Terrorist attacks since the "War on Terror" began are UP, even though the Bush administration tried to fudge the numbers!! :eek:

Terrorist attacks against US interests are UP since the "War on Terrorism" began.

You can't win the "War on Terrorism" by illegally invading other countries. The US invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists throughout the Arab world. The US is more hated now than before.

You can't win the "War on Terrorism" by forgetting about Bin Laden. Bin Laden was able to escape from the sights of the US because the US turned her manpower and focus away from Afghanistan. There are far more troops in Iraq, trying to "liberate" that country, than there are in Afghanistan. What gives with that?

Also, Afghanistan is slowly sliding backwards into their old ways whilst being ignored.

Oh Boy, the US caught Saddam, who was basically harmless while Bin Laden, the real terrorist in the crowd, thumbs his nose at the US.

You can't win the "War on Terrorism" if you don't do your math. Let's see....15 of the 19 terrorists that attacked New York, were from Saudi Arabia, therefore all attention should be focused on Iraq???? Go figure that one out?

No wonder Bush stated that he can't win the "War on Terrorism" because he doesn't even know where the most terrorists are?

And if Bush wins re-election, will he now focus on Iran and North Korea and really get the world closer to a world war, even though defenseless Iraq (a toothless tabby) proved to be a much larger obstacle than was first thought?

"Mission Accomplished"? More like Mission Impossible. :eek:

Bush the deranged warmonger is only admitting this cause he wants PERMANENT war

You should be an advisor for Kerry. Why is he running on Vietnam instead of his Senate record? Two reasons...

1. He was trying to squash those persistent cries that the Democrats are soft on defense (they are). So he "reported for duty." Too bad about all that testimony in front of Congress in 1971. Had he just come home and gotten on with his political career (he is a political animal) then he would be a shoe-in.

2. He has no Senate record to speak of. He sponsored NO major legislation. He was ABSENT 76% of the time from his committee meetings PRIOR to 9-11 and 100% of the time after. He has showed up for work ONE day so far in 2004 and THAT became a political event because the vote he wanted to cast was postponed due to some rider being added.

Kerry SHOULD be way out ahead of Bush, but he isn't. People see that he would be an indecisive leader at best and a disaster at worst. In the end I think he will be an also ran and relagated to the scrapheap of those politicians who stumbled into the position they found themselves in.

You are wrong on just about every count here Bif.

1) He is the junior senator from his state. He has co-sponsored many bills. Junior senators rarely take the wind out from the senior senator. It's the way it works

2) He and John McCain spend 7 or 8 years trying to get to the bottom of the MIA's and P.O.W.'s in Vietnam (A worthy task despite them both being ridiculed for doing so at the time) yet it was a total victory and relations between Vietnam and the USA were normalized. The question was put to bed with the exception of some conspiracy nuts.

Kerry was also instrumental in exposing the Iran/Contra affair.

3) His testimony in 1971 was in large not voicing his own personal experiences, rather it was him reading the account of over 150 vets who had told him their stories and wanted it to come out. Kerry was trying to stop the war, not bash his fellow vets, he's been taken out of context.

4) The "Absent" ad is probably the most misleading one of them all. Yes, he missed 76% of PUBLIC hearings, not committee meetings. If you go back and check the record a total of 43 public hearings were held in 8 years. As for him being absent 100% of the on the intelligence committee after 9/11 that's a complete and utter attempt to mislead. John Kerry left the intelligence committee for the Arms committee in Jan/01, why would he show up to public intelligence hearings for a committee he's not even on? hmm..

5) As for him not being at work since his campaign has started, I don't think this is uncommon for the challenger, while yes some step down from their position to run for office but many don't, Democrat and Republican a like.

6) Kerry got into politics the hard way. When he ran for congress after his testimony in 1972 he lost. He then went to Yale law school and completed his law degree and further severed his country by running the largest DA's office in the state putting the bad guys away. It wasn't for another 10 years till Kerry took a stab at politics and won. He won because of his record as a prosecutor, not because he waved 'Nam around.

I agree with you on one thing. Kerry should be very proud of his service to his country, but he did make too big of a deal about it. That was stupid. However, you know how it works as well as I do, some advisor probably came up with the idea to do it, not him. The same way Rove comes up with just about every theme Bush uses.. so perhaps it's time to shuffle his advisors. I wouldn't be against that.

Ah, the time honored left WMD come back.... :D I mean, let's forget that the bi-patisan 9/11 commision basically cleared up those "Bush was lying" comments, and that before the war, most of the major intelligence services in the world thought Saddam had them.

Notice I didn't say Bush was lying, simply that he still believes there are WMD in Iraq despite all evidence that says otherwise. Though there were intelligence services that THOUGHT Saddam had them, there was also some strong evidence coming out of Iraq (pre-invasion) that Iraq did NOT have them.

Of course he cares about Bin Laden. There was just a policy shift to reflect more meaningful goals in the war on terror...catching Bin Laden can't be the #1 priority....breaking up the terrorist networks has to be. They captured and killed an estimated %75 of Al Qaeda....to say there was no success in that because the one worm got away didn't really make much sense, did it? They are not going to parade around emphasising that Bin Laden has not been caught, it only emboldens terrorists. The disrupting of these networks is the battle here, not one man.

Good points, but catching Bin Laden should be a top priority (not necessarily #1). I shouldn't be hearing the President tell me he isn't concerned about the man primarily responsible for 9/11. I'll have to question your 75% of Al Qaeda statistic without some sort of link for a source. With the number of attacks across the world, I don't think Al Qaeda has been slowed down very much (if at all).

Ah, the time honored left WMD come back.... :D I mean, let's forget that the bi-patisan 9/11 commision basically cleared up those "Bush was lying" comments, and that before the war, most of the major intelligence services in the world thought Saddam had them.
Let's not forget that Bush wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 even happened.

Of course he cares about Bin Laden. There was just a policy shift to reflect more meaningful goals in the war on terror...catching Bin Laden can't be the #1 priority....breaking up the terrorist networks has to be. They captured and killed an estimated %75 of Al Qaeda....to say there was no success in that because the one worm got away didn't really make much sense, did it? They are not going to parade around emphasising that Bin Laden has not been caught, it only emboldens terrorists. The disrupting of these networks is the battle here, not one man.
If as you suggest that 75% of the Al Queda has been captured or killed, how come terrorist attacks have INCREASED in this time frame?

Let's not forget that Bush wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 even happened.

Saddam needed to go 10 years ago. The reasons Bush had to go after him were there long before 9/11, so I guess I'm missing your point.

If as you suggest that 75% of the Al Queda has been captured or killed, how come terrorist attacks have INCREASED in this time frame?

Give me a link that says they have (outside of a war zone).

Notice I didn't say Bush was lying, simply that he still believes there are WMD in Iraq despite all evidence that says otherwise. Though there were intelligence services that THOUGHT Saddam had them, there was also some strong evidence coming out of Iraq (pre-invasion) that Iraq did NOT have them.

Well, the answer still remains what happened to them? He had them, no they are gone? Did he destroy them? Are they buried some where, did they go to Syria? I have yet to here a good explaination....

You can't win the "War on Terrorism" by illegally invading other countries. The US invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists throughout the Arab world. The US is more hated now than before.

Real change is tough. The status quo, appeasement policies were leading this world to a serious disaster. Maybe as a Canadian you feel immune to it. I can tell you, as an American, I do not. As a sovereign nation, we reserve the right to defend ourselves. Since the first Gulf War, Saddam has tried to assassinate US citizens. He regularly fired at US warplanes. He represented a continuing threat to the safety of Americans by harboring terrorists. Until we abandon Israel and remove all US troops from the Middle East, we will never be "liked" unless there is a serious reorganization of the region.

Saddam needed to go 10 years ago. The reasons Bush had to go after him were there long before 9/11, so I guess I'm missing your point..

Ok, lets think of it like this.. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq using underground pipelines.. Kuwait was also flooding the oil market back in 91 when Iraq was trying to rebuild after the Iran/Iraq war. So, Saddam asked the Americans if they would have a problem with him invading Kuwait.. the Americans (Bush Sr.) had a message sent to Saddam saying that American didn't care about their regional disputes. So, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Then when Saudi Arabia asked for help from America to ensure Saddam didn't invade them next (which Saddam had no intention of doing he was invading Kuwait for the reasons listed above) Bush Sr. being business buddies with the house of Saud decided what they wanted was more important then their old ally and friend Saddam. So Bush Sr. reneged.

Here is the thing though.. so lets say Canada (even though we don't need American oil, we have the largest oil reserve in the world) but for argument sake, lets say we made a pipeline and started stealing your oil and then flooded the market and was going to economically ruin the USA.. what do you believe the Americans should do in that situation? Just sit back and say.. "well it's just oil and our economic future, lets let it go" ? I think not.

If you want to argue it cause OMFG he gassed his own people, the Americans were fully aware of it as early as 1983 and yet still Vetoed the UN resolution in 1986 when the world tried to hold Saddam accountable for using chemical weapons.. so.. NEXT?

Ok, lets think of it like this.. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq using underground pipelines.. Kuwait was also flooding the oil market back in 91 when Iraq was trying to rebuild after the Iran/Iraq war. So, Saddam asked the Americans if they would have a problem with him invading Kuwait.. the Americans (Bush Sr.) had a message sent to Saddam saying that American didn't care about their regional disputes. So, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Then when Saudi Arabia asked for help from America to ensure Saddam didn't invade them next (which Saddam had no intention of doing he was invading Kuwait for the reasons listed above) Bush Sr. being business buddies with the house of Saud decided what they wanted was more important then their old ally and friend Saddam. So Bush Sr. reneged.

Hey, why don't you give us Iraq's version of what happened? Iraq started massing troops and summoned the US ambassador Glaspie to express there grievances against Kuwait. She left with a promise he wouldn't invade Kuwait, and then he did. The "George Bush gave him permission" is just a crock. The "stolen" oil was debated border oil fields, and you are also leaving out the 14 billion Iraq owed Kuwait for the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam didn't want to pay back. Not to mention he thought of Kuwait as part of Iraq seperated by the British after WW1.

By the way, Canada was one of the first nations to flock to the US banner.

It is 100% leftist desperation. They are trying to snag some kind of headline in the middle of a convention that is already shaping up to be much more successful than the DNC by attacking Bush on semantics. The only victory in the war on terror will be in terms of goals we set. As long as there are people, terrorism will have no true end, and everybody knows that. This is just a dumb cheap shot, and I think people are going to see it as what it is and it's gonna hurt kerry more than help him.

They are already seeing it. Kerry is doing a shakeup of his staff. His numbers are in decline. Had a 5 point lead over Bush, now its gone.

This is a cheap shot and everyone knows it. Even members of his own party are not touching this. Really the only that has been jumping on this is Edwards and those on the left. The Moderate Dems and Conservative Dems haven't criticized or called Bush on this because they know what he ment. Even I knew what he met. Anyone that doesn't know what he ment, is blind.

Here's a little hint, all political advertisements are misleading....if you think the right has a corner on that market you are kidding yourself. The "utter bullshit" is coming just as heavily if not more from the left than the right. There are alot more left sponsored 527 groups than right.

Amen to this Grebonia. I'm hearing more attacks on Bush from the left than on Kerry from the right. Kerry has a horendus voting record. He's not running on it because he knows he won't be elected on it.

But the bottom line is Kerry is all over the place on Iraq. You say the him voting against giving money to Iraq is about the supplemental, I say it is about his coming presidential campaign. In a time of war, that is not the leader you need to have. By the way, Bush has the last 4 years of leadership in the war on terror to go on. And he's done an excellent job.

This is also correct. Keep up the good work Grebonia. Hopefully Bush gets 4 more years to lead the USA! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Hey, why don't you give us Iraq's version of what happened? Iraq started massing troops and summoned the US ambassador Glaspie to express there grievances against Kuwait. She left with a promise he wouldn't invade Kuwait, and then he did. The "George Bush gave him permission" is just a crock. The "stolen" oil was debated border oil fields, and you are also leaving out the 14 billion Iraq owed Kuwait for the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam didn't want to pay back. Not to mention he thought of Kuwait as part of Iraq seperated by the British after WW1.

By the way, Canada was one of the first nations to flock to the US banner.
I will see your Glaspie and raise you:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

Saddam did the US dirty work for them by fighting against the hated Iranians. The US gave Iraq WMD, technical support, money and munitions. When the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians and the Kurds, nary a peep could be heard from Washington. Then the inconceiveable happened. When it looked like Iraq might end up beating the Iranians, the US started supplying the Iranians with guns. I call that a double cross and the situation with Kuwait was another double cross.

I'm hearing more attacks on Bush from the left than on Kerry from the right.
Well that is entirely understandable. :eek:

That's false.
The french resistance played a major role in the western front.
Why didn't the german take all of France in your opinion?
The maquisars were a major force.

You clearly show no understanding of the situation, they did not occupy all of France, for several reasons, none of which have to do with the Maquis. First, if they occupy all of France, the French Fleet stays with the Allies, as does the French Empire, Hitler wasn't that stupid. It cut down on occupation costs (the puppet gov't could pay it, instead of Germany), and it ensured that France remained somewhat stable.

And the Free Zone only lasted until the end of 1942, during which time the Heer occupied all of France. But at any one time, no more than 6,000 Germans were deployed in anti-partisan operations in France, which does not lend itself to irregular warfare the way, say Yugoslavia does. The regular troops in Heer and Waffen-SS formations were either too far away (the majority at possible landing sites), or in their own bases to intervene or make police actions, so during the whole of the war, the Maquis was kept in remarkable check by these 6000 Military Police.

The French Resistance did not begin to make major strikes until Overlord, when help was nearby, specifically becuase retribution was swift and fast in occupied France, so to do so without Allied help is suicide. And even when it made it's major push, it was not major in the plan of the Allies, the Regular units likethe 2nd French Armoured were worth far more. The railways they attacked were already pretty well destroyed by the US Ninth and Eigth Air Forces, and RAF Bomber Command and 2nd Tactical Air Force. Their only worth was in local intelligence, which does not (usually) decide wars.

Lets put that into context shall we? Bush was constantly being asked where Bin Laden was. He replied that he did not care WHERE Bin Laden was anymore. Making Bin Laden the center of attention in the fight against terrorism would be a HUGE mistake and Bush saw that. By constantly harping on Bin Laden he becomes more important and powerful in the eyes of his followers every day that he remains free. By discarding him in the eyes of the public his importance is diminished.
Ahhhh but it was Bush who made it personal?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550494,00.html

"We have taken all appropriate security precautions to protect the American people," Mr Bush told reporters. "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly attacks."

unless.......we get sidetracked by attacking Iraq?

unless.......we forget that 15 of the 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia?

unless.......his name is Bin Laden?

Lets put that into context shall we? Bush was constantly being asked where Bin Laden was. He replied that he did not care WHERE Bin Laden was anymore. Making Bin Laden the center of attention in the fight against terrorism would be a HUGE mistake and Bush saw that. By constantly harping on Bin Laden he becomes more important and powerful in the eyes of his followers every day that he remains free. By discarding him in the eyes of the public his importance is diminished.
Yet the terrorist attacks are not diminished? They have increased with 3 bombings alone in Saudi Arabia.

Yet the terrorist attacks are not diminished? They have increased with 3 bombings alone in Saudi Arabia.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, a pentagon report a few months back was released (revised) saying that terrorist attacks worldwide have increased sharply these last two years.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

This comment was made after Iraq promised not to pursue military action against Kuwait. Glapsie has denied any implied message to Saddam that invasion was ok.

"We have taken all appropriate security precautions to protect the American people," Mr Bush told reporters. "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly attacks."

unless.......we get sidetracked by attacking Iraq?
unless.......we forget that 15 of the 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia?
unless.......his name is Bin Laden?

You are looking at the small picture. The military and allies are scouring the Afghan, Pakistan border, and have been, raiding villages, capturing Taliban and Al Qaeda fugitives. The hunt for Bin Laden can't be done with massive US troops, but success in Iraq will certainly aid the battle against extremists.

Saddam needed to go 10 years ago. The reasons Bush had to go after him were there long before 9/11, so I guess I'm missing your point.See above.

Give me a link that says they have (outside of a war zone).
Even from your illustrious State Dept. that once again had to admit making a mistake on the numbers. No surprise there?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/

Well, the answer still remains what happened to them? He had them, no they are gone? Did he destroy them? Are they buried some where, did they go to Syria? I have yet to here a good explaination....
Neither does your Government. Don't forget that the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for these WMD when Bush declared he was going to attack regardless of the inspections. That is when the world sat up and said NO WAY BUSH!!

Real change is tough. The status quo, appeasement policies were leading this world to a serious disaster. Maybe as a Canadian you feel immune to it. I can tell you, as an American, I do not. As a sovereign nation, we reserve the right to defend ourselves. Since the first Gulf War, Saddam has tried to assassinate US citizens. He regularly fired at US warplanes. He represented a continuing threat to the safety of Americans by harboring terrorists. Until we abandon Israel and remove all US troops from the Middle East, we will never be "liked" unless there is a serious reorganization of the region.
The US trained terrorists or did you forget about Bin Laden? How about the pilots who leaned how to fly in the US. Iraq was no threat to the US and the world knows it.

The US trained terrorists or did you forget about Bin Laden? How about the pilots who leaned how to fly in the US. Iraq was no threat to the US and the world knows it.
Pilots learning to fly at a flight school in the US is now the US training them? And Bin Laden was never trained by the US. He even said as much in an interview (that he didn't want help from America and their Zionist allies)

This comment was made after Iraq promised not to pursue military action against Kuwait. Glapsie has denied any implied message to Saddam that invasion was ok.
The message was quite clear that Iraq WOULD attack Kuwait if Kuwait did not reverse its stance. Saddam stated that in the meeting. Glaspie made the statement that emboldened Saddam, despite the denial of Glaspie's intentions.

You are looking at the small picture. The military and allies are scouring the Afghan, Pakistan border, and have been, raiding villages, capturing Taliban and Al Qaeda fugitives. The hunt for Bin Laden can't be done with massive US troops, but success in Iraq will certainly aid the battle against extremists.
No I really don't think I am looking at the small picture and neither is the rest of the world. That is WHY millions upon millions of people all over the world marched to protest the proposed US invasion of Iraq.

Before the US invaded Iraq, the world was totally behind Goerge W. Bush. He and his administration pissed away that goodwill.

Who is looking at the small picture?

Nope...Hitler attacked Russia before the US was in WWII. England and Russia could have taken Hitler out. As for the Atom bomb....doubtful that Germany would have created it. They really were not going anywhere with their program.


Germany did create an atomic bomb, Hitler have it to Japan as a final gift before his death. Its Target was San Fransisco "sp?"

Heh like in 1990 when Bush Sr "got it wrong" in regard to Saddam having more than 300,000 troops staged on the border of Iraq and Kuwait. Although satellite photographs - which can even see tyre tracks in the sand saw no evidence of this, or even recent traffic - which displaces the sand on roads.

Then in 2002 with the whole WMD thing. Bush was so convinced they were there that the thousands of CIA operatives and UN inspectors looking for any sign of them wanted to call him and ask where to look. In the end he grossly misrepresented their reports.

Isnt it also wrong to attack a country because of a "perceived threat" from their government - without evidence? What if every country did that? At least when Iraq invaded Kuwait it had evidence of continued wrong doing. What about the millions of innocent people killed or made homeless by the war? Meanwhile Bush family firms experience abnormal profits.

How about never declaring conflicts of interests in regard to military and oil firms, or with the Saudis? Also who gave Bush the $250 million plus campaign cash?

lets get past the flip flopping thing.
ALL politicians and people do it, as long as they keep an open mind and are willing to admit when their wrong.

The War on Terror is a different war than fought before. Nearly all previous wars have been fought between states. They acknowledge surrender when they are defeated. Terrorists can't. For one, they are faceless. For another, they often multiply from different nations, and don't keep their bases in one. But most importantly, they are cowards. They will be afraid to admit defeat because it means they have lost. They'd also be afraid to surrender, lest it blows their cover. So this war will be fought over the long term. I predict a day that we can say that we won the War on Terror. But we'll know that only from years of analysis. There will never be a day that we can declare victory.

It is impossible to win war since terroists are impossible to exterminate. There like ants. If you kill one another takes it's place.

omfg whoever wrote this post is the greates idiot i ever met i'd like to shake your hand for making me laugh but i'm afraid your stupidity will rub off i hope you get the darwin award you're obviously aiming for. :headbang: and in the words of billy madson "in no point in your ramblings did you create anything that came close to a thought i feel stupider by listening to that i award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul"

The War on Terror is a different war than fought before. Nearly all previous wars have been fought between states. They acknowledge surrender when they are defeated. Terrorists can't. For one, they are faceless. For another, they often multiply from different nations, and don't keep their bases in one. But most importantly, they are cowards. They will be afraid to admit defeat because it means they have lost. They'd also be afraid to surrender, lest it blows their cover. So this war will be fought over the long term. I predict a day that we can say that we won the War on Terror. But we'll know that only from years of analysis. There will never be a day that we can declare victory.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a terrorist sympathizer but why would you say that they are cowards when they willing give up their life for their cause?

Crazy maybe, but cowards, I think not.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a terrorist sympathizer but why would you say that they are cowards when they willing give up their life for their cause?

Crazy maybe, but cowards, I think not.
Because they are afraid to show their faces. All of the enemies that have ever been fought before are unafraid to show their identities, profess their cause, etc. Terrorists not only refuse to do that, but blend into civilians, and act like an average Joe from the streets. That makes them no better than common criminals. But make no mistake, they are just as dangerous as any enemy nation with an army. It makes them scary, but also cowards.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a terrorist sympathizer but why would you say that they are cowards when they willing give up their life for their cause?

Crazy maybe, but cowards, I think not.
not all of them do it out of bravery if someone threatened to kill your family or made you believe that by doing that you sve your family from a sure death wouldn't you do it and plus there's that land of 20 virgins or whatever OOO YAY

The War on Terror is not like any other war when you talk about one nation vs. another nation, true.

However, there is a huge point that I think should be made.

Terrorism is NOT a person, country, or thing. It is a TACTIC, namely guerilla warfare of sorts. You cannot combat a tactic, only discourage its use. It will never disappear, simply because it is an effective method (and has been for two hundred or so years) for militants/revolutionaries...et. al...to get what they want.

I personally think it is safe to say that terrorism will never disappear. In my humble opinion, I think that we are only encouraging and perpetuating this war. War has always been good business for the powerful.


Stroudania :sniper:

The War on Terror is not like any other war when you talk about one nation vs. another nation, true.

However, there is a huge point that I think should be made.

Terrorism is NOT a person, country, or thing. It is a TACTIC, namely guerilla warfare of sorts. You cannot combat a tactic, only discourage its use. It will never disappear, simply because it is an effective method (and has been for two hundred or so years) for militants/revolutionaries...et. al...to get what they want.

I personally think it is safe to say that terrorism will never disappear. In my humble opinion, I think that we are only encouraging and perpetuating this war. War has always been good business for the powerful.


Stroudania :sniper:


exactly thank you except the last part

It is impossible to win war since terroists are impossible to exterminate. There like ants. If you kill one another takes it's place.
I've killed ants, terrorist are no ants.
Plus are they black, red ants, Fire ants, army ants, etc.?
Black are freindly, only take food. Acid spit can't hurt you.
Reds will bite and sting you.
Fire ants are steriod using red ants.
Army ants are Jihad ants, almost beatable but they can be..

What you mean is Roaches: they are the unstoppable ones. Surviving nukes!

I've killed ants, terrorist are no ants.
Plus are they black, red ants, Fire ants, army ants, etc.?
Black are freindly, only take food. Acid spit can't hurt you.
Reds will bite and sting you.
Fire ants are steriod using red ants.
Army ants are Jihad ants, almost beatable but they can be..

What you mean is Roaches: they are the unstoppable ones. Surviving nukes!
but they still die when i fart around them

The War on Terror is not like any other war when you talk about one nation vs. another nation, true.

However, there is a huge point that I think should be made.

Terrorism is NOT a person, country, or thing. It is a TACTIC, namely guerilla warfare of sorts. You cannot combat a tactic, only discourage its use. It will never disappear, simply because it is an effective method (and has been for two hundred or so years) for militants/revolutionaries...et. al...to get what they want.

I personally think it is safe to say that terrorism will never disappear. In my humble opinion, I think that we are only encouraging and perpetuating this war. War has always been good business for the powerful.


Stroudania :sniper:
That part is true. Who the real enemy is are Islamic militants that, in their end goal, wish to topple Arab and Muslim governments, create a Taliban state that governs them all, and then tries to destabilize the world. However, terrorism is their tactic of choice, and for the sake of convinience, they are coined as terrorists.

but they still die when i fart around them
That is a WEAPON of MASS Destruction, don't make US invade you, disarm now!

Because they are afraid to show their faces. All of the enemies that have ever been fought before are unafraid to show their identities, profess their cause, etc. Terrorists not only refuse to do that, but blend into civilians, and act like an average Joe from the streets. That makes them no better than common criminals. But make no mistake, they are just as dangerous as any enemy nation with an army. It makes them scary, but also cowards.
Some of the world's greatest, fearless, and most respected warriors (for their ability to deliver death) are the ones that didn't show their faces.

They are the commandos and the Gurkhas.

Even America has its own silent death squad, so be careful who you call "cowards"?

That is a WEAPON of MASS Destruction, don't make US invade you, disarm now!
i ask you this do you really want me to disarm when i just ate a bean burrito? i love mexican night

Some of the world's greatest, fearless, and most respected warriors (for their ability to deliver death) are the ones that didn't show their faces.

They are the commandos and the Gurkhas.

Even America has its own silent death squad, so be careful who you call "cowards"?
cause they know where you live.......bum bum bum

Some of the world's greatest, fearless, and most respected warriors (for their ability to deliver death) are the ones that didn't show their faces.

They are the commandos and the Gurkhas.

Even America has its own silent death squad, so be careful who you call "cowards"?
Special forces from core nations go in, and then get out. They don't wait in cafes, sipping coffee, and playing with their laptops that serve as detenators.
Besides, I don't care if they are fearless. Targeting purely civilians to advance simply a political cause is a coward's tactic.

exactly thank you except the last part


Well, if you wish to know my reasoning behind the last part of what I said regarding war for the powerful, well - let me say this much...

War stimulates industry through the need to produce more weapons and basic military supplies. Initially, this is the only industry supported, but as time wears on more and more industries are required to support the war. Food, medicine, clothing, raw materials (metal, plastic, cloth and such).

Ok, I know what you're thinking. So what? Alright, let me connect the facts here.

Like it or not, we live in a capitalistic society. A society based upon the gaining of wealth through sale of goods. If companies are producing all this equipment for a war, and the government is buying it all, why not perpetuate it? Espescially if a good portion of those in power are rich businessmen who own said companies, or who at least have a hand in it all.

Special forces from core nations go in, and then get out. They don't wait in cafes, sipping coffee, and playing with their laptops that serve as detenators.
Besides, I don't care if they are fearless. Targeting purely civilians to advance simply a political cause is a coward's tactic.
Some might suggest that the invasion of Iraq involved a lot of innocent "collateral" damage against an enemy that really was totally unable of harming the US? So you can slice it any way you like?

That part is true. Who the real enemy is are Islamic militants that, in their end goal, wish to topple Arab and Muslim governments, create a Taliban state that governs them all, and then tries to destabilize the world. However, terrorism is their tactic of choice, and for the sake of convinience, they are coined as terrorists.


Maybe that's their goal, maybe it is. That is not the source of the "islamic terrorist problem".

Read enough history and you will see that the Arab peoples of the world have been treated like second-class peoples throughout the twentieth century...what with the US always intervening in their local affairs and such (need I remind anyone about the origins of the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein). I don't think any one sane person is gonna say, "hey, lets go attack America...they haven't done a damned thing to us!".

We've done plenty to spite the Arab culture, and this is the price we pay. When you push someone long enough, they are bound to push back one way or another.


Stroudania

Some might suggest that the invasion of Iraq involved a lot of innocent "collateral" damage against an enemy that really was totally unable of harming the US? So you can slice it any way you like?
Still, we didn't firebomb Baghdad or Kabul just to make the people surrender. Collectively, there are 50 million between the two. There are many ways that the US could've killed them all that didn't involve nukes. If the terrorists had our military, they'd do that. They're just as bad as Hitler, Stalin, or Tojo, and just as cowardly as those three, too.

(need I remind anyone about the origins of the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein).
Indeed, remind me of how Saddam Hussein came to power. And, before the automatic anti-US response comes up, find a credible link, too - you know, like all the websites that show how he killed his way into power, not because the CIA placed him there.

Maybe that's their goal, maybe it is. That is not the source of the "islamic terrorist problem".

Read enough history and you will see that the Arab peoples of the world have been treated like second-class peoples throughout the twentieth century...what with the US always intervening in their local affairs and such (need I remind anyone about the origins of the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein). I don't think any one sane person is gonna say, "hey, lets go attack America...they haven't done a damned thing to us!".

We've done plenty to spite the Arab culture, and this is the price we pay. When you push someone long enough, they are bound to push back one way or another.


Stroudania
That's very true. Now we have to clean the region after our mess. Afghanistan was a necesary first step, but it won't get anything done. Should Iraq become a stable, prosperous, and liberal republic, the other autocrats in the region would fall like the house of cards they are, but without a shot fired. If other nations emulate Iraq, terrorism would loose lots of appeal very quickly.

Still, we didn't firebomb Baghdad or Kabul just to make the people surrender. Collectively, there are 50 million between the two. There are many ways that the US could've killed them all that didn't involve nukes. If the terrorists had our military, they'd do that. They're just as bad as Hitler, Stalin, or Tojo, and just as cowardly as those three, too.
What cowardly thing did Hitler do? Yes, he did bad things for bad reasons but again he was never cowardly to my knowledge.
How again?

Indeed, remind me of how Saddam Hussein came to power. And, before the automatic anti-US response comes up, find a credible link, too - you know, like all the websites that show how he killed his way into power, not because the CIA placed him there.


I'm not going to pull a conspiracy theory regarding the CIA out of my ass. However, I will tell you this much.

Hussein forced his way to power like any other dictator. Did we help him along the way? We had a hand in it. We liked Hussein because he opposed Ayatolla Khomeni, the guy who deposed the Shah of Iran. We supplied Hussein with training and weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. That is common knowledge. The enemy of our enemy is our friend...except it kinda blows up in your face later down the line. That's about it.

And as to websites, I don't really have any to quote, to be quite honest. I've seen many a documentary and read many a book on mideast politics and such in my twenty-three years on this planet. I can't name a source because I don't remember where I got the info from exactly. Just look around long enough and you will find that that much is true.

And by the way, I'm NOT anti-American. I've just done my homework.

What cowardly thing did Hitler do? Yes, he did bad things for bad reasons but again he was never cowardly to my knowledge.
How again?
He had cities leveled to force a quicker surrender, rather than try to actually fight. Same with the other two, and Mao, while we're at it.

He had cities leveled to force a quicker surrender, rather than try to actually fight. Same with the other two, and Mao, while we're at it.

Then you might want to add Churchill and Stalin and FDR to that list! Tokyo, Dresdin, Berlin, Yokohama, and other cities that were leveled.

I know that we supported him after he came to power, along with tons of other dictators. I was just saying we weren't really responsible for the "origins" of him as a leader, as much as say Pinochet.

That's very true. Now we have to clean the region after our mess. Afghanistan was a necesary first step, but it won't get anything done. Should Iraq become a stable, prosperous, and liberal republic, the other autocrats in the region would fall like the house of cards they are, but without a shot fired. If other nations emulate Iraq, terrorism would loose lots of appeal very quickly.


"Clean the region...", that's kinda funny Euclid...hehe

As a national leader, the use of the words "clean" or "cleansing" should be used VERY lightly LoL :D

But seriously, its hard to find a solid piece of ground to stand on with this whole thing. Should we go blitzkrieging a part of the world and installing governments?

I could be wrong, but to my knowlege the Taliban did not come to power with US help, but we did recognize the Taliban as a legitimite government. Do you know why we recognize the Taliban? Because they told us they would stop opium/heroin production in Afghanistan...but like many governments that we give our blessings to, they screwed us.

Then you might want to add Churchill and Stalin and FDR to that list! Tokyo, Dresdin, Berlin, Yokohama, and other cities that were leveled.
I added Stalin, and he was the one that leveled Dresden and Berlin. As for the famous bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those actually had reason. They made Japan surrender, saved an invasion, and thus, countless millions of Japanese. You may rebuke me, but I won't reply. There are too many threads out there to discuss WWII.

I know that we supported him after he came to power, along with tons of other dictators. I was just saying we weren't really responsible for the "origins" of him as a leader, as much as say Pinochet.


Oh, ok...then we are in agreement...I think...

Sorry, got a little confused by the wording of the last post...sorry if it seems I got a little, well...steamed :D

I could be wrong, but to my knowlege the Taliban did not come to power with US help, but we did recognize the Taliban as a legitimite government. Do you know why we recognize the Taliban? Because they told us they would stop opium/heroin production in Afghanistan...but like many governments that we give our blessings to, they screwed us.

Hun, we never recognized the Taliban as a legitamite government. If we did recognize them, then we would've had an embassy during their reign and we DID NOT have that. Your right, they didn't come to power with US Help. However, we DID NOT recognize them as leaders of Afghanistan.

I added Stalin, and he was the one that leveled Dresden and Berlin. As for the famous bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those actually had reason. They made Japan surrender, saved an invasion, and thus, countless millions of Japanese. You may rebuke me, but I won't reply. There are too many threads out there to discuss WWII.

PE, never mentioned Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I do know that they had a reason but did we have to fire bomb Japan? Did we have to bomb civilian targets? Granted, we didn't have precision weapons but still, did we have to destroy everything?

I do know what the bombs prevented, and I thank God that I know that. But most of the time, the order to bomb cities came from the head of the government and NOT by the lower peons.

"Clean the region...", that's kinda funny Euclid...hehe

As a national leader, the use of the words "clean" or "cleansing" should be used VERY lightly LoL :D
Oh. Well, I meant clean the region of the mess left from the nineteenth century to the Cold War. Not ethnic cleansing, by any stretch of the imagination.
But seriously, its hard to find a solid piece of ground to stand on with this whole thing. Should we go blitzkrieging a part of the world and installing governments?
I actually think we should. Sooner or later, the Carribean, Southern Asia, and probably Africa will produce lots of terrorists. I've explained this often, but that's the jist of my belief.
I could be wrong, but to my knowlege the Taliban did not come to power with US help, but we did recognize the Taliban as a legitimite government. Do you know why we recognize the Taliban? Because they told us they would stop opium/heroin production in Afghanistan...but like many governments that we give our blessings to, they screwed us.
[/quote]
The US embassy in Afghanistan wasn't reopened in Kabul during the Taliban. To my understanding, the Northern Alliance was recognized as the legitamite government of Afghanistan. In fact, only three governments recognized the Taliban on 9/10/01: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates.

eh...Its been a while since I read anything regarding the Taliban since we ousted them. However, lack of an embassy does not mean total absence of diplomatic relations. I have heard things here and there about US-Taliban dealings, but never really looked into it.

I don't claim to know everything ;) hehe I admit it :)

PE, never mentioned Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I do know that they had a reason but did we have to fire bomb Japan? Did we have to bomb civilian targets? Granted, we didn't have precision weapons but still, did we have to destroy everything?

I do know what the bombs prevented, and I thank God that I know that. But most of the time, the order to bomb cities came from the head of the government and NOT by the lower peons.
I have to say that whoever ordered the firebombing of Tokyo was being corrupted. Victory does a funny thing to some. During these bombings, victory was all but reality. By this point, Japan could've starved to death. But this was still war, and it did some funny things to either FDR, or the generals. But the system of America and Britain wasn't as destructive as, say the Soviets, or the Axis. The Soviets didn't care if their conquered territories lived or died. The Nazis and Japanese enslaved the conquered. The US and UK rebuilt the conquered. There's a great fundemental difference. And should the Islamic extremists march on Washington after a very bloody battle, would they try rebuilding our cities? I doubt it.

eh...Its been a while since I read anything regarding the Taliban since we ousted them. However, lack of an embassy does not mean total absence of diplomatic relations. I have heard things here and there about US-Taliban dealings, but never really looked into it.

I don't claim to know everything ;) hehe I admit it :)
I'm not saying that diplomatic relations didn't exist. They exist in some form with all countries, even with Cuba, Iran, and Myanmar, which the US doesn't even recognize as legitamite governments. But I don't know what was talked under these diplomatic relations.

I have to say that whoever ordered the firebombing of Tokyo was being corrupted. Victory does a funny thing to some. During these bombings, victory was all but reality. By this point, Japan could've starved to death. But this was still war, and it did some funny things to either FDR, or the generals. But the system of America and Britain wasn't as destructive as, say the Soviets, or the Axis. The Soviets didn't care if their conquered territories lived or died. The Nazis and Japanese enslaved the conquered. The US and UK rebuilt the conquered. There's a great fundemental difference. And should the Islamic extremists march on Washington after a very bloody battle, would they try rebuilding our cities? I doubt it.

YOu are right! We do have a habit of rebuilding things that we destroyed with bombs. Us and Great Britain are doing what we can to help rebuild and that is the big difference between US and our enemies.

Oh. Well, I meant clean the region of the mess left from the nineteenth century to the Cold War. Not ethnic cleansing, by any stretch of the imagination.

I actually think we should. Sooner or later, the Carribean, Southern Asia, and probably Africa will produce lots of terrorists. I've explained this often, but that's the jist of my belief.


The US embassy in Afghanistan wasn't reopened in Kabul during the Taliban. To my understanding, the Northern Alliance was recognized as the legitamite government of Afghanistan. In fact, only three governments recognized the Taliban on 9/10/01: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates.[/QUOTE]


Ah, the age-old question of "should we intervene"...

Will there be problems in those parts of the world? Maybe. Perhaps. Who knows?

I tend to liken pre-emptive strikes to arresting people for crimes they haven't comitted yet.

But anyhow, I was just razzin' ya on the whole "cleansing" thing :D

The Taliban got some bonus cash from the US for gutting the opium export industry in the summer of 2001, if I recall rightly. I was paying some attention to Afghanistan at the time, and the US gov't was pretty much were treating the Taliban as the de facto government in spite of cries for intervention etc. The US may not have officially recognized them as the legit gov't of Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we had no ties with them.

The whole "USA funded the Taliban military" view comes from the Soviet-Afghanistan war back many years - we did fund many of the groups/people (mujahadeen ring any bells?) that later became part of the Taliban, and a lot of the old military equipment got there thanks to us trying to keep the USSR unhappy with Afghanistan. Some of the other stuff was left by the Soviets from that war, of course.

Unlike selling weapons to Iran and Iraq during their war, this didn't really backfire on us immediately (that backfired on us in PR terms straightaway), but it did eventually.

Germany did create an atomic bomb, Hitler have it to Japan as a final gift before his death. Its Target was San Fransisco "sp?"

No, Germany gave Japan some Uranium....hardly a bomb.

Yet the terrorist attacks are not diminished? They have increased with 3 bombings alone in Saudi Arabia.

Have you ever been to the Middle East? there are bombings there every day! Terrorist attacks happen everywhere in the world. Terrorism will never be defeated as long as there are people alive who hate others. However, attacks in the US have not occurred and if by taking the fight to the terrorists has caused that, then all the better.

Kerry would pull all our troops home and fight a defensive war. Ever read ANY military science? Any force that remains within a fortress will be defeated. Kerry would do just that....

Have you ever been to the Middle East? there are bombings there every day! Terrorist attacks happen everywhere in the world. Terrorism will never be defeated as long as there are people alive who hate others. However, attacks in the US have not occurred and if by taking the fight to the terrorists has caused that, then all the better.

Kerry would pull all our troops home and fight a defensive war. Ever read ANY military science? Any force that remains within a fortress will be defeated. Kerry would do just that....
There was less bombings in the middle east before the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is obvious and something nobody can deny.

There is no war on terrorism. Can't you tell propaganda from information?

There was less bombings in the middle east before the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is obvious and something nobody can deny.

There is no war on terrorism. Can't you tell propaganda from information?

You really think so? Most bombings there went unreported, with the exception of those against Israel until AFTER 9-11 and the US got involved. Saudi Arabia has had problems for many many years with terrorists.

Could have told Bush we couldn't win against terrorism. THe idiot that told Bush we couldn't win was himself. LOLWe can however lessen the threat.

You really think so? Most bombings there went unreported, with the exception of those against Israel until AFTER 9-11 and the US got involved. Saudi Arabia has had problems for many many years with terrorists.In Iraq, terrorism was nearly inexistant.

You really think so? Most bombings there went unreported, with the exception of those against Israel until AFTER 9-11 and the US got involved. Saudi Arabia has had problems for many many years with terrorists.
Those bombings were under reported, not unreported. If you took the time to read the paper or to read other nations' papers on the internet, then you knew about terrorism.

Fact of the matter is, the threat of terrorism now, is no less than it has been since Bush took office. Just a few weeks ago, for instance, Tom Ridge told us that the chatter levels were as high at that point as they were before 9/11 (of course that was during the Democratic national convention so it was probably playing politics with terrorism). At any rate, we haven't left the orange state, and unless it is to go up to red, we won't leave it any time soon. So what has this unwinnable war on terror getting us besides dead troops?

Those bombings were under reported, not unreported. If you took the time to read the paper or to read other nations' papers on the internet, then you knew about terrorism.

Fact of the matter is, the threat of terrorism now, is no less than it has been since Bush took office. Just a few weeks ago, for instance, Tom Ridge told us that the chatter levels were as high at that point as they were before 9/11 (of course that was during the Democratic national convention so it was probably playing politics with terrorism). At any rate, we haven't left the orange state, and unless it is to go up to red, we won't leave it any time soon. So what has this unwinnable war on terror getting us besides dead troops?

What has it gotten us? Well, it is always better to fight an enemy on his own land than on yours. We can fight them in Afganistan and Iraq....or we can fight them here. If we were NOT fighting them there....we WOULD be fighting them here. Which would you prefer?

What has it gotten us? Well, it is always better to fight an enemy on his own land than on yours. We can fight them in Afganistan and Iraq....or we can fight them here. If we were NOT fighting them there....we WOULD be fighting them here. Which would you prefer?I would prefer you fight them where you are, because I live there.

I would prefer you fight them where you are, because I live there.

Well....I have no idea where you live, but they come from the middle east...so you take the fight to the enemy.

Well....I have no idea where you live, but they come from the middle east...so you take the fight to the enemy.And the big advantage is that there you can use indiscriminating clusters bomb because you don't care if you kill some civilians as they are not yours but the enemy's

And the big advantage is that there you can use indiscriminating clusters bomb because you don't care if you kill some civilians as they are not yours but the enemy's

Since the USAF is hardly being used.....except in Afganistan. Thats hardly fair.

Since the USAF is hardly being used.....except in Afganistan. Thats hardly fair.
What is USAF?
How many civilian casualties would have been accepted in the US before peace treaty is signed?

What is USAF?
How many civilian casualties would have been accepted in the US before peace treaty is signed?

What is the USAF. That is the Air Force and they are the ones who drop cluster bombs. Since they are really not being used in Iraq right now your assertion regarding the use of cluster bombs on civilians is unfounded. Afganistan is another matter.

Well....I have no idea where you live, but they come from the middle east...so you take the fight to the enemy.
If you follow that logic, wouldn´t it be logical to invade Saudi-Arabia?

If you follow that logic, wouldn´t it be logical to invade Saudi-Arabia?

Not necessarily. There are other ways to fight terrorism beside military action. International strategy is not a "one size fits all" affair. We will use all the tools at our disposal, but military action is not mandated in one situation just because it was used in another.

But the system of America and Britain wasn't as destructive as, say the Soviets, or the Axis. The Soviets didn't care if their conquered territories lived or died. The Nazis and Japanese enslaved the conquered. The US and UK rebuilt the conquered.
The Soviets cared in some sense, because they wanted to keep those terretories. Therefore they installed communists regimes. Japan only conqured but Germany also reordered Europe. They were some junior partners in Eastern Europe actually: Regimes which were installed or which - in fear of the Soviets joined alliances with Italy and Germany.
Romania and Bulgaria but also Finland are examples for the latter.
Croatia and Slovakia willingly joined it. The Croats especially against the Serbs: they use to be arch-enemies and the Croats didn´t liked to be forced to be put into one state with them under serbian leadership (which the treaty of Versailles did - the same for the slovaks in respect of Czechoslovakia). The really bad cards where there for the serbs, the czechs and especially the poles. And later the russians. Because they were perceived as "evil" and "inferior". And for the jews of course.
Serbian was planned to be eliminated and huge parts of it were already given to the Croats who began the job of eliminating them and settling onto their territory.
Poland was planned to be the centre of elimination. Some parts were planned to be used for future german settlements. The same was planned with furtile land parts more in the east like in Belarus or the Ukraine.
The problem with this conception was not only that it required a world war but that it was -even taken moral objections out of account - not realistic to implement it. They were simply not enough Germans to really succesfully do it.
Well: the Romans were succesfull with a policy of colonisation: but at that time the population of the conquored territories was much lower and they succesfully romanized them - well, most of them but not all.
Thus far the americanisation of Iraq has made little progress though.

The US and UK rebuilt the conquered.There was something like the Morgenthau-plan which actually went into completly the different direction. Though the begining of the Cold war led to a different decision. After all: allies were needed for it, also in Europe.
Whether that would have happened without the begining of the cold war is a highly hypothetical question.
Countries usually only act in their national interests: would it be a benefit for the US to keep Iraq the way it is? Would it make the situation more stable there not to spent money for it? Aside of the fact that most contracts go to US companies and support the American economy.
Even the cleaning of the clothes is done by American companies. Why not employing some Iraqi women for that? They would certainly like to earn a little bit. And they would certainly do it cheaper.

Not necessarily. There are other ways to fight terrorism beside military action. International strategy is not a "one size fits all" affair. We will use all the tools at our disposal, but military action is not mandated in one situation just because it was used in another.
You won´t use it against Saudi-Arabia because of economic reasons. That is very simple. Saudi-Arabia is too important. Even a short cut-off of its oil revenues would have serious consequences for the world economy since it is the largest producer. 10% of world production cut off is just too much.
Aside of the fact that the economic connections between the US and Saudi-Arabia are too close.
So you have to use diplomatic means as unsuccessful and difficult they may be. And that towards the country that seems to be the centre of the conspiracy.
Towards Iraq such considerations didn´t play a role since it was too unimportant. Even the WMD programs where. So, the main purpose of this war seems to be to sent a warning shot towards Iran and North Korea. Though up till know it hasn´t caused the intended results.
So given the foreign policy strategy it might be necessary to go for the next preventive strike soon.

No, Germany gave Japan some Uranium....hardly a bomb.
Germany never had a bomb. Although of Otto Hahn and Fritz Stratman who made very successful experiments regarding the research on uranium Germany didn´t invest in this technology. It prefered the rockets. At the end there were such "wonder" rockets like the V1, V2, e.g. who didn´t work out. There was not enough time left for the research. But one of the constructors - von Braun - was actually later one leading scientists at the US moon program.
The scientific experience of the time was certainly helpful.
Actually neither Japan or Germany used WMD during the war in fear of simular reprisels.

YOu are right! We do have a habit of rebuilding things that we destroyed with bombs. Us and Great Britain are doing what we can to help rebuild and that is the big difference between US and our enemies.The rebuilding is a requirement under the Geneva Conventions. However, the US has a secondary motive and that is to profit by taking over Iraqi businesses through Bremer's Orders. It is a great win/lose situation. :eek:

I'm not saying that diplomatic relations didn't exist. They exist in some form with all countries, even with Cuba, Iran, and Myanmar, which the US doesn't even recognize as legitamite governments. But I don't know what was talked under these diplomatic relations.
The US company Unocal had actually negotiations with the Taliban administration till the begining of 2001. It was about a possible pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan. Would have been an alternative to the pipeline through Iran or future pipeline projects going that way.
Currently most of those pipelines are going through Russia. That has problematic aspects: Russia could become to powerful. The Russian aim is actually to become an energy super-power.
For that reason for example european countries have started a dialogue with Iran in the 1990s.
Well: the US didn´t like that idea but it saw the problem as well. So it had certain contacts to the Taliban administration. For such things you don´t need direct diplomatic relations. You could do it via Pakistan. The Taliban had an ambassador there.
Most developed countries had in some way some contacts to the Taliban via the Pakistan. As far as I remember the Taliban even had a small diplomatic delegation visiting the US at the begining of 2001.
Well that was probably shortly before they destroyed the Buddahs at Bamian province. That led to a further isolation of the Taliban regime since even islamic countries condemned it.

He had cities leveled to force a quicker surrender, rather than try to actually fight. Same with the other two, and Mao, while we're at it.
I would like to know to what you actually refer to.
Of course: no dicator has to take collateral damges into account, especially not on the side of the enemy. And given the political aims involved in his war it was actually in the most of its interests - especially towards Poland or Russia to cause maximum damage and casualties on the other side.
Regarding his commands he gave as commander-in-chief he rejected any surrender. For example for the 6 th army at Stalingrad who was already encircled by the Russians and an attempt to break it failed in 1943. He rejected the request of General Paulus to surrender with his 6 th army although there was no chance of getting them freed. And of course Paulus obeyed. Caused much more unnecessary bloodshed, because they lost of course.
After that the administration declared the "total war" (Goebbels) and gave the order to leave "burned earth" behind on the territories in the east they had to leave step by step.
He actually gave the same order when the soviet troops already reached german territory for mainland Germany. That was in the last months: and that was finally an order which was not obeyed, fortunatelly.
But he actually wished his country to go down and end to exist if the "East people" (Soviets) should win. So you could argue that he was a traitor.
At least he killed himself at the end of it not like Saddam, who was hiding in his whole. That was certainly more cowardly.

If you follow that logic, wouldn´t it be logical to invade Saudi-Arabia?

Not unless it is proven that Saudi Arabia DIRECTLY supported or condoned the actions of terrorists.

However, I personally think they do and that the bombs should fly there as well, but I don't make those decisions.

Regarding his commands he gave as commander-in-chief he rejected any surrender.

He did make some smart and strategic surrenders, allowing Rommel to retreat after Alamein (admittedly, after first refusing to allow a withdrawal), or finally recognizing Army Group B was a shadow force and not trying to hold the Seine/Marne line.

He rejected the request of General Paulus to surrender with his 6 th division although there was no chance of getting them freed. And of course Paulus obeyed. Caused much more unnecessary bloodshed, because they lost of course.

It was his 6th Army, not 6th Division, and Paulus did not strictly obey, for while he held out longer then he wanted, he still did surrender the remnants of the 6th Army, and what infuriated Hitler even more, himself to the Soviets. And not all of Hitler's "Stay behind and fight" decisions were bad, his "fortresses" like Breslau, Konigsberg, and Vienna seriously slowed the Soviet advance, and fortresses in the West like Lorient, Dunkurque, and Calais were extremely effective at disrupting Allied supply (Dunkurque surrendered May 9th, Calais had fallen shortly before, these two in particular cold have seriously alleviated the supply situation facing Allied Command).

Not unless it is proven that Saudi Arabia DIRECTLY supported or condoned the actions of terrorists. . Did Iraq directly support or condon the actions of those terrorists? There were other reasons for it, mainly geostrategic reasons and the assumption that it would be a good warning shot to others, like Iran, North Korea and Syria.
However, I personally think they do and that the bombs should fly there as well, but I don't make those decisions.
And then? 10% of the worlds oil production cut off - the continuation of terrorism and very likely continuing attacks and sabotage on the pipelines like in Iraq and an even bigger crisis in the worlds energy sector.
Aside of the fact that it is estimated that Saudi-Arabia has invested about 1 trillion Dollar in the US. In the case of an confrontation they would certainly been removed.
The world is not that easy.
Especially not in a region were anti-americanism has reached all time highs. Even in a country like Jordan (99% according to the Pew institute).

And not all of Hitler's "Stay behind and fight" decisions were bad, his "fortresses" like Breslau, Konigsberg, and Vienna seriously slowed the Soviet advance, and fortresses in the West like Lorient, Dunkurque, and Calais were extremely effective at disrupting Allied supply (Dunkurque surrendered May 9th, Calais had fallen shortly before, these two in particular cold have seriously alleviated the supply situation facing Allied Command).
They were not all bad from a military viewpoint. Neither from a political one: I mean who really cares about it in another country anyway.
The other question however is whether it is a good thing to fight a war till the bitter end although it was clear that it is going to be lost. That is only causing more casualties and damages and makes the reconstruction afterwards more difficult. One reason there was actually an uprising against Hitler on July 20, 1944 by high generals (led by Stauffenberg) and a little bomb in his headquarter. Well, he was lucky again, just injured not dead and the uprising failed.
So the war was fought out till the end: that just caused a few million more casualties and more destruction but at least there was no place for a new stab-in-the-back-legend.

Did Iraq directly support or condon the actions of those terrorists? There were other reasons for it, mainly geostrategic reasons and the assumption that it would be a good warning shot to others, like Iran, North Korea and Syria.

And then? 10% of the worlds oil production cut off - the continuation of terrorism and very likely continuing attacks and sabotage on the pipelines like in Iraq and an even bigger crisis in the worlds energy sector.
Aside of the fact that it is estimated that Saudi-Arabia has invested about 1 trillion Dollar in the US. In the case of an confrontation they would certainly been removed.
The world is not that easy.
Especially not in a region were anti-americanism has reached all time highs. Even in a country like Jordan (99% according to the Pew institute).

Actually Saddam DID fund Palestinian terrorists so there is no reason to doubt that he did not monetarily support others. PLUS there were known terrorists inside Iraq as well. So while we do not have ACTUAL proof, there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the assertion that he was.

Yes, taking out Saudi Arabia would be a mistake, but I do feel they are in it up to their necks as well.

Actually Saddam DID fund Palestinian terrorists so there is no reason to doubt that he did not monetarily support others. PLUS there were known terrorists inside Iraq as well. So while we do not have ACTUAL proof, there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the assertion that he was.

Yes, taking out Saudi Arabia would be a mistake, but I do feel they are in it up to their necks as well.He funded the familes, not the terrorists. This is not direct, but the USA also funds terrorists indirectly.

He funded the familes, not the terrorists. This is not direct, but the USA also funds terrorists indirectly.

By funding the families he encouraged the terrorism. Would those morons blow themselves up if they knew their families would not be taken care of? I doubt it.

So how does the US fund terrorism?

Yes, taking out Saudi Arabia would be a mistake, but I do feel they are in it up to their necks as well.
Given the publicly available information they are actually much more involved in this kind of business than Iraq ever was. Saudi-Arabia actually seems to be the centre of this conspiracy. And that the government there had no knowledge and did everything to prevent the terrorists movements is a fairy tale: they may not knew what they were up to, but they knew the existed and they tolerated them. Thats obvious.

Given the publicly available information they are actually much more involved in this kind of business than Iraq ever was. Saudi-Arabia actually seems to be the centre of this conspiracy. And that the government there had no knowledge and did everything to prevent the terrorists movements is a fairy tale: they may not knew what they were up to, but they knew the existed and they tolerated them. Thats obvious.

I agree...but it looks like they will be eaten by the monster they created though. I think we will be in there before too much longer to either prop up their government or to squash the new one.

By funding the families he encouraged the terrorism. Would those morons blow themselves up if they knew their families would not be taken care of? I doubt it.
I´m not so shure about that. Those people don´t act that way for monetary reasons. They really believe in that: they were indoctrinated. And it is not the case that the families are getting rich with it.
The main thing is actually the respect and the support they get from the community. The family is seen as heros.
And that you can´t change with or without money.
To change that a solution for the problem would be necessary. A palestinian state which should be pressured to crack down on terrorism.
If needed - why not getting the US involved in that and taking care about it. I mean the US is already present in the region and the palestinian territories are relatively small. But that would of course mean that the US would need to put some pressure on Israel as well because they have rejected third-party involvement up till now.

Actually the biggest humnitarian organisation acting in Palestine is Hamas.
Hamas gets a lot of prestige from its humanitarian organisation. If nobody else helps the palestinians, the terrorists will.

I´m not so shure about that. Those people don´t act that way for monetary reasons. They really believe in that: they were indoctrinated. And it is not the case that the families are getting rich with it.
The main thing is actually the respect and the support they get from the community. The family is seen as heros.
And that you can´t change with or without money.
To change that a solution for the problem would be necessary. A palestinian state which should be pressured to crack down on terrorism.
If needed - why not getting the US involved in that and taking care about it. I mean the US is already present in the region and the palestinian territories are relatively small. But that would of course mean that the US would need to put some pressure on Israel as well because they have rejected third-party involvement up till now.

Well...the Palestinians were offered 90% of what they wanted and Arafat (that Nobel Peace Prize winner :rolleyes: ) rejected it. So thats why we have what we have now. Hussein was rewarding the families, pure and simple. Why the Palestinians do not realize that they are being used by their Arab "brothers" is a mystery to me. They are pretty smart though, keep the Palestinians fighting the Jews and they won't fight you.

Actually the biggest humnitarian organisation acting in Palestine is Hamas.
Hamas gets a lot of prestige from its humanitarian organisation. If nobody else helps the palestinians, the terrorists will.

Thats true, now if they would only stop trying to kill others they might actually get somewhere.

In the latest news, Monday President bush admits he can't win the war against terrorism.

Bush sought to emphazise the economy-- New Hamspire's appears to be on the rebound--- but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention.
In an interview on NBC TV's "today:" show Bush vowed to stay the course on the watr on terror, saying perseverence in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.
Asked, "Can we win the war?" Bush said, " I don't think you can win the it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ---those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Democrats, looking for ways to deflect the spolight from the Republicans as they opened their convention in New York, pounced.

Afger months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on a singluar ability to wih the war on terror, the President says we can't win the the war on terror, said Democratic vice President candidate John Edwarsds, " This is no time to admit defeat."

So what do you think? Is Bush flip-flopping all those times he said we are winning the war against terror? Does Bush know what he is saying?
Democrats jumped on this fast, but I wonder if Bush is hurting his convention since its mainly emphasizes strong leadership on war against terror.

It is impossible to win the war on terror no matter how many you shoot, bomb or imprison, there will still be those out there who hate you. weird ay?

Thats true, now if they would only stop trying to kill others they might actually get somewhere.No they wouldn't. Nobody has helped them in the last 50 years. Why would that change suddently?

No they wouldn't. Nobody has helped them in the last 50 years. Why would that change suddently?

Why do their Arab "brothers" not help them?

Arafat blew it big time when he turned Rabin down. He could have a state now, but he is a terrorist and does not know HOW to live in peace. Eventually the Israelis will tire of them and finally wipe them all out.

Funny thing is, the Israelis would not even have the West bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights if the Arabs had just left them alone.

Why do their Arab "brothers" not help them?

Arafat blew it big time when he turned Rabin down. He could have a state now, but he is a terrorist and does not know HOW to live in peace. Eventually the Israelis will tire of them and finally wipe them all out.

Funny thing is, the Israelis would not even have the West bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights if the Arabs had just left them alone.This is the over way around. The palestinians would have all of the land if the israelis left them alone.

This is the over way around. The palestinians would have all of the land if the israelis left them alone.

Ya think? Well...we could always argue over who was there first, which is a joke because neither side was. The jews killed the original people there, but that was a LONG time ago. But they are not going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians, so they need to work something out.

Ya think? Well...we could always argue over who was there first, which is a joke because neither side was. The jews killed the original people there, but that was a LONG time ago. But they are not going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians, so they need to work something out.
And that's the problem, you see? The fault lies in neither side. Everybody is just protecting his own interest.

And that's the problem, you see? The fault lies in neither side. Everybody is just protecting his own interest.

Thats right....however, the difference is that the Palestinian groups want to kill all the Jews. They cannot be reasoned with and they really blew their one chance to have a state of their own. Arafat is a moron and once he is gone things might get better.

Well...the Palestinians were offered 90% of what they wanted and Arafat (that Nobel Peace Prize winner :rolleyes: ) rejected it. So thats why we have what we have now. Hussein was rewarding the families, pure and simple. Why the Palestinians do not realize that they are being used by their Arab "brothers" is a mystery to me. They are pretty smart though, keep the Palestinians fighting the Jews and they won't fight you.
What was about East Jerusalem.
Things are not that easy. Look at Japan and Russia. Japan is still insisting on the return of four little islands.
It would certainly be so much easier if no other parties from the Arab world would infer in that conflict. On the other hand an involvement of Egypt or Jordan could have positive effects.
Regarding Baraks peace initiative: You tend to forget that he had no backing of the Israeli parliament when he did it. And given the behaviour the settlement movement is showing they would not accept any settlement with the palestinians. So therer are parties in Israel as well who aren´t interested in a settlement. Rabin was after all killed for his readiness to negotiate with the palestinians.

What was about East Jerusalem.
Things are not that easy. Look at Japan and Russia. Japan is still insisting on the return of four little islands.
It would certainly be so much easier if no other parties from the Arab world would infer in that conflict. On the other hand an involvement of Egypt or Jordan could have positive effects.
Regarding Baraks peace initiative: You tend to forget that he had no backing of the Israeli parliament when he did it. And given the behaviour the settlement movement is showing they would not accept any settlement with the palestinians. So therer are parties in Israel as well who aren´t interested in a settlement. Rabin was after all killed for his readiness to negotiate with the palestinians.

Thats true. I think in the end the Israelis will become fed up with the whole situation and just decide to wipe the Palestinians out once and for all. They have the power to, and if pushed enough I am sure they will.

Thats right....however, the difference is that the Palestinian groups want to kill all the Jews. They cannot be reasoned with and they really blew their one chance to have a state of their own. Arafat is a moron and once he is gone things might get better.Exactly in the same way the zionist extremists want to blow up the palestinians. The difference is that the zionist extremists are supported by the government.
Don't forget Israel was founded by terrorism.

Thats true. I think in the end the Israelis will become fed up with the whole situation and just decide to wipe the Palestinians out once and for all. They have the power to, and if pushed enough I am sure they will.
No they don't have that power.

you want to know why he admitted this?

it was because it was during an interview and he didnt have his answeres scripted for him and in front of him, or he forgot what the puppet master told him to say, becuase if you notice the very next day he says he can win the war on terror again during an RNC speech

Exactly in the same way the zionist extremists want to blow up the palestinians. The difference is that the zionist extremists are supported by the government.
Don't forget Israel was founded by terrorism.

Well, lets look at WHY Israel was founded. Holocaust victims were pretty much run out of Europe after WWII and they had to go somewhere. Where do people go during or after a tragic event? they go "home." What is the traditional homeland of the Jews? Israel. So thats where they went. The british tried to keep them out, so they fought them. The Arabs tried to destroy them, so they fought them too. On the day they declared themselves a nation they were attacked by the Arabs. Now, 50+ years later the European countries that did not want to Jews after WWII side against them in the UN all the time. The Arabs still fight them and only the US helps them out. If not for the Israeli army, the Arabs would slaughter all of the Jews.

No they don't have that power.

Actually they do....the have nuclear weapons and have had them for many years. If they really wanted to , they could easily destroy the Palestinians with or without their nukes.

Thats true. I think in the end the Israelis will become fed up with the whole situation and just decide to wipe the Palestinians out once and for all. They have the power to, and if pushed enough I am sure they will.
And that would be then the "final solution"?
That word is rather coming from another historic context to which I don´t want to link the events today in any way because it would be inapropiate.
Ethnic cleansing is not a policy I can condone. Milosevic is going to be punished for that and that is right.
Israel shouldn´t do that. Aside of the fact: where should the palestinians go? - destabilising the neighbouring countries as refugees? Willing new recruits of the islamic movement in those countries?
What "solution" is that?
It isn´t any solution - that would just be another step towards the clash of civilisations - as Huntington predicted it however with a ?.
That would certainly not be a step into the stabilisation of the Arab and broder muslim world.
If it is not possible to differentiate between terrorists and extremist and among ordenary people - being them Arab or Palestinian or other muslim or whatever - than such a clash is unavoidable. But than the enemy would be Islam and its 1 billion followers.

Well, lets look at WHY Israel was founded. Holocaust victims were pretty much run out of Europe after WWII and they had to go somewhere. Where do people go during or after a tragic event? they go "home." What is the traditional homeland of the Jews? Israel. So thats where they went. The british tried to keep them out, so they fought them. The Arabs tried to destroy them, so they fought them too. On the day they declared themselves a nation they were attacked by the Arabs. Now, 50+ years later the European countries that did not want to Jews after WWII side against them in the UN all the time. The Arabs still fight them and only the US helps them out. If not for the Israeli army, the Arabs would slaughter all of the Jews.
Are you aware zionism pre-dates WW2?

Actually they do....the have nuclear weapons and have had them for many years. If they really wanted to , they could easily destroy the Palestinians with or without their nukes.Then they would trigger a worldwide ban on everything that's israeli and they would colapse.

But than the enemy would be Islam and its 1 billion followers.


Watch this space in 5 years.....

Are you aware zionism pre-dates WW2?

Yes, but it was the Jews from Europe that tipped the balance....

Watch this space in 5 years.....
What does that mean?

Then they would trigger a worldwide ban on everything that's israeli and they would colapse.

You think so? The US is really their only major trading partner and I doubt we would go that far. They are fighting for thir lives and defense sometimes takes the form of offensive measures.

What does that mean?

I predict that in 5 years, radical Muslims will be in positions of power in all the major Arab states and then it will become a clash of religions for them.

Of course I have no way to back this up, but it is a gut feeling that I have had for awhile. Saudi Arabia is unstable, Jordan has a HUGE Palestinian population that is restless, Syria might hold out longer but will eventually fall to religious fanatics. Iran is building nukes and they are hardly tolerant. Iraq has a fledgling government that may or may not survive. It is a close call but pakistan is close to going that way too. Indonesia is as well. So watch and see.

Well, lets look at WHY Israel was founded. Holocaust victims were pretty much run out of Europe after WWII and they had to go somewhere. Where do people go during or after a tragic event? they go "home." What is the traditional homeland of the Jews? Israel. So thats where they went. The british tried to keep them out, so they fought them. The Arabs tried to destroy them, so they fought them too. On the day they declared themselves a nation they were attacked by the Arabs. Now, 50+ years later the European countries that did not want to Jews after WWII side against them in the UN all the time. The Arabs still fight them and only the US helps them out. If not for the Israeli army, the Arabs would slaughter all of the Jews.
From a palestinian perspective things would look differently. The British administered that territory. The took it away from the Ottoman Empire just as they took away other territories.
In 1917 the British foreign minister Balfour declared that it should become the land of the jews (Balfour declaration) paving the way for the first wave of jewish immigration (- the zionists movement already existed at that time and they were rallying support for a jewish state in Palestine since the begining of the 20 th century - the British were the only one supporting it).
That of course led after a few years to tension with the existing population. So the British limitted the immigration during the 1930s.
But after 1945 there was the next wave of jewish immigration. Yes, there was the Holocausts - but what had the Arabs or the Palestinians to do with it?
Anyway: those european migrants immigrated to the country, formed quickly organisation and with the help of western countries just claimed parts of the land founding their state: Al Nakba - the catastrophy is the palestinian word to the foundation of the state of Israel.
They tried to destroy it (with their arab brothers) and failed, and failed and failed. Israel by the way received at that time much support from the "evil" Europeans. In 1956 Britain and France even occupied the Suez channel.
From 1952 Germany paid compensation which was partly used for the buildup of the Israeli military.
There was even some degree of military cooperation between the Israel and Germany - a political sensitive issue but it was there. Aside of the fact that Israel has a very close military cooperation with Turkey.
The change of public opinion in Europe actually happened during the 6-day war in which Israel conqured not just the West bank and Gaza but also the Golan Heights and the Sinai, expanding the territory it controlled by three time. Now, Israel was more and more seen as an occupying power.
Well, an occupying powers aren´t usually very popular.

Now, Israel was more and more seen as an occupying power. Well, an occupying powers aren´t usually very popular.

All true....but Israel is such a small area and they would not even be IN those places if they had been left alone.

I predict that in 5 years, radical Muslims will be in positions of power in all the major Arab states and then it will become a clash of religions for them.
Of course I have no way to back this up, but it is a gut feeling that I have had for awhile. Saudi Arabia is unstable, Jordan has a HUGE Palestinian population that is restless, Syria might hold out longer but will eventually fall to religious fanatics. Iran is building nukes and they are hardly tolerant. Iraq has a fledgling government that may or may not survive. It is a close call but pakistan is close to going that way too. Indonesia is as well. So watch and see.
That thread is real: though those governments have means to keep their people down. Think of Algeria: they prevented the fundamentalists take power although they won an election in 1991. The military in Algeria plays in that sense a simular role than in Turkey. Atatürks reforms wouldn´t have been possible without the gun. And with Nationalism. He was able to gain back territories from Greece and by denying the Kurds independence.
One question certainly is how to get this movement down. But I doubt that it can be archieved only by the use of force.
And how can reformist goverments like in Jordan or Egypt can be helped and stabilized. And for that some steps in the Israeli-palestinian conflict would be helpful. The withdrawl plan of Scharon actually goes in the right direction.

That thread is real: though those governments have means to keep their people down. Think of Algeria: they prevented the fundamentalists take power although they won an election in 1991. The military in Algeria plays in that sense a simular role than in Turkey. Atatürks reforms wouldn´t have been possible without the gun. And with Nationalism. He was able to gain back territories from Greece and by denying the Kurds independence.
One question certainly is how to get this movement down. But I doubt that it can be archieved only by the use of force.
And how can reformist goverments like in Jordan or Egypt can be helped and stabilized. And for that some steps in the Israeli-palestinian conflict would be helpful. The withdrawl plan of Scharon actually goes in the right direction.

I don't think it can be stopped. Iran and Syria (Lebanon) will do everything they can to keep the heat on. Pakistan is very close to going that route, there are too many people in positions of power that want that for it to be avoided for much longer.

Saudi Arabia will fall in a few years and that will be the crux that will cause all the others to go as well.

I think in time that the invasion of Iraq will be seen as a good thing as it will give the US a stepping off point to try and reverse the trend.

I don't think it can be stopped. Iran and Syria (Lebanon) will do everything they can to keep the heat on. Pakistan is very close to going that route, there are too many people in positions of power that want that for it to be avoided for much longer.

Saudi Arabia will fall in a few years and that will be the crux that will cause all the others to go as well.

I think in time that the invasion of Iraq will be seen as a good thing as it will give the US a stepping off point to try and reverse the trend.Like it did when France invaded Algeria?

Like it did when France invaded Algeria?

No...France was trying to retain a colony. The US is establishing a better form of government that the despot that was in charge.

All true....but Israel is such a small area and they would not even be IN those places if they had been left alone.
Israel is in a very difficult position. I refer to Huntington who pointed out that Israel is a cultural allion in the region.
There are other countries who also have problems like Ethopia in Africa or Japan (they are part of East Asia but were not influenced by Konfuzianism, they have they specific japanese culture), or Turkey (on the one hand a deeply muslim country on the other the desire of parts of the elites to lead it into the west) or potentially even Russia (since Peter, the great who wanted to modernize the country (by taking over western elements). President Putin sees himself in that tradition - he is also from St. Petersburg). Or Armenia - almot surounded by muslim neighbours and with bad relations to Azerbaidshan and Turkey and there is the Nagorny Karabach dispute.
Well: I don´t want to go to much into detail of that. But during World War I the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) massacred about 2 million Armenians.

Certainly Israel is in the most difficult position: surrounded by enemies, occupying territories. Territorie with a fast growing population. If Israel remains in all of those territories it has in a few years a population there that exceeds the population of the state of Israel.
And if that drags on for longer this Arab (Palestinian) majority would become even higher due to the high population growth of that community.
So, the palestinians might loose any interests (if they ever had) in getting a seperate state. They could aim to take over that one: by simply demanding citizenship rights.
That could lead to the end of the existence of Israel as a jewish state.
So quite frankly spoken it is in the highest interests of Israel to get somehow rid of those territories. Even Scharon sees that. And it can´t be said that he is a dove or a peace-loving idealists. He is one of the most hawkish politicians actually. But obviously there are still some people who are so ideologic that they don´t get what he is trying to do: to get a seperation in order to secure the existence of Israel as a jewish state.

No...France was trying to retain a colony. The US is establishing a better form of government that the despot that was in charge.
Wasn't that despot installed by the US in the first place?

Israel is in a very difficult position. I refer to Huntington who pointed out that Israel is a cultural allion in the region.
There are other countries who also have problems like Ethopia in Africa or Japan (they are part of East Asia but were not influenced by Konfuzianism, they have they specific japanese culture), or Turkey (on the one hand a deeply muslim country on the other the desire of parts of the elites to lead it into the west) or potentially even Russia (since Peter, the great who wanted to modernize the country (by taking over western elements). President Putin sees himself in that tradition - he is also from St. Petersburg). Or Armenia - almot surounded by muslim neighbours and with bad relations to Azerbaidshan and Turkey and there is the Nagorny Karabach dispute.
Well: I don´t want to go to much into detail of that. But during World War I the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) massacred about 2 million Armenians.

Certainly Israel is in the most difficult position: surrounded by enemies, occupying territories. Territorie with a fast growing population. If Israel remains in all of those territories it has in a few years a population there that exceeds the population of the state of Israel.
And if that drags on for longer this Arab (Palestinian) majority would become even higher due to the high population growth of that community.
So, the palestinians might loose any interests (if they ever had) in getting a seperate state. They could aim to take over that one: by simply demanding citizenship rights.
That could lead to the end of the existence of Israel as a jewish state.
So quite frankly spoken it is in the highest interests of Israel to get somehow rid of those territories. Even Scharon sees that. And it can´t be said that he is a dove or a peace-loving idealists. He is one of the most hawkish politicians actually. But obviously there are still some people who are so ideologic that they don´t get what he is trying to do: to get a seperation in order to secure the existence of Israel as a jewish state.

Very astute observation. You are well informed on many issues.

Wasn't that despot installed by the US in the first place?

A common misconception. He took over from his cousin who was in charge before him.

A common misconception. He took over from his cousin who was in charge before him.
He was helped by the CIA.

He was helped by the CIA.

Ok, you are going to have to show me something on this one.

what's that? War on Terrr you say?

He was helped by the CIA.

I hope you are looking because I would really like to see some sort of proof of this one. The CIA did help him when he was fighting against Iran, but the CIA did not help him take power.

Nope...Hitler attacked Russia before the US was in WWII. England and Russia could have taken Hitler out. As for the Atom bomb....doubtful that Germany would have created it. They really were not going anywhere with their program.

Your comment about england and russia is nonsense, without america's help we would most definitely have fallen to hitler (britain) and not 'taken him out' (what an awful expression), as for russia, even if they did finish finish off hitler, they would have taken a significantly larger role in europe afterwards and that would not have been a good thing for america overall (who knows how far stalin's influence may have reached?). Overall i think your comment about Germany's nuclear weapon program is unfounded, especially seeing as they would have had more influence after conquering britain (if the US didn't get involved).

Back on topic, at least Bush is admitting the impossible isn't possible, seeing as 'terrorism' cannot be described validly as a single entity, and will definitely be impossible to handle if feelings about america continue to deteriorate in the middle east. (Not that this absolves him of his past indiscretions.)

I hope you are looking because I would really like to see some sort of proof of this one. The CIA did help him when he was fighting against Iran, but the CIA did not help him take power.No I'm not looking. I hoped someone would do it for me as I'm a lazy guy.
It doesn't matter though. The point was that the US will create a big mess there if they continue in this path.

I don't think it can be stopped. Iran and Syria (Lebanon) will do everything they can to keep the heat on. Pakistan is very close to going that route, there are too many people in positions of power that want that for it to be avoided for much longer.
Saudi Arabia will fall in a few years and that will be the crux that will cause all the others to go as well.
I think in time that the invasion of Iraq will be seen as a good thing as it will give the US a stepping off point to try and reverse the trend.
If Saudi Arabia would fall that would indeed be very dangerous since they have a lot of influence due to their high financial abilities.
But it is not that easy to overthrow a government: The Islamists in Egypt have failed to do that since more than 20 years. So, I wouldn´t give up so soon.
And Syria is a dictatorship: but it is certainly not an islamists country. They use to bomb down the city which was the stronghold of Islamism. Those forces are the enemies even of them.
The Syrian leadership are Alevites a group in Sunni islam which is seen by others as unfaithful. By the way a group which is also strong in the Turkish military. So, an sunni fundamentalists state is not in their interests because it is likely that this group would be targeted actually. One reason Syria is actually pretty much an outcast in the region is its leadership. And one reason they also sided with shiite Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
Interestingly Syria has improved its relationship with Turkey which was damaged due to the fact that they gave for a while safe harbour to Öcalan (PKK)- well, till 1999.
This improve relationship between Turkey and Syria can help. Except of course that you assume that Turkey is also going that way?

Shure Iraq is a good base - it would be even more if it be more stable.
It is geostrategically very well situated. Iran surrounded from west and east, Syria in the west, Saudi-Arabia in the south.
And Saudi-Arabia wasn´t any more a stable base for the US.
The WMD issue was just the bureaucratic reason. At least Wolfowitz was honest enough to admitt it.
It was a geostrategic decision to prepare for eventual things which may happen in the future.

But you can be shure: with this argumentation the coalition of the willing would have been even much smaller and it would have been difficult to push this through Congress.
So there was the need well - how to say it - to exagerate the thread of WMD a bit.
That such a policy is not helping the credibility of a government abroad and domestically is clear.
But you have to judge that yourself.
I thought it would have been better if the US wouldn´t have made those exageration and would have done it with a smaller coalition or alone. That wouldn´t change much anyway. Aside Britain no country has deployed a significant number of troops to Iraq anyway. And that won´t change for a while.

Your comment about england and russia is nonsense, without america's help we would most definitely have fallen to hitler (britain) and not 'taken him out' (what an awful expression), as for russia, even if they did finish finish off hitler, they would have taken a significantly larger role in europe afterwards and that would not have been a good thing for america overall (who knows how far stalin's influence may have reached?). Overall i think your comment about Germany's nuclear weapon program is unfounded, especially seeing as they would have had more influence after conquering britain (if the US didn't get involved).

Back on topic, at least Bush is admitting the impossible isn't possible, seeing as 'terrorism' cannot be described validly as a single entity, and will definitely be impossible to handle if feelings about america continue to deteriorate in the middle east. (Not that this absolves him of his past indiscretions.)

I am constantly amazed at how many people feel that the Germans could or would have created their own nuclear weapons. Given that the scientists who DID create it were in the US BEFORE WWII started I cannot see how Germany could have done so. Since they had not even built a reactor before the war ended shows that there was no effort to do so. They put their hopes in their "wonder weapons" the V-1 and V-2.

No I'm not looking. I hoped someone would do it for me as I'm a lazy guy. It doesn't matter though. The point was that the US will create a big mess there if they continue in this path.

You might be right, but only time will tell.

You might be right, but only time will tell.How much time will tell?

But you can be shure: with this argumentation the coalition of the willing would have been even much smaller and it would have been difficult to push this through Congress. So there was the need well - how to say it - to exagerate the thread of WMD a bit. That such a policy is not helping the credibility of a government abroad and domestically is clear. But you have to judge that yourself. I thought it would have been better if the US wouldn´t have made those exageration and would have done it with a smaller coalition or alone. That wouldn´t change much anyway. Aside Britain no country has deployed a significant number of troops to Iraq anyway. And that won´t change for a while.

I think you are onto something there and now i see someone else sees it. people tend to think about the "here and now" and not see the coming trends. That the US acted unilaterally to bring about change in Iraq did ruffle a lot of feathers, but so what. People are always going to complain about something.

Now, given the overall global ramifications of what would happen if radical Islamic states were to take hold in the middle east it would be far better to take action before that happens than after. The loss of life will be a lot less. I just wonder if by doing so we really changed that obvious course?