NationStates Jolt Archive

How much time will tell?

Give it 5 years and see how Iraq is then. It took 40 years to bring Germany around so why do people think Iraq can be completed in a matter of weeks?

Give it 5 years and see how Iraq is then. It took 40 years to bring Germany around so why do people think Iraq can be completed in a matter of weeks?You know what? People don't think Iraq can be completed in a matter of weeks. That is why people opposed the war.

You know what? People don't think Iraq can be completed in a matter of weeks. That is why people opposed the war.

Of course I am basing my statement on what I see here in the US. People here are wondering why we have not pulled the troops out of Iraq by now. :rolleyes:

Sadly, most of my fellow countrymen have never been anywhere and I fault them for that. I spent 2 1/2 years in the middle east and have SOME general knowledge of the area and the people there. I am by no means an expert and would NEVER consider myself one, but I do have some personal knowledge of the area and the politics there.

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).

Even Napoleon was not ably to conquor Britain. You also miss the fact that Hitlers ambitions were going eastward.
On reason for the Appeasement policy was after all the assumption that Hitler could play a counter-balance to the Soviets.
You probably now of Rapallo (1922): a contract signed between Germany and the Soviets. In a secret protocoll it allowed Germany to develop some of its military programs within the Soviet Union in exchange for technology. That cooperation continued till 1933. The german foreign policy strategy was to play East and west against each other. At the time of the Weimar Republic the aim was limitted only to reverse parts of the Versailles treaty.
Hitler used that strategy for his expansionist and hegemonial ideas to rule over Europe and to finally start his genocidal dreams.
In 1934 Germany signed an non-agression pact with Poland for 10 years (a thing a government before never would have done). That was giving the message to Britain and France that Germany would play the role of counter-balance towards the Soviets.
Because of that Britain and France were making concessions in 1936 and 1938. However he went too far then - or rather he saw that now a short-term alliance with the Soviets was more benefical. So he signed a non-agression pact with the Soviets in 1939. That of course included a secret protocoll regarding the division of Eastern Europe between the Soviet Union and Germany.
So in 1939 Germany invaded Poland from one side and when they were finished the Soviets took away East Poland (which they never got back by the way - the were compensated in 1945 with East Germany ( a third of the German territory of Versailles by the way). So: after that 5 million Poles were forced to leave East Poland and to make place for them 12 million Germans were forced to leave East Germany (East Germang being defined at that time as the territory east of the Oder and the Nysa (spelling) which today marks the border between Germany and Poland - that what was refered to be as East Germany was called Middle Germany till the end of the 60s here - Explaines some tensions and problems in the bilateral relations in Europe today. Though Germany has given up demands to get back those territory in the 1970s and finally binding for the united country in 1990.)

Hitler prime intentions were directed eastward. The Soviets actually asked him in 1940 why they still have so many troops in Poland while they were supposed to invade Britain. The answer was: the just take a rest.
Well: the Soviets were quite aware that this was of course nonsense and that it was logic to assume that Germany might start an invasion of the Soviet Union. They were even prewarned by spies in Tokio about it (since the Japanese were informed about the planned attack - though didn´t join it from the east which the regime hoped for).
Stalin however rejected to take any precaution, not even to sent more troops to the border region or setting them on alert. That was one point Chrustshev and others correctly blamed Stalin for during the period of destalinisation.
The question really is why Stalin acted that way. Naivity, stupidity, ignorance of facts? It is a mystery. But this soviet policy allowed Germany actually to have an easy go through Russia in 1941 till the winter broke out.
And then there was the Napoleon problem.
From that time onward the front didn´t move deeper into Russia. They were able to reorganize.
So, this war wasn´t a Blitzkrieg anymore. And from their ressources Britain and Russia were stronger than Germany. Simular constelation like during world war I. And this time there was no way for Russia to make a seperate peace like in 1918. This time the German aim was to eliminate them.
The American participation certainly made the war faster and prevented a Soviet occupation of even more parts of Europe.
Even more people would have died without American intervention.
But if we speculate it is still more likely that Britain and the Soviets would have won it.
After all: America was from the begining of it selling you weapons, like during world war I.


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).

No he is right: The regime didn´t believe in that technology. They invested into rockets (wonder weapons) who weren´t that good though at that time. Though one of the planers of those programs - von Braun - was certainly able to benefit from the tests at that time when he contributed to the space program of the US.

Even Napoleon was not ably to conquor Britain. You also miss the fact that Hitlers ambitions were going eastward.

You are right, he didn't want to conquer Britain, but he did want to defeat them, so they wouldn't be a nuisance or threat anymore. He thought his Continental Empire could peacefully co-exist with Britain's Maritime Empire, he was wrong.


The American participation certainly made the war faster and prevented a Soviet occupation of even more parts of Europe.
Even more people would have died without American intervention.
But if we speculate it is still more likely that Britain and the Soviets would have won it.
After all: America was from the begining of it selling you weapons, like during world war I.

However without US participation, Britain stands a good chance of losing the Battle of the Atlantic, and thus the war. Without America that means no B-25, or bases in the US, which fully closed the "Air Gap" in the North Atlantic, and the massive US Shipyards that ended up tipping the balance (By outbuilding, and better quality, than the losses), along with the USN, which allowed the creation of the Support Groups centered around Escort Carriers, of which almost all were built in the United States.

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.
How many people know about this strategic asumption? And I mean the generall public: so certainly why should nationals of other countries trust a foreign government - which the US is after all?
Aside of the fact that many would argue that the intervention rather strengthens the islamists and makes that development more likely and not less likely.


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?
You last sentence hits a very important point. How far is Iran actually with its nuclear program? Is is probably already too late.
Proliferation of WMDs is a problem especially since the end of the Cold War. There are no two super powers anymore who - although of their conflicts - had an common interests that those weapons don´t proliferate.
Thats gone: and whether the US alone can fill that gap can be questioned. That would requier a pax americana-strategy. And the resources of the US are limitted: you would need a draft for that for shure. Aside of the fact that time is working for proliferation, not against it.

the war on terror can never be won. true but the reason for this is not bush's policy's. it is the nature of terrorism. the only way he could possibly win is by pulling out of all islamic countries, stop supporting Israel, and pay reparations to the Taliban victims of the afghan war. if he did all of that we would more then likely still have bombings. just my two cents.

How many people know about this strategic asumption? And I mean the generall public: so certainly why should nationals of other countries trust a foreign government - which the US is after all?
Aside of the fact that many would argue that the intervention rather strengthens the islamists and makes that development more likely and not less likely.

I don't think people care very much really. They see things in the here and now and how it affects them personally. Maybe it does strenghten the Islamists, maybe it doesn't. Either way it gives them an area to focus their fight that is outside the US and that keeps them from fighting us here. Had Clinton been farsighted enough he could have taken the fight to them instead of allowing them to bring the fight here.

You last sentence hits a very important point. How far is Iran actually with its nuclear program? Is is probably already too late.
Proliferation of WMDs is a problem especially since the end of the Cold War. There are no two super powers anymore who - although of their conflicts - had an common interests that those weapons don´t proliferate.
Thats gone: and whether the US alone can fill that gap can be questioned. That would requier a pax americana-strategy. And the resources of the US are limitted: you would need a draft for that for shure. Aside of the fact that time is working for proliferation, not against it.

How far has Iran gotten? Who knows, but they will create a nuke and they will not hesitate to use it on Israel and THAT will start something that will engulf the whole region and spread throughout the world in short order.

What, you don't remember all that flap and fuss about Clinton trying to kaboom some fellow's camp... Osama bin Laden, that was it. Lot of people criticized him, said he shouldn't have done that - the dirty interventionist!

Some other folks said it demonstrated the limit of air/missile power - he should've sent group operatives - but everybody knew that if Clinton had done that and it had gone bad, the political repercussions would've been horrible.

So I guess it's a pity he didn't take the fight to the terroris- Oh, you mean to say Osama bin Laden is Osama bin Laden, the man cited as the mastermind of Al-Qaeda and the planner of the 2001 WTC planebombings?

Ohhh, I thought you said Clinton wasn't farsighted enough to take the fight to them.

I don't think people care very much really. They see things in the here and now and how it affects them personally. Maybe it does strenghten the Islamists, maybe it doesn't. Either way it gives them an area to focus their fight that is outside the US and that keeps them from fighting us here. Had Clinton been farsighted enough he could have taken the fight to them i
instead of allowing them to bring the fight here.
He was very farsighted because he tried to solve the conflict between Israel and the palestinians. A thing which was started actually by President Georg Herbert Walker Bush after the first gulf war. And a thing which needs to be done to stabilize the region. It simply needs to be done some day.
They have Afghanistan as well, they have Chechenya, they have other places.
The more reasonable critics would say: Why open a new front, when the other (Afghanistan) is far, far away from being stable?

How far has Iran gotten? Who knows, but they will create a nuke and they will not hesitate to use it on Israel and THAT will start something that will engulf the whole region and spread throughout the world in short order.
I doubt that for one simple reason. If Iran uses nukes they would face a simular reprisel.
This logic usually works. Even Hitler didn´t use biological and chemical weapons because of it.
A state and a state government has always a territory it wants to protect. Iran has a dictatorial government. But it is not completly irrational.

The main problem with a nuclear Iran is that it would push other countries to get nukes as well.
That is actually a development since the end of the cold war and the end of the bipolar world order: the proliferation of WMD. India and Pakistan were the first steps in this development. North Korea and Iran are next. But if Iran gets nukes other countries in the region would need to follow to create a new balance of power: so Saudi-Arabia (they can buy some in North Korea or - even more likely - from their old ally Pakistan) and Turkey would likely follow. And then Greece of course and probably other countries.
And that may cause a dangerous development: a new arms race.
Given the destability in Saudi-Arabia I would be much more concerned about a potentially nuclear Saudi-Arabia actually. It is interesting - or rather outrageous - to see where they have their fingers in: not just in Afghanistan or Pakistan but also in the Caucasus, where they are fulling extremism, partly in the Balcans and in other places. Saudi "charities" - often of dubious character - are also present in Europe and even inside the United States.
Quite frankly spoken I think that the US is still taking too much a blind eye on this development.

He was very farsighted because he tried to solve the conflict between Israel and the palestinians. A thing which was started actually by President Georg Herbert Walker Bush after the first gulf war. And a thing which needs to be done to stabilize the region. It simply needs to be done some day. They have Afghanistan as well, they have Chechenya, they have other places. The more reasonable critics would say: Why open a new front, when the other (Afghanistan) is far, far away from being stable?

So you are saying the problems between Israel and the Palestinians was cause by GHWB? I think you are off by about 2000 years there. They have been fighting, even in the modern age since 1948. Hardly the fault of GHWB. I don't think ANYTHING will solve that problem, it is so ingrained into their cultures that they will be fighting for years to come. Israel has the power to wipe the Palestinians out if they so desired, afterall, the Palestinians don't have tanks or other modern weapons.


I doubt that for one simple reason. If Iran uses nukes they would face a simular reprisel. This logic usually works. Even Hitler didn´t use biological and chemical weapons because of it. A state and a state government has always a territory it wants to protect. Iran has a dictatorial government. But it is not completly irrational.

Thats true, but Islamic extremists don't think like the rest of us do, they don't care if they die because they will go to "paradise" if they kill an "enemy" of Islam.

The main problem with a nuclear Iran is that it would push other countries to get nukes as well. That is actually a development since the end of the cold war and the end of the bipolar world order: the proliferation of WMD. India and Pakistan were the first steps in this development. North Korea and Iran are next. But if Iran gets nukes other countries in the region would need to follow to create a new balance of power: so Saudi-Arabia (they can buy some in North Korea or - even more likely - from their old ally Pakistan) and Turkey would likely follow. And then Greece of course and probably other countries.
And that may cause a dangerous development: a new arms race.
Given the destability in Saudi-Arabia I would be much more concerned about a potentially nuclear Saudi-Arabia actually. It is interesting - or rather outrageous - to see where they have their fingers in: not just in Afghanistan or Pakistan but also in the Caucasus, where they are fulling extremism, partly in the Balcans and in other places. Saudi "charities" - often of dubious character - are also present in Europe and even inside the United States.
Quite frankly spoken I think that the US is still taking too much a blind eye on this development.

India first tested their nukes in 1974 and Pakistan soon afterwards, both before the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the spread of these things is inevitable and will lead to a nuclear war in time.

I agree about the Saudi's. We have Saudi funded schools here in the US, one not too far from my home. They teach intolerance there and the gov't has begun to investigate the curriculum finally. They teach extremism and it is just a matter of time before we have suicide bombers here as well.

What, you don't remember all that flap and fuss about Clinton trying to kaboom some fellow's camp... Osama bin Laden, that was it. Lot of people criticized him, said he shouldn't have done that - the dirty interventionist!

Some other folks said it demonstrated the limit of air/missile power - he should've sent group operatives - but everybody knew that if Clinton had done that and it had gone bad, the political repercussions would've been horrible.

So I guess it's a pity he didn't take the fight to the terroris- Oh, you mean to say Osama bin Laden is Osama bin Laden, the man cited as the mastermind of Al-Qaeda and the planner of the 2001 WTC planebombings?

Ohhh, I thought you said Clinton wasn't farsighted enough to take the fight to them.

Token gestures. Clinton did NOTHING about the embassy bombings or the USS Cole. Destroying an aspirin factory and an empty training camp did nothing now did it? He should have done what Bush did and sent in enough force to take out the Taliban and either capture Bin Laden or put him on the run. Even THAT would have been moot if he had just accepted Bin Laden when the Sudanese had him and offered him to us, but he was not "farsighted" enough to do that. I guess it was too hard to see around that fat chick. ;)

So you are saying the problems between Israel and the Palestinians was cause by GHWB? I think you are off by about 2000 years there. They have been fighting, even in the modern age since 1948. Hardly the fault of GHWB..
Where have I said that? Your assumption is also unlogical. When I said that Clinton tried - (I said tried to solve - he unfortunately wasn´t able to solve it though as we all know) to solve the conflict that implies that it existed before (actually already begining in the 1930s and even more since 1948).


I don't think ANYTHING will solve that problem, it is so ingrained into their cultures that they will be fighting for years to come. Israel has the power to wipe the Palestinians out if they so desired, afterall, the Palestinians don't have tanks or other modern weapons...
But the palestinians have a growing population and will soon have more people.
Quite frankly spoken as long as their is no solution to that there is going to be instability there and in the region. It is as easy as that.
The British weren´t at the end also not able to solve their Irish problem.
Some day there needs to be a solution.
There are other conflicts which went own for a long time. For example France and Germany used to be arch-enemies(1805-07, 1813-15, 1870/71, e.g.: this arch-enemieship even played a role in conflicts where other parties where involved). Especially after 1870 the arch-enemieship towards Germany was really preached in France (combined with the demand to get back Alsace-Lorraine). In Germany as well (in 1919-35 combined with the demand to get back the Saarland). Today that can´t be said any more.
Israeli and Palestinians need to make a deal as well, some day, although that day maybe years or decades away.

Thats true, but Islamic extremists don't think like the rest of us do, they don't care if they die because they will go to "paradise" if they kill an "enemy" of Islam. ...
Ok, just look at the actions of Iran in the last 20 years: Have they ever began a war? They could have actually invaded Afghanistan after the Soviets left. They didn´t. Of course they are a dictatorship like many others around the world, but the leadership is not completly mad. The Soviets weren´t completly mad as well.
Terrorists organisation is a different matter: they don´t have a country they can lose. So, I would see the thread more from non-state organisations.

India first tested their nukes in 1974 and Pakistan soon afterwards, both before the collapse of the Soviet Union. ...
That was the most early begining of it. It also can be assumed that India and Pakistan received some support from the Soviet Union and the other from China. But the end of the cold war makes it for countries easier to get the technologies, also against the will of the existing nuclear powers.
And there is not a second super power anymore who takes care in its spehere of influence that no one else gets nukes, like North Korea for example.

However, the spread of these things is inevitable and will lead to a nuclear war in time. .
It seems to be the case that it is inevitable. And it seems to be the case that the idea of military counter-proliferation via preventive strikes is not really able to prevent this development. The problem is that there are just to many players on the arena. You can´t take care about all at once. So: Iran or North Korea or probably even none of them because they are already too advanced.
One of them or both (or another player) is going to push its program through. And given the readiness of the US to use preventive strikes that may even fasten this development in other places ( I say fasten it - it would happen anyway, probably it would then need a little longer).

I agree about the Saudi's. We have Saudi funded schools here in the US, one not too far from my home. They teach intolerance there and the gov't has begun to investigate the curriculum finally. They teach extremism and it is just a matter of time before we have suicide bombers here as well.
A problem here as well: they have a big institute near Bonn and there was an investigation against it as well.

Token gestures. Clinton did NOTHING about the embassy bombings or the USS Cole. Destroying an aspirin factory and an empty training camp did nothing now did it? He should have done what Bush did and sent in enough force to take out the Taliban and either capture Bin Laden or put him on the run. Even THAT would have been moot if he had just accepted Bin Laden when the Sudanese had him and offered him to us, but he was not "farsighted" enough to do that. I guess it was too hard to see around that fat chick. ;)
How did Reagan react when there were suicide bombings acgainst US marines in Lebanon during the 1980s?
He withdrew the forces from there.
So mistakes were obviously done from many sides.
But obviously it is difficult to have non-partisan discussions: especially in election times. It is the same thing in any democratic country, though.

Token gestures. Clinton did NOTHING about the embassy bombings or the USS Cole. Destroying an aspirin factory and an empty training camp did nothing now did it? He should have done what Bush did and sent in enough force to take out the Taliban and either capture Bin Laden or put him on the run. Even THAT would have been moot if he had just accepted Bin Laden when the Sudanese had him and offered him to us, but he was not "farsighted" enough to do that. I guess it was too hard to see around that fat chick. ;)

Actually, not "token" gestures, if you remember the political climate of the times; the Republican Congress gave Clinton what-for for everything he did do. The President has no power to declare war; without a declaration of war, there was a severe limit on what Clinton could practically do without provoking governmental deadlock. Nailing an [empty] training camp and an aspirin factory via air was pretty close to that limit, and he caught a great deal of criticism from the Republicans in Congress for it anyway. The ridicule he got for "going on the manhunt" for some pintsy terrorist type - back then, "terrorist" was not a word to be taken very seriously in US politics - was nothing short of shameful in retrospect.

Of course, if we care to play the what-if game, we might consider what would have happened without the US working overtime to arm and train the mujahadeen in the first place, or not pulling the sort of crap that happened with the Iran-Iraq war, or any number of other critical points.

Speaking of the USS Cole, I am reminded of the USS Liberty, which tends not to be mentioned in the same speeches... but should be nevertheless remembered. If you care, the death toll was twice that of the USS Cole.