Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Troops have now been fighting longer in Iraq than we fought in WWII. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15898612/) And this comes as news that the insurgency is financially self-sustaining
    (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/wo...tner=homepage).
    Is it now safe to stop saying that the United States has the most awesome military machine of all time? I mean, we can't even pacify this puny little state that we've been beating up on forever. Here's an interesting factoid: Iraq is smaller than Afghanistan, both population and people. Even righties admit we attacked because we thought it would be the easiest bad guy to put down. But we can't. Our military has become like our health care system: the most expensive in the world, but not all that effective for all that.

    I've been reading a history of the Pentagon which is very interesting. For example, did you realize that the reason the Pentagon is shaped like it is was for landscaping reasons? The original plan was for a rectangle, but a corner had to be cut off to make room for roads. The architect thought it looked funny, so he evened it out on the other sides. The building was later moved (originally it was going to be built on Robert E. Lee's family farm), but we were in too big a hurry to redesign the thing (WWII and all). It has almost no steel because it was all going into war material (that's why there are lot of ramps and few elevators). It was originally built to have segregated bathrooms, but when Roosevelt realized that on his first tour of the building, he outlawed them. Therefore the Pentagon was the first building in Virginia to have desegregated bathrooms.

    But here is my point: the air war in WWII was incredibly ineffective. At most our air campaign nullified theirs. Our bombing did little to impact production, and arguably increased production by destroying city centers and forcing even more of the workforce into factories. In fact, air power has never worked liked it always seemed it should. We bombed the hell out of Vietnam (hundreds of pounds of explosives for every man, woman, and child) to no effect except terrorism. The same has been true everywhere we've tried it. For all of our reliance on air power and "precision" munitions, are we really that powerful?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    WWII and the war against "terrorists-partisans" are two different things.

    For example, Lithuanian partisans fought 10 years after Soviets have occupied Lithuania. And they fought like men, not bombing children, women and everybody around.

    That's a very difficult form of war. This is not a war in battlefield.

    The only effective thing in that type of war are MDG.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

    - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And they fought like men, not bombing children, women and everybody around.
    You have to be pretty careful with statements like this. You might end up condemning some surprising people. Now, just who in history has bombed the most "women, children, and everybody around"?...

  4. #4

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have to be pretty careful with statements like this. You might end up condemning some surprising people. Now, just who in history has bombed the most "women, children, and everybody around"?...
    Terrorists?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

    - Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Terrorists?
    Now you're really saying something dangerous...

  6. #6

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Now you're really saying something dangerous...
    What dangerous?

    People, who kill innocent people, bombing them in buses, airplanes and so on I call terrorists.
    There primary target is to terrorize people that they could achieve their whatever goals.

    I don't understand what do you mean "saying something dangerous".
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

    - Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,816

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Troops have now been fighting longer in Iraq than we fought in WWII. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15898612/) And this comes as news that the insurgency is financially self-sustaining
    (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/wo...tner=homepage).
    Is it now safe to stop saying that the United States has the most awesome military machine of all time? I mean, we can't even pacify this puny little state that we've been beating up on forever. Here's an interesting factoid: Iraq is smaller than Afghanistan, both population and people. Even righties admit we attacked because we thought it would be the easiest bad guy to put down. But we can't. Our military has become like our health care system: the most expensive in the world, but not all that effective for all that.

    I've been reading a history of the Pentagon which is very interesting. For example, did you realize that the reason the Pentagon is shaped like it is was for landscaping reasons? The original plan was for a rectangle, but a corner had to be cut off to make room for roads. The architect thought it looked funny, so he evened it out on the other sides. The building was later moved (originally it was going to be built on Robert E. Lee's family farm), but we were in too big a hurry to redesign the thing (WWII and all). It has almost no steel because it was all going into war material (that's why there are lot of ramps and few elevators). It was originally built to have segregated bathrooms, but when Roosevelt realized that on his first tour of the building, he outlawed them. Therefore the Pentagon was the first building in Virginia to have desegregated bathrooms.

    But here is my point: the air war in WWII was incredibly ineffective. At most our air campaign nullified theirs. Our bombing did little to impact production, and arguably increased production by destroying city centers and forcing even more of the workforce into factories. In fact, air power has never worked liked it always seemed it should. We bombed the hell out of Vietnam (hundreds of pounds of explosives for every man, woman, and child) to no effect except terrorism. The same has been true everywhere we've tried it. For all of our reliance on air power and "precision" munitions, are we really that powerful?

    I'm sorry but does your post even make any sense at all?????

    It starts out talking about the length of the current Iraq occupation, which I'll get to in a second & then you go on to talk about the shape of the pentagon & then the ineffectiveness of airpower?

    I know I tend to have odd thoughts that go everywhere on things myself but I think this takes the prize as the most off track post I've ever seen.

    Now to the length of the Iraq occupation (& that is what it is btw) I will strongly disagree with you about the length of time.

    We are still in Germany & we are still in Japan to this day. Now we may not be fighting them anymore but we did fight partisans in Germany for about 10 years after the war was over. Now in all fairness they were never as violent as the Iraqi's.

    So while we have been in Iraq for 5 years we have been in Japan and Germany for over 60 years, not to mention Korea.

    As to the rest of your post, well lets just say that I differ with you greatly on world views.

    I don't wake up every day hating the country I was born in or the things we do. I recognize that, as all country have, we make mistakes & will continue to do so. But I do not believe that there is an evil intent in our actions.

    Look I have always respected your view point & I appreciate the open dialoge that you have always carried. But lately it seems, at least to me anyway, that your view point on our country has become more & more dismall & you think less & less of what we have done or are doing.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  8. #8
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,816

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What dangerous?

    People, who kill innocent people, bombing them in buses, airplanes and so on I call terrorists.

    I don't understand what do you mean.

    Don't worry, he's just trying to be cute.

    He's going to tell you that our country (the U.S.) has bombed more men, women & children than any other country in the history of the world.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  9. #9

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Thanks, Peck for clearing it out.

    As I know, during WW2 there were killed 22 mill russians alone mostly by germans. Germans were aggressors and they killed I dunno maybe 40 mill people (6 mill innocent jews) during only that war.

    Stalin (soviet leader) was psycho who had killed millions of people. Around 800000 lithuanians were killed or deported. And our nation was about 3,5 mill only. That was a real genocide.

    So, in killing people leads other countries that's for sure.

    Yea, USA had nuked Hirosima and Nagasaki, it wasn't nice, but it was WW2 and japans were aggressors.

    But mainly in wars as I know innocent people weren't a primary target.

    As I know 3000 USA soldiers were killed in Iraq.

    Do you know how many innocent people were killed by terrorists? Much much much much more. Their primary target is not soldier.

    Their primary target is to terrify people (their people too) because they are too weak and chicken-livers to confront the opponents' army.

    That's only my opinion.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

    - Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ...I think this takes the prize as the most off track post I've ever seen....

    but we did fight partisans in Germany for about 10 years after the war was over...

    I don't wake up every day hating the country I was born in or the things we do....
    I'm sorry if I didn't connect these ideas as clearly as I should have. Our army, powerful though it is, cannot stop the insurgency because we have a small force on the ground and are mostly trying to bomb the hell out of the insurgency, which doesn't work. It has never worked. I think it has probably worked mostly to turn the Iraqi people against us by killing so many tens of thousands of innocents.

    Any numbers on the number of troops killed by German partisans? I may be wrong about this, but I seem to remember that the number was 0.

    I also don't wake up hating this country. I love this country very much, and I want to live my life and die here. We are rich, free, and exciting, and few other places in the world can match us in any of those ways, much less all. I have never heard so much hate spewed over "what this country does" than has come from the right over the last decade, so I think it is ludicrous for them to say that I hate this country, when all I really hate is us attacking other countries. It's true that I find it despicable that we are the world's worst aggressor, but I believe in this country and I know with work we can improve.

  11. #11
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,816

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm sorry if I didn't connect these ideas as clearly as I should have. Our army, powerful though it is, cannot stop the insurgency because we have a small force on the ground and are mostly trying to bomb the hell out of the insurgency, which doesn't work. It has never worked. I think it has probably worked mostly to turn the Iraqi people against us by killing so many tens of thousands of innocents.

    Any numbers on the number of troops killed by German partisans? I may be wrong about this, but I seem to remember that the number was 0.

    I also don't wake up hating this country. I love this country very much, and I want to live my life and die here. We are rich, free, and exciting, and few other places in the world can match us in any of those ways, much less all. I have never heard so much hate spewed over "what this country does" than has come from the right over the last decade, so I think it is ludicrous for them to say that I hate this country, when all I really hate is us attacking other countries. It's true that I find it despicable that we are the world's worst aggressor, but I believe in this country and I know with work we can improve.

    You see I was ok with everything you said up until this part right here. The worst? Really?

    You mean of all time? Or just today? Or what?

    We are worse that Imperial Japan? We are worse than Nazi Germany? We are worse than the early English Empire? We are worse than Communist Russia? Or better yet we are worse than Al Quida?

    Yes, answer that last one please. Are you saying we are worse than Al Quida?

    As to bombing the insurgency, I'm not sure we're doing that. Frankly I'm not sure were doing anything.

    We have a small armed forces on the ground for the exact reason that if we had a large one on the ground you would hate. Remember the small unit number means that there have also been very few u.s. military deaths on the ground in action.

    We've had more people killed in a day in WW2 than we have all of the Iraq conflict. During Vietnam there were 250 U.S. deaths a week.

    If that were happening you would be screaming about that as well.

    However the small force number also means we cannot actually sustain the country either.

    So here we are.

    As to U.S. soldiers killed by German partisons after WW2?

    I'll try & find a number for you but here is an article about "werewolves" from post war germany.

    The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas -- even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

    The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.

    Although the Werewolves originally limited themselves to guerrilla warfare with the invading armies, they soon began to undertake scorched-earth measures and vigilante actions against German `collaborators' or `defeatists'. They damaged Germany's economic infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into enemy hands. Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment, particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia.

    Several sprees of vandalism through stocks of art and antiques, stored by the Berlin Museum in a flak tower at Friedrichshain, caused millions of dollars worth of damage and cultural losses of inestimable value. In addition, vigilante attacks caused the deaths of a number of small-town mayors and, in late March 1945, a Werewolf paratroop squad assassinated the Lord Mayor of Aachen, Dr Franz Oppenhoff, probably the most prominent German statesman to have emerged in the occupied fringes over the winter of 1944-45. This spate of killings, part of a larger Nazi terror campaign that consumed the Third Reich after the failed anti-Hitler putsch of July 20th, 1944, can be interpreted as a psychological retreat back into opposition, even while Nazi leaders were still clinging to their last few months of power.

    Although the Werewolves managed to make themselves a nuisance to small Allied and Soviet units, they failed to stop or delay the invasion and occupation of Germany, and did not succeed in rousing the population into widespread opposition to the new order. The SS and Hitler Youth organisations at the core of the Werewolf movement were poorly led, short of supplies and weapons, and crippled by infighting. Their mandate was a conservative one of tactical harassment, at least until the final days of the war, and even when they did begin to envision the possibility of an underground resistance that could survive the Third Reich's collapse, they had to contend with widespread civilian war-weariness and fear of enemy reprisals. In Western Germany, no one wanted to do anything that would diminish the pace of Anglo-American advance and possibly thereby allow the Red Army to push further westward.

    Despite its failure, however, the Werewolf project had a huge impact, widening the psychological and spiritual gap between Germans and their occupiers. Werewolf killings and intimidation of `collaborators' scared almost everybody, giving German civilians a clear glimpse into the nihilistic heart of Nazism. It was difficult for people working under threat of such violence to devote themselves unreservedly to the initial tasks of reconstruction. Worse still, the Allies and Soviets reacted to the movement with extremely tough controls, curtailing the right of assembly of German civilians. Challenges of any sort were met by collective reprisals -- especially on the part of the Soviets and the French. In a few cases the occupiers even shot hostages and cleared out towns where instances of sabotage occurred. It was standard practice for the Soviets to destroy whole communities if they faced a single act of resistance. In the eastern fringes of the `Greater Reich', now annexed by the Poles and the Czechoslovaks, Werewolf harassment handed the new authorities an excuse to rush the deportations of millions of ethnic Germans to occupied Germany.

    Such policies were understandable, but they created an unbridgeable gulf between the German people and the occupation forces who had pledged to impose essential reforms. It was hard, in such conditions, for the occupiers to encourage reform, and even harder to persuade the Germans that it was necessary.

    By the time that this rough opposition to the occupation had started to soften, the Cold War was under way and reform became equally difficult to implement. As a result, both German states created in 1949 were not so dissimilar to their predecessor as might have been hoped, and changes in attitudes and institutions developed only slowly. Thanks partly to the Werewolves there was no German revolution in 1945, either imposed from above or generated from below.


    I'm sorry I don't have a link for this.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Ah the werewolves! The reason you don't have a link for it is that it is basically an internet hoax. Goebbels did launch a plan for what you are describing, but the attempt to carry it out was a total, ineffectual joke and did not kill allies. In fact, the only major killing by the Werewolves was of a German mayor before the end of the war. Read about it here:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/

    And yes, I should have phrased it as "we are now the world's world aggressor nation" although it should be pointed out that we have killed far more civilians than even Al Qaeda.

  13. #13
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,492

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The same has been true everywhere we've tried it. For all of our reliance on air power and "precision" munitions, are we really that powerful?
    I'd say the final airstrikes on Japan in WWII were particularly effective.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  14. #14
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,492

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    3Ball... We are not fighting wars to conqueror other countries (or civilizations for that matter). We are fighting politically correct battles trying to be surgical in our strikes and minimize collateral damage. We've used our power rather judiciously thru the years following WWII considering what we have been capable of.

    The propagandists use this restraint to flaunt it as a weakness. We don't break the will of the people, we don't even try because it's not our goal. We many times fight with a hand tied behind our backs. We try to occupy a moral high ground and we try not to ignite bigger conflicts.

    And yet you try to make the same hay of this restraint as the terrorists and their minions.

    Perhaps you're both correct (you and the radical anti-American movement that has become self fueling) and this is a weakness... a fatal flaw. Either way, reality or perception, it won't make us less likely to avoid further wars or major attacks (even on our own soil.. I'm assuming you think 9/11 was a major attack altho your postings make me question whether you would condone the event as 'deserved'). The more the perception of weakness grows, the more likely we will be painted into a corner...eventually. And many of the 'hate America first' ilk will need to take a look in the mirror when they try and decide who to blame for this.



    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  15. #15
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,816

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ah the werewolves! The reason you don't have a link for it is that it is basically an internet hoax. Goebbels did launch a plan for what you are describing, but the attempt to carry it out was a total, ineffectual joke and did not kill allies. In fact, the only major killing by the Werewolves was of a German mayor before the end of the war. Read about it here:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/

    And yes, I should have phrased it as "we are now the world's world aggressor nation" although it should be pointed out that we have killed far more civilians than even Al Qaeda.

    Slate.com that's your reply? Ok, well when I get a quote from the Limbaugh institute you better pay close attention.

    While I am deeply tempted to find something from the weekly standard or the like I think I will reply with an article from http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/rubin082005.htm

    Now honestly I don't know the politics of this paper so if you are going to tell me it is a right wing paper I will believe you, but I'm not sure.

    Either way I'm not sure why a Canadian paper would print this as I don't believe the majority of Canadians agree with our war (or any of our recent wars for that matter)

    Also here is a copy of Life magazine showing some of the problems with post war germany. However it does not talk about the post war resistance.

    LIFE Magazine: Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe

    January 7, 1946


    We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.

    “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…”

    “To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”

    The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting.

    “Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major.

    The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….”

    The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

    A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

    You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

    Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.


    The Skeptical French Press

    Yet whenever we show a trace of positive leadership I found Europeans quite willing to follow our lead. The evening before Robert Jackson’s opening of the case for the prosecution in the Nurnberg trial, I talked to some correspondents from the French newspapers. They were polite but skeptical. They were willing enough to take part in a highly publicized act of vengeance against the enemy, but when you talked about the usefulness of writing a prohibition of aggressive war into the law of nations they laughed in your face. The night after Jackson’s nobly delivered and nobly worded speech I saw then all again. They were very much impressed. Their manner had even changed toward me personally as an American. Their sudden enthusiasm seemed to me typical of the almost neurotic craving for leadership of the European people struggling wearily for existence in the wintry ruins of their world.

    The ruin this war has left in Europe can hardly be exaggerated. I can remember the years after the last war. Then, as soon as you got away from the military, all the little strands and pulleys that form the fabric of a society were still knitted together. Farmers took their crops to market. Money was a valid medium of exchange. Now the entire fabric of a million little routines has broken down. No on can think beyond food for today. Money is worthless. Cigarettes are used as a kind of lunatic travesty on a currency. If a man goes out to work he shops around to find the business that serves the best hot meal. The final pay-off is the situation reported from the Ruhr where the miners are fed at the pits so that they will not be able to take the food home to their families.

    “Well, the Germans are to blame. Let them pay for it. It’s their fault,” you say. The trouble is that starving the Germans and throwing them out of their homes is only producing more areas of famine and collapse.

    One section of the population of Europe looked to us for salvation and another looked to the Soviet Union. Wherever the people have endured either the American armies or the Russian armies both hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The British have won a slightly better reputation. The state of mind in Vienna is interesting because there the part of the population that was not actively Nazi was about equally divided. The wealthier classes looked to America, the workers to the Soviet Union.

    The Russians came first. The Viennese tell you of the savagery of the Russian armies. They came like the ancient Mongol hordes out of the steppes, with the flimsiest supply. The people in the working-class districts had felt that when the Russians came that they at least would be spared. But not at all. In the working-class districts the tropes were allowed to rape and murder and loot at will. When victims complained, the Russians answered, “You are too well off to be workers. You are bourgeoisie.”

    When Americans looted they took cameras and valuables but when the Russians looted they took everything. And they raped and killed. From the eastern frontiers a tide of refugees is seeping across Europe bringing a nightmare tale of helpless populations trampled underfoot. When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.

    U.S. Administration a Poor Third

    We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery. The Russians at least are carrying out a logical plan for extending their system of control at whatever cost. The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

    The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.

    That we are one world is unfortunately a brutal truth. Punishing the German people indiscriminately for the sins of their leader may be justice, but it is not helping to restore the rule of civilization. The terrible lesson of the events of this year of victory is that what is happening to the bulk of Europe today can happen to American tomorrow.

    In America we are still rich, we are still free to move from place to place and to talk to our friends without fear of the secret police. The time has come, for our own future security, to give the best we have to the world instead of the worst. So far as Europe is concerned, American leadership up to now has been obsessed with a fear of our own virtues. Winston Churchill expressed this state of mind brilliantly in a speech to his own people which applies even more accurately to the people of the U.S. “You must be prepared,” he warned them, “for further efforts of mind and body and further sacrifices to great causes, if you are not to fall back into the rut if inertia, the confusion of aim and the craven fear of being great.”

    The first winter of peace holds Europe in a deathly grip of cold, hunger and hopelessness. In the words of the London Sunday Observer: “Europe is threatened by a catastrophe this winter which has no precedent since the Black Death of 1348.”

    These are still more than 25,000,000 homeless people milling about Europe. In Warsaw nearly 1,000,000 live in holes in the ground. Six million building were destroyed in Russia. Rumania has her worst drought of 50 years, and in Greece fuel supplies are terribly low because the Nazis, during their occupation, decimated the forests. In Italy the wheat harvest, which was a meager 3,450,000 tons in 1944, fell to an unendurable 1,304,000 tons in 1945. In France, food consumption per day averages 1,800 calories as compared with 3,000 calories in the U.S.

    Germany is sinking even below the level of the countries she victimized. The German people are still better clothed than most of Europe because during the war they took the best of Europe’s clothing. But their food supply is below subsistence level. In the American zone they beg for the privilege of scraping U.S. army garbage cans. Infant mortality is already so high that a Berlin Quaker, quoted in the British press, predicted. “No child born in Germany in 1945 will survive. Only half the children aged less than 3 years will survive.”

    On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations. Some Europeans blame Russia for callousness to misery in eastern Europe. But some also blame America because they expected so much more from her. On the following pages the distinguished novelist John Dos Passos, who has been abroad as LIFE correspondent, reports on Europe’s suffering and what it means for America.


    Also I invite you to look at March 30, 1946 in this online timeline that to the best of my knowledge has zero political thoughts to it.

    http://timelines.ws/20thcent/1946.HTML

    I've been checking the Arlington cemetary websight & have found several servicemen killed from 1946-1950 in Post war germany. However they do not list the cause of deaths so I won't try & force that on this subject.

    I don't have any more time now to look but I will keep going sometime in the near future.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  16. #16
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Now you're really saying something dangerous...
    Let me guess the US during WWII, Korea and Vietnam with the Strategic Bombings?

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We are fighting politically correct battles trying to be surgical in our strikes and minimize collateral damage.
    There is no such thing as a politically correct battle. By the way, our stated policy, at least at the beginning of the war, was that we could drop a bomb if we expected to kill only 30 or fewer civilians. That was our policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm assuming you think 9/11 was a major attack altho your postings make me question whether you would condone the event as 'deserved').
    9/11 was a disgusting atrocity, and you damn well know I think that. I've said it many times before. Nothing can justify intentionally killing civilians. And to try to accuse me of saying it was deserved is really a slander, man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And many of the 'hate America first' ilk will need to take a look in the mirror when they try and decide who to blame for this.
    And this is really, truly, below the belt. This is about the 20th time on this board I've responded to the ridiculous "hate America first" charge. I don't hate America. I hate it when America attacks other countries, but I love my country and I want to live and die here. We all love America, I just want her to take moral responsibility for what we do.

    Peck, Yes, Slate was the first of many articles I found debunking the Werewolf thing. Take a quick look and you will find many more including a cute Fox article that was supposedly satire but passed around the web as factual. Yes, plenty of soldiers died in Europe after WWII as they continue to today. Of illness, car wreck, and the like. Even if a few died in action, proof of which neither of us has found, it certainly looked absolutely nothing like Iraq today. I really don't see how the article you included that basically amount to post-war whining has anything at all to do with the mass slaughter we are seeing now. Yes, the Russians did rape and kill, but there was never anything like that sanctioned by the American troops. Yes, there were individual incidents, but nothing like the Russians. Frankly, articles like that could be found even during the war. Free countries are famous for bellyaching, even when things are going well. Just take a look at the conservative press in the 90s. It's called Samsara.

  18. #18
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,492

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is no such thing as a politically correct battle. By the way, our stated policy, at least at the beginning of the war, was that we could drop a bomb if we expected to kill only 30 or fewer civilians. That was our policy.


    9/11 was a disgusting atrocity, and you damn well know I think that. I've said it many times before. Nothing can justify intentionally killing civilians. And to try to accuse me of saying it was deserved is really a slander, man.


    And this is really, truly, below the belt. This is about the 20th time on this board I've responded to the ridiculous "hate America first" charge. I don't hate America. I hate it when America attacks other countries, but I love my country and I want to live and die here. We all love America, I just want her to take moral responsibility for what we do.

    Peck, Yes, Slate was the first of many articles I found debunking the Werewolf thing. Take a quick look and you will find many more including a cute Fox article that was supposedly satire but passed around the web as factual. Yes, plenty of soldiers died in Europe after WWII as they continue to today. Of illness, car wreck, and the like. Even if a few died in action, proof of which neither of us has found, it certainly looked absolutely nothing like Iraq today. I really don't see how the article you included that basically amount to post-war whining has anything at all to do with the mass slaughter we are seeing now. Yes, the Russians did rape and kill, but there was never anything like that sanctioned by the American troops. Yes, there were individual incidents, but nothing like the Russians. Frankly, articles like that could be found even during the war. Free countries are famous for bellyaching, even when things are going well. Just take a look at the conservative press in the 90s. It's called Samsara.

    You basically sidestepped the explanations in my post to feign indignation didn't you?

    I don't know where you got the part about the US using the number of 30 civilians being the line between bombing or not. I'm not disputing it nor am I agreeing with it. But I will defer to you on that number. That, to me, still smells of political correctness. A viable military target is a viable military target. While taking collateral damage into account is a worthwhile goal, putting a number on it is a just asking for trouble. Especially if your enemy knows that number. And I suppose if 3Ball knows the number then the enemy does as well.

    Secondly, what does that number really tell us? It's not saying we're going out to look for 30 civilians to kill. Is it saying that 30 is always allowable or is it saying 30 is the proverbial line in the sand? Could it be depending on the target maybe no civilian deaths would be acceptable under any circumstances?

    3Ball... what I get is you are a pacifist.... There is no battle worth fighting. Am I reading you wrong?

    As for your feigned indignation as being lumped in with the 'hate America first crowd'.... There's an old saying "If the shoe fits... wear it".
    You're going to have to do better than tearing America down at every turn and finding total fault with her before you escape looking like you deserve that label.

    And by the way- the label is "hate America first" which is saying people find a reason to hate/blame America first rather than looking at a bigger picture and taking anything else into account.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  19. #19
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Look, bombing and destroying a "viable military target", while killing 200 school children in the proces, because this "viable military target" was placed on a school is just not a good idea. That has nothing to do with politicall correctness, but everything with PR and media reporting, which in this case would create a backlash from the homefront if these sort of things happen a little too often.

    Also an argument could be made that you just don't sink to the level of your enemy by not caring about civilians lifes in a war campaign. That's an ethical and moral call. You can't always go around "collateral damage", but sometimes you can and should or try to take out the target in another way, while sometimes there is no other option. This has nothing to do with political correctness.

    What worries me more is bombing exclusively from high altitudes to avoid any serious risks to your military pilots and thus avoid problem from the homefront. However, the effectiveness of strikes or waging war like this could seriously impact it in a negative way.

    Regards,

    Mourning 8)
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You basically sidestepped the explanations in my post to feign indignation didn't you?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3Ball... what I get is you are a pacifist.... There is no battle worth fighting. Am I reading you wrong?
    No, I'm not a pacifist, and yes, you are reading me wrong. I've never even come close to saying that no battle is worth fighting. Do you see a moral distinction between fighting to defend yourself or your allies from attack and being the aggressor yourself? What I want is for us to stop attacking people. That is, after all, the gravest war crime as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal: meaning, mainly, us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As for your feigned indignation as being lumped in with the 'hate America first crowd'.... There's an old saying "If the shoe fits... wear it".
    Ok then, you explain it to me. Why is saying that we should stop aggressively invade foreign countries mean that I hate America? Because frankly, I don't get it. If you said, "I think taxes should be lower" does that mean you hate America? And I am only saying something that to me seems like a pretty basic moral notion. So you explain it to me. Why do we need to invade and occupy foreign countries, and why do I hate America for not wishing to do so?

  21. #21
    Diesel_81
    Guest

    Unhappy Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No.


    No, I'm not a pacifist, and yes, you are reading me wrong. I've never even come close to saying that no battle is worth fighting. Do you see a moral distinction between fighting to defend yourself or your allies from attack and being the aggressor yourself? What I want is for us to stop attacking people. That is, after all, the gravest war crime as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal: meaning, mainly, us.


    Ok then, you explain it to me. Why is saying that we should stop aggressively invade foreign countries mean that I hate America? Because frankly, I don't get it. If you said, "I think taxes should be lower" does that mean you hate America? And I am only saying something that to me seems like a pretty basic moral notion. So you explain it to me. Why do we need to invade and occupy foreign countries, and why do I hate America for not wishing to do so?

    3ball wants America to have a nuclear bomb go off in NYC or have a chemical attack in a subway system where millions of people die, then and only then we can attack because you see now we are defending ourselves. Isn't that just great

  22. #22
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3ball wants America to have a nuclear bomb go off in NYC or have a chemical attack in a subway system where millions of people die, then and only then we can attack because you see now we are defending ourselves. Isn't that just great
    Wow! What a way to characterize someones opinion completely and 100% incorrect.

    Also what exactly and factually is the connection between "apocalyptic" terrorism threatening our way of life and Iraq?

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3ball wants America to have a nuclear bomb go off in NYC or have a chemical attack in a subway system where millions of people die, then and only then we can attack because you see now we are defending ourselves. Isn't that just great
    Well, thanks Mourning. I probably shouldn't respond to a message like this, but just out of curiosity: attack who? Who exactly should we be attacking to prevent a nuclear weapon in NY? And why would that help?

  24. #24
    Diesel_81
    Guest

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    I'm saying if a terroist group operating in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq,Syria had plans to set off a bomb in this country, and the United States to prevent it decided to launch a pre emptive strike to kill the terroists before they kill us.You would most likely be against it because:
    1)they haven't attacked us yet
    2)you don't trust the Governement and think they fabricated the story
    3)Innocent civilians would die

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm saying if a terroist group operating in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq,Syria had plans to set off a bomb in this country, and the United States to prevent it decided to launch a pre emptive strike to kill the terroists before they kill us.You would most likely be against it because:
    1)they haven't attacked us yet
    2)you don't trust the Governement and think they fabricated the story
    3)Innocent civilians would die
    For heaven's sake, Diesel_81, nobody I've heard on this board is saying that we can't run international law enforcement operations. But that is the difference between, say, working to take out this terrorist cell and invading Lebanon. Don't you have enough evidence from the last 50 years that starting wars is not a good method for bringing piece? Nobody is arguing against law enforcement.

    By the way, just as an interesting bit of trivia: The very first bomb dropped by the Allies on Berlin during World War II killed the only elephant in the Berlin Zoo. Can you imagine how confusing that must have been for the Germans?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •