Author Topic: What the people of Anbar are saying  (Read 5430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #60 on: September 19, 2007, 04:38:31 PM »
In your Middle East examples, they were all either "Protectorates" (probably under a League of Nations mandate, although my memory fails me here) and later "independent states;" and in your East Asian examples they were trading stations, with no inherent value to exploit other than a harbour which could have been found in dozens of alternative sites.  They weren't in themselves sources of great intrinsic wealth to the host country in the sense that the oil wells are to Iraq.

sirs was talking about invading a sovereign state (which Saudi Arabia and Iraq never were when carved up) and throwing a perimeter around the source of wealth without any pretence of legality.  Something which no power in the last 100 years has ever done, to my knowledge.  Not even Nazi Germany.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #61 on: September 19, 2007, 05:19:55 PM »
Amazing how often Tee likes to be wrong.  Taking over a country and ruling it, which would also include ruling over ALL resources (via what Nazi Germany did in its hey day), vs simply procuring specific resources, in this case, iraqi oil wells, justifying it as payment for taking out their dictator, but still allowing them to run everything else, was what "sirs was talking about"

No surprise the BS artist is doing some more painting   
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #62 on: September 20, 2007, 10:12:00 AM »
Amazing how often Tee likes to be wrong.  Taking over a country and ruling it, which would also include ruling over ALL resources (via what Nazi Germany did in its hey day), vs simply procuring specific resources, in this case, iraqi oil wells, justifying it as payment for taking out their dictator, but still allowing them to run everything else, was what "sirs was talking about"

No surprise the BS artist is doing some more painting   

Nazi Germany did not completely conquer all that many nations. They often had a great deal of Fascist support (i.e. Vichy France, much of Eastern Europe, Ukraine, etc). I can't think of many nations where they absolutely took complete control except for the smallest countries like the Benelux nations, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Greece. Almost every other nation had some sort of Fifth Column or strong independent Fascist movement (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia).
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #63 on: September 20, 2007, 10:10:41 PM »
Nazi Germany did not completely conquer all that many nations. They often had a great deal of Fascist support (i.e. Vichy France, much of Eastern Europe, Ukraine, etc). I can't think of many nations where they absolutely took complete control except for the smallest countries like the Benelux nations, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Greece. Almost every other nation had some sort of Fifth Column or strong independent Fascist movement (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia).

During the years leading up to WWII they had taken over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland on the grounds that they were just "taking back what was once theirs".  Between April and June 1940, Germany conquered Denmark and Norway. The Germans permitted the Danish government to remain in place and govern, though elections were banned. Norway fell under the administration of a German Reich Commissar, who ruled with the assistance of German military and SS/police occupation authorities and a collaborationist Norwegian police and administration. 

France did sign an armistice with the Nazis on June 22, 1940. By the terms of the armistice, northern France and the Atlantic coastline of France came under German military occupation, while southern France, including the Mediterranean coast, fell under the jurisdiction of a collaborationist French government led by former World War I hero Henri Petain. This regime, known as Vichy France, though nominally neutral during the war, was entirely dependent on Nazi Germany in its conduct of foreign policy and in most domestic policies as well.

In March 1941, in an effort to aid its Axis ally Italy, Nazi Germany invaded Yugoslavia and Greece. Yugoslavia disintegrated within two weeks. With their Italian allies, the Germans partitioned Slovenia and annexed the northeastern part of the country.  Between July and early December 1941, German troops conquered the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Belorussia, most of the Ukraine, and large tracts of Russian territory. By early December 1941, the Germans had laid siege to Leningrad in the north, reached the outskirts of Moscow in the center, and conquered Rostov, the gateway to the Caucasus, in the south

Nazism also provided for extreme nationalism and for unification for all German-speaking people into a single empire. 

Suffice to say, the implication that Nazi Germany, really didn't do much in the way of controlling the plethora of surrounding countries & their resources, thus the notion that what "sirs is suggesting about U.S. annexation & control of some oil fields, Nazi Germany never did", is a factually an absurdity
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #64 on: September 20, 2007, 11:44:39 PM »
<<During the years leading up to WWII they had taken over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland on the grounds that they were just "taking back what was once theirs". >>

Wrong again.  After taking back the Sudetenland on the pretext of protecting the ethnic German population, they sponsored Slovak separatism, and forced the Czech government to request them to enter Prague to "keep order," after which they declared a "protectorate" over Bohemia and Moravia and recognized an independent Slovakia, a puppet fascist collaborator state.  They made no claim at all that Bohemia, Moravia or Slovakia was once theirs or that they were merely "taking it back."  Poland of course was never "once theirs" and they never claimed that.  They went to war over Poland's refusal to hand back only the "Free City" (Freistadt") of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, which was carved out of East Prussia after WWI, but the rest of Poland was theirs only by right of conquest, except for a small buffer zone in the east, which the Red Army moved into (which had been Russian land until the Poles took it over during the Russian Civil War.)  Absurd (not that I expected anything but absurdity from you) to claim Germany claimed to be taking back what was never theirs.

<< Between April and June 1940, Germany conquered Denmark and Norway.>>

They were INVITED by the Danish government, no shots were fired.  It was only because the Danish people treated the Germans as a hostile occupation force and began killing them on their own that the Germans in turn treated Denmark as a conquered country and Denmark came to be considered an Ally.

<< The Germans permitted the Danish government to remain in place and govern, though elections were banned. Norway fell under the administration of a German Reich Commissar, who ruled with the assistance of German military and SS/police occupation  authorities and a collaborationist Norwegian police and administration.

<<France did sign an armistice with the Nazis on June 22, 1940. By the terms of the armistice, northern France and the Atlantic coastline of France came under German military occupation, while southern France, including the Mediterranean coast, fell under the jurisdiction of a collaborationist French government led by former World War I hero Henri Petain. This regime, known as Vichy France, though nominally neutral during the war, was entirely dependent on Nazi Germany in its conduct of foreign policy and in most domestic policies as well.. >>

Another ludicrous statement.  Although the Nazis pressed Vichy France repeatedly to declare war on Great Britain, which was what Pierre Laval wished to do as well, Petain refused.  He also refused permission for the German air force to use air bases in France's African colonies.  Sank the French fleet at Toulon rather than allow it to fall into German hands.  French factories filled German orders for war material, particularly tanks and armoured vehicles, on a contract basis, not because they were "taken over" as sirs alleges.

<<In March 1941, in an effort to aid its Axis ally Italy, Nazi Germany invaded Yugoslavia and Greece. Yugoslavia disintegrated within two weeks. With their Italian allies, the Germans partitioned Slovenia and annexed the northeastern part of the country.  Between July and early December 1941, German troops conquered the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Belorussia, most of the Ukraine, and large tracts of Russian territory. By early December 1941, the Germans had laid siege to Leningrad in the north, reached the outskirts of Moscow in the center, and conquered Rostov, the gateway to the Caucasus, in the south>>

In occupied Russia, it is true, there was not even the veneer of legality.  If the Germans had wanted to avail themselves of the productive resources of occupied Russian land, it's entirely possible that they would have done so without any pretence of buying and paying for what they took.  Unfortunately for sirs' ignorant theorizing, the Russians as they retreated employed a "scorched earth" policy, leaving behind nothing of any use to anyone. 

<<Suffice to say, the implication that Nazi Germany, really didn't do much in the way of controlling the plethora of surrounding countries & their resources, thus the notion that what "sirs is suggesting about U.S. annexation & control of some oil fields, Nazi Germany never did", is a factually an absurdity>>

Suffice to say, your ignorance is truly astounding, matched only by your arrogance in asserting what is patently untrue.  You have not produced a single example of the Nazis invading a country, taking over its productive area and basically looting it for their own benefit,   without maintaining some pretence of legality, just as the U.S. is doing in Iraq as it tries to loot its oil.  To allege that the U.S. would abandon all pretence of legality and just seize the oil is to say that they would have acted even worse than Nazis.  Which is unrealistic.  Even fascist murderers like to keep up pretences, and Bush is no different in that respect from any other fascist murderer.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #65 on: September 21, 2007, 02:11:24 AM »
Suffice to say, reality trumps your revisionist history.  Germany was running nearly every country mentioned, 1 way or the other, even annexing 1.  FAR more than what I've referenced that a country as supposedly evil as America is, with a murderous military 2nd to none, and a leader as bad as Hitler, in annexing some oil wells, if oil were the actual reason we went into Iraq
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #66 on: September 21, 2007, 11:48:13 AM »
<<Suffice to say, reality trumps your revisionist history.  Germany was running nearly every country mentioned, 1 way or the other, even annexing 1.  FAR more than what I've referenced that a country as supposedly evil as America is, with a murderous military 2nd to none, and a leader as bad as Hitler, in annexing some oil wells, if oil were the actual reason we went into Iraq>>

Germany was NOT running Hungary, for example, a Nazi ally, because Hungary refused to deport its Jews to death camps until a nationalist-fascist ("Arrow Cross") coup overthrew the pro-Nazi Horthy regime in 1944.  Bulgaria, another Nazi ally, refused to deport its Jews to death camps throughout the entire duration of the war.  As did Finland, another Nazi ally. 

In France, you are quite simply talking through your ass - - I gave you numerous examples of how the Nazis, on some very important issues, did NOT run things, even after they occupied the entire country.  The legal authority still belonged to the Vichy government.  It did not declare war on the Allies and did not raise a national army to fight for the Axis, although it did contribute individual battalions such as the Charlemagne Brigade to fight in the S.S.  Factories in occupied Western Europe produced material to fill German orders, often military orders, but they bid for the orders and they were paid for them.  The Nazis NEVER just seized the means of production, threw up protective cordons around them and claimed, "Now they are ours."  That is simply a bullshit product of a bullshit mind, pure fantasy invented on the spur of the moment to serve some ludicrous cockamamie theory of yours that the Bush administration is so oblivious to world opinion and the opinion of its own citizens that it would simply abandon all pretext and seize the oil wells if that's what it really wanted.  You would have to be an idiot to believe such a thing.  You would have to have zero knowledge of modern history to believe such a thing.  Sadly, you are well qualified on both counts.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2007, 01:59:00 PM »
I am sorry Sirs, but you are way off here. I've no dog in your's and Tee's fight. I haven't followed it enough to know how this even relates to the overall topic, but Nazi Germany did not control that many countries through sheer German power.

Quote
During the years leading up to WWII they had taken over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland on the grounds that they were just "taking back what was once theirs".

I might suggest reading a little history before being so defensive with your statements. First, the Germans conquered half of Poland, while the Soviets took the other half. They had a great deal of Polish help and supporters. The reason for the invasion of Poland was not "taking back what once was theirs" but the return of Danzig and the threat of the Polish Corridor. There was even evidence (beyond the Nazi propaganda) that during the 20's German buses were shot at by Polish policemen, and German women were harassed regularly, on their way to the exclave of East Prussia. It was a difficult situation for each country (and never resolved until the DDR and Communist Poland were forced to resolve it by the Soviet Union in the 1950's).

Germany never claimed the other regions of Poland were theirs by some ancient territorial claim. They simply took them after Poland collapsed. As I said, there were Polish Fascists that aided this. Interestingly, there were Polish Jews who cheered the invasion of the Germans, because they couldn't imagine a more anti-semitic state than Poland at that time (of course, they didn't expect what was coming).

Austria has to be understood in context. This was at one time a Great Empire of Europe (of which the Sudetenland was a part). Both had been reduced, after World War I, to second rate little states and in the case of the Sudetenland - a German state under Slavic control. The Austrians were forbidden, by treaty, to join Germany (remember that in 1933 that a united Germany was only a 61 year-old nation). For some Austrians this really angered them. It was one thing to allow them a free vote to determine their future - but to write into a treaty that they could never join Germany was something a former Empire took great exception to.

Austrofascism resembled Italian Fascism far more than Nazism. In fact, Italy was one of the nations that protested the eventual Anschluss. Yet, Germany did not claim some historical ownership of Austria. Any European knew that to not be the case (the Habsburgs had ruled an Empire for centuries). It was far different than you claim. For the most part it was run by the Austrian Fascist Party.

Even you said that the Germans allowed the Danish Government to remain and govern. Of course they didn't allow elections. That would be a waste of time and money. They needed the same people there at the same positions to run things smoothly. Why would Fascists give a damn about elections?

Vichy France ran her own government. Of course they received Nazi aid (the Nazis controlled some of the most economically powerful cities in France). Of course the Nazis controlled their foreign policy. Do you see us not controlling Iraq's foreign policy? LOL No offense Sirs, but you're doing nothing more than stating the obvious. In Germany's case it was a World War, what would you have them do? Allow Vichy France to have warm and fuzzy elections then make buddies with Britain?

Quote
the Germans partitioned Slovenia and annexed the northeastern part of the country

Just making my case more and more. Slovenia is a tiny little country and it was partitioned?

In any case, the Croatians were mostly left to their own devices and they appeared to rather have enjoyed Nazism and especially ethnic cleansing and concentration camps. Only they tended to target Serbians more than Jews. Hence, some of the problems we have today.

Quote
Between July and early December 1941, German troops conquered the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Belorussia, most of the Ukraine, and large tracts of Russian territory. By early December 1941, the Germans had laid siege to Leningrad in the north, reached the outskirts of Moscow in the center, and conquered Rostov, the gateway to the Caucasus, in the south

*sigh*

Many of the Baltic states were happy to be free of Soviet control. The Ukraine tended to support the Nazis quite a bit and had their own very strong Fascist movement. In fact, the Ukraine also made for excellent SS guards and worked heavily in concentration camps.

Yes, they conquered a lot of land in Russia...much of it empty and meaningless. I'm not sure how that makes your point at all. Just as an aside, my Grandfather fought on the Eastern front.

Quote
Suffice to say, the implication that Nazi Germany, really didn't do much in the way of controlling the plethora of surrounding countries & their resources, thus the notion that what "sirs is suggesting about U.S. annexation & control of some oil fields, Nazi Germany never did", is a factually an absurdity

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But the fact is that Germany, which learned from the best colonial powers of the time (especially the UK) had discovered that a good conquering nation cannot afford to waste time by taking over every absurd detail of governing each country one conquers.

The British learned and practiced this better than anyone. But, the Germans employed it well in World War II. Their secret was Fascism, and the appeal of Nazism and Hitler to much of Europe.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2007, 02:42:44 PM »
...the fact is that Germany, which learned from the best colonial powers of the time had discovered that a good conquering nation cannot afford to waste time by taking over every absurd detail of governing each country one conquers.

The fact is that Germany, was either ruling completely, or by extension their military foreign & domestic policy, which would absolutely include whatever resources that country had.  Did they have a defacto governor and executive board for each one of those countries?, no.  Did they facilitate, when not outright commanding those countries to do what they say?, absofrellinloutley.  All of which is exponentially more than simply annexing some oil wells, of 1 country     ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #69 on: September 21, 2007, 02:43:42 PM »
<<I might suggest reading a little history before being so defensive with your statements. First, the Germans conquered half of Poland, while the Soviets took the other half.>>

Sorry, JS, that's just typical Cold War propaganda.  Poland was not divided 50/50 as you suggest.  The Germans got most of it and the Soviets took a strip about 200 miles wide running along the Russian-Polish border, as a buffer zone between the U.S.S.R. and the Nazi occupation army.  This was mostly land which the Polish Legion had invaded and stripped from Russia during the course of the Russian Civil War that erupted in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution.

You are also right about some Polish Jews cheering the German invaders.  My late father-in-law was from a region of Poland that was constantly changing from Russian to Polish to Russian, but was Poland when he landed in Canada in the 1920s.  He had very good memories of German troops who invaded during WWI, particularly one episode that he witnessed when three Poles were hanged by <<the Germans for murdering Jews.  The Polacks were outraged that anyone could be hanged for such a trifling matter as the killing of Jews.  They could not believe what was happening.  A lot of Polish Jews believed that, Hitler's rhetoric notwithstanding, the Germans were a "highly civilized" people and would have to treat the Jews "correctly."  That was obviously one HUGE misjudgment.

<<Only they [the Croatians] tended to target Serbians more than Jews.>>

They massacred about 600,000 Serbs and about 60,000 Jews, basically every Jew they could get their hands on.  The massacres were conducted with the greatest brutality and sadism of WWII (look up "Jasenovac concentration camp for an idea) which most North Americans remain totally ignorant of, and which explains perfectly the payback the Serbs were looking for in the aftermath of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.  It follows naturally that the "West" chose to take the side of Nazi Croatia and turn on our former ally, the ferociously anti-fascist Serbia.

<<Many of the Baltic states were happy to be free of Soviet control. >>

That's a little disingenuous.  Lithuania, for example, had actually invited the Red Army into the country originally.  When Hitler invaded, Lithuania became one of the few Nazi satellites (Romania was another) in which the liquidation of the Jewish population could be safely left to the local inhabitants.  I believe Latvia also relied on the local fascist militias to conduct the massacres, freeing up more German and Ukrainian troops for bigger and better things.

I think some of sirs' distorted thinking is the result of Cold War propaganda, which relied heavily on the myth of "enslaved" Eastern Europe, not realizing that most of the local populations were fanatical, Jew-killing anti-Semitic Nazi bastards who were major accomplices in the Holocaust and actually deserved much worse that to live under Soviet occupation.  In the American propaganda version of history, the Russians were the bad guys guilty of everything, and the former collaborators and Holocaust participants were "innocent victims" of Nazi aggression who did absolutely nothing to assist Hitler voluntarily.  (and, moreover, deserved to be "liberated" from Soviet "oppression.")

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2007, 02:49:45 PM »
<<Did they have a defacto governor and executive board for each one of those countries?, no. >>

With the exceptions of Austria and the Sudetenland, the answer is YES.  From the General Government of Poland (the most absolutist and least accountable.) Some countries were occupied, like France or Hungary, which hadtheir own governments.  For those countries, the Germans did not have any "de facto governor and executive board."  They had embassies.  Otto Abetz, for example, the German ambassador to France, had a lot of power and influence in Paris.  Just like the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad.   

<<Did they facilitate, when not outright commanding those countries to do what they say?, absofrellinloutley. >>

Facilitate?  Of course they "facilitated" compliance with their policy.  What country doesn't?  How can you spout nonsense like this?  Do you even know what you are saying?

<<All of which is exponentially more than simply annexing some oil wells, of 1 country >>

NOBODY has ever "simply annexed some oil wells of one country."  That is the whole fucking point.  Not even the Nazis.  Not even Bush.  Have they done WORSE?  Have they done "exponentially more?"  Of course they have.  But that is one thing they just didn't do.  That nobody ever does.  The U.S. has done "exponentially more" in Iraq.  But it would not simply seize the wells.  That would be telling the world, "Look at us.  We are crooks.  We have no principles.  We rob.  We steal."  There is no self-respecting government in the world that acts like that.  Never was.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2007, 02:55:38 PM by Michael Tee »

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2007, 02:52:13 PM »
Yes, in fairness I knew that about Poland and should have said so. I didn't put my best effort into this one, I admit. I appreciate you calling me on it.

Eastern Europe was very interesting during that time. Some were more than willing to help with the Holocaust, others very reluctant (I believe Bulgaria refused to send their Jews, or at least all of them). Of course, the Roma were loathed in Eastern Europe and still are today, which made shipping them off all the easier.

And yes, I very much simplified the Baltic states and their reaction. Some sympathised with the Germans because they never adopted the "Soviet identity" which had always been a hard sell. In many ways, once you get past the rhetoric of "Ronnie Reagan won the Cold War" it was really nationalism amongst the Central Asian and Baltic regions that had hurt the USSR for decades. This was readily seen upon the collapse when Turkmenistan fought a five year civil war (something few Americans know) and the Caucuses region plunged into a nasty series of wars.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2007, 02:56:46 PM »
Sorry, JS, that's just typical Cold War propaganda.  Poland was not divided 50/50 as you suggest.  The Germans got most of it and the Soviets took a strip about 200 miles wide running along the Russian-Polish border, as a buffer zone between the U.S.S.R. and the Nazi occupation army.  This was mostly land which the Polish Legion had invaded and stripped from Russia during the course of the Russian Civil War that erupted in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Actually, the Soviets ended up with over half of Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What the people of Anbar are saying
« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2007, 03:10:47 PM »
NOBODY has ever "simply annexed some oil wells of one country."  That is the whole fucking point.  Not even the Nazis.  Not even Bush.  Have they done WORSE?  Have they done "exponentially more?"  Of course they have.  But that is one thing they just didn't do.  

Good fricken gravy, THAT's what your whole arguement boils down to??  Because Germany didn't SPECIFICALLY annex some oil wells??  GADS Tee, your whole rant about the U.S. is just how diabolically evil they are, how fascist they are.  How they simply are in Iraq for the oil.  And with all this military hardware that Germany never had, your tact is that why would they (annex some oil fields), since Germany didn't (annex some oil fields)??  Germany did FAR WORSE, as you have conceded, and Bush is supposedly just as evil, with just as murderous a military as the SS.  Why would they??...........FOR THE OIL of course (IF that's why they're there)

Priceless       ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle