| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak.
>
> I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but
> rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters.
AKA "a group of people". :-)
> If we could simply walk in and take out the individuals responsible for
> slaughtering millions of innocents, I think we would. Unfortunately they
> have VERY dedicated followers. These deranged individuals prey upon the
> weak and force liberators and defenders (such as America) to go through the
> innocent, to get to the problem.
Yeah, right. America is good, those who don't follow it are bad. A little
simplified, perhaps?
> I've read that Stalin was responsible for slaughtering over 50 million
> people, and was prone to sending unarmed civilians ahead of his regiments (I
> may have confused two differnt Russian despots here). I am certain that
> this was a lose-lose scenario.
Probably Stalin, but fewer deaths and not *that* lunatic: maybe send cannon
fodder, but not *civilians*! (at least not systematically; what good would
it be?)
> We could have sat WWII out. I've read that this was the intention of our
> President.
Who? Which President?
> While Hitler was trying to produce a master race, while Japan was swarming
> the orient, while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa
!
Turkey had more pressing affairs in hands at the time... like restoring the
economy shattered after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> (was Spain
> involved in that plan?)
Surely not. It had just ended a Civil war of massive proportions just before
the outbreak of WWII. It was pretty much a wreck by 1939.
> America was just sitting back enjoying our safety
> and freedom.
>
> Then someone decided America was a good target.
That is too simplistic as an explanation. Try to find out just *why* did
Japan declare war on US. I assure you it wasn't pure evil!
> So America got involved, helped arm the allies, stopped Hitler (in the end
> of that one, we didn't even have the chance to touch the creep), sighed with
> relief as Russia erupted into a civil war
Are you sure of this? In 1945, USSR at the edge of a civil war? From where I
stand, that war was one of the few moments when Russians genuinely gathered
to defend *USSR* out of pure patriorism - united under the flag of Communism.
> (which I believe put a stop to the
> advance into Africa as well)
Right... Are you *sure*? In 1945?
> and then had one last thing to do.
>
> We were conten to sit and watch the show and Japan hit us while we were
> sleeping. Then when they were being driven back to their island they had
> the audacity to suggest that they might surrender to Russia?
And just WHEN did they do that?
> Russia had
> been part of the problem until their civil war occupied their attention!!
WHICH civil war? Russia agreed in Yalta to take 3 months between the end of
war in Europe and its declaration of war against Japan, in order to relocate
troops. VE day was in May, by mid August Russians were fighting along the Yalu.
> It seems obvious that Japan had no intentions of really quitting, only
> pausing to regroup and lick their wounds.
When the Japanese strategists decided to attack Pearl harbor, they KNEW they
could only sustain victories for 6 months. And that was what happened.
Japanese high rank officials knew the war was lost by 1944, they just wanted
to end it without losing it all (they failed, obviously).
> It is my opinion that the bombing of Japan was the only thing we've done
> right since entering foreign conflicts. We couldn't get to the leaders and
> their supporters, so we took away their ability to make war.
And just HOW do you do that by bombing two port-cites that weren't even the
biggest or most important ones?
IMO, Truman allowed the bomb to be dropped to scare Stalin from waging new
conflicts in Western European restored democracies (.it, .de, .gr...).
> Innocent
> civilians died, it is true, but their descendents are all the better for
> that sacrifice.
Tell that to the people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki... cancer rates there
are *way high* among descendants. And they had no voice about the war. :-(
> If we had taken care of Russia early on, I believe Russia would be better
> off right now as well.
US, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Chzecoslovakia and some others tried
that in 1917-21, during the Russian Civil War. They failed. Lack of
commitment? IMO, no.
> Does this make it ok for us to "police" the world, no, it just so happens
> that some of our most horrendous deeds have payed off, while many of our
> charitable deeds have caused things to become worse.
Name some. And justify, please.
> I was watching CNN last night and heard about the thousands of protestors in
> the UK. Negeria and other nations are now beginning to side with Afganistan.
>
> Why?
No country is risking siding with Afghanistan now. And you see demonstrators
everywhere that do not represent the will of the majority.
> The Taliban has taken over approx. a third of Afganistan. If someone
> doesn't stop their progress hard and fast, more of the country will fall to
> the Taliban, more and deadlier terrorist regimes will be born there. To
> take a safe political stance now is far more dangerous to the future than
> our bombs.
That is old news! Currentely, the status is more like: Northern Alliance has
taken over more than 20% of Afghanistan, and is still pushing Taliban out of
their strongholds.
Note that these guys are not the best in the world, they just appear to be
more "liveable with" than the Taliban. In the long run, this is a huge mess!
> We now have Anthrax popping up in three different states, originating from
> Malaysia of all places. I doubt that we will be bombing Malaysia however,
> as we well know that the source problem is in Afganistan. So we take out
> the nest, and chase after the survivors as they make themselves known later.
> Unfortunately civilians are going to die because the violence and its
> supporters are hiding amongst them.
Is that your solution, "Bomb'em all!"? If so, I am glad your initials are
not GWB (otherwise we'd be pretty well "done"!)
Anthrax can be used by a number of other organizations and - surprise! -
it can be endemic. In my own country there is a region that has a couple of
cases a year. And in Spain it is apparentely a lot worse. So don't get
frightened by Anthrax: that is just what Al-Qaeda would like you to be.
(a whole deal of snippage, older posts)
Ok, now my point: PLEASE go and read some more about historical contexts.
Many of the facts I wrote about here are rather new to my own knowledge, I
used to have a more simplified view of global relations. My oppinions began
to change when I had access to different literature about Geopolitics and
History, and I think you may find these sort of books quite enriching. Try
LFB for suggestions - he's the expert! :-)
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak. I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters. If we could simply walk in and take out the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
