DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on September 17, 2007, 12:45:47 PM
-
What They?re Saying in Anbar Province
By GARY LANGER
Published: September 16, 2007
IN his address to the nation on Thursday, President Bush singled out progress in Anbar Province as the model for United States success in Iraq. The president?s claims echoed those made earlier in the week by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, in his Congressional testimony. And they raised a question worth examining: Do United States military alliances with Sunni tribal leaders truly reflect a turning of hearts and minds away from Anbar?s bitter anti-Americanism?
The data from our latest Iraq poll suggest not.
Al Qaeda, it should be said, is overwhelmingly ? almost unanimously ? unpopular in Anbar, as it is in the rest of Iraq. But our enemies? enemies are not necessarily our friends. The United States, it turns out, is equally unpopular there.
In a survey conducted Aug. 17-24 for ABC News, the BBC and NHK, the Japanese broadcaster, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqis, 72 percent in Anbar expressed no confidence whatsoever in United States forces. Seventy-six percent said the United States should withdraw now ? up from 49 percent when we polled there in March, and far above the national average.
Withdrawal timetable aside, every Anbar respondent in our survey opposed the presence of American forces in Iraq ? 69 percent ?strongly? so. Every Anbar respondent called attacks on coalition forces ?acceptable,? far more than anywhere else in the country. All called the United States-led invasion wrong, including 68 percent who called it ?absolutely wrong.? No wonder: Anbar, in western Iraq, is almost entirely populated by Sunni Arabs, long protected by Saddam Hussein and dispossessed by his overthrow.
There are critical improvements in Anbar. Most important have been remarkable advances in confidence in the Iraqi Army and police. In ABC?s survey in March, not a single respondent rated local security positively ? now 38 percent do. Nonetheless, nobody surveyed in Anbar last month gave the United States any credit. Ratings of living conditions remain dismal: respondents were deeply dissatisfied with the availability of electricity and fuel, jobs, medical care and a host of other elements of daily life. And the violence, while sharply down, has hardly ended: One in four reported that car bombs or suicide attacks had occurred near them in the last six months. Last week?s murder of Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, an Anbar sheik who had allied himself with the United States, only underscored this grim reality.
Anbar?s tribal leaders may have any number of motivations for their alliance with the United States. It?s been reported that the United States government has provided them arms, mat?riel and money, as well as undertaking more than $700 million in reconstruction projects in the province.
But it seems clear that popular sentiment in Anbar is another matter entirely. Indeed, one other result from our poll may be of particular interest to Anbar?s tribal leaders and the United States military alike: Just 23 percent in Anbar expressed confidence in their ?local leaders?; 77 percent had little or none. That?s better than it was in March ? but still nearly the lowest level of confidence in local leaders we measured anywhere in Iraq.
Confidence in local leaders, as it happens, is lower only in Diyala ? the other province Mr. Bush mentioned in his speech as a focal point of progress in Iraq.
Gary Langer is the director of polling for ABC News.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/16langer.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
-
Hilarious. But I've already figured out the fascist response: The numbers were far worse before the surge. (Of course, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.)
I've figured this out - - the fascists don't give a shit about facts. They make up some that they hope will shut up their liberal opponents, but if countervailing facts pop up, they just ignore them. This is because the mission is made up first, the real reasons for it are so nefarious that they can never be admitted to in public, so the rest of the debate has to be conducted on totally false premises: the U.S. is in Iraq because of the "threat" of WMD, or, the U.S. is in Iraq to bring them "democracy," or the U.S. is in Iraq because there would be a bloodbath if they left. Regardless, all the reasons are bogus. So to debate the success or failure of the mission means accepting a bunch of false premises and arguing from there. So in a sense the whole argument is phony because it never touches upon the real reasons for the mission. There are no facts which could possibly be relevant to the debate as it is presently framed.
-
Hilarious. But I've already figured out the fascist response: The numbers were far worse before the surge. (Of course, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.)
I've figured this out - - the fascists don't give a shit about facts. They make up some that they hope will shut up their liberal opponents, but if countervailing facts pop up, they just ignore them. This is because the mission is made up first, the real reasons for it are so nefarious that they can never be admitted to in public, so the rest of the debate has to be conducted on totally false premises: the U.S. is in Iraq because of the "threat" of WMD, or, the U.S. is in Iraq to bring them "democracy," or the U.S. is in Iraq because there would be a bloodbath if they left. Regardless, all the reasons are bogus. So to debate the success or failure of the mission means accepting a bunch of false premises and arguing from there. So in a sense the whole argument is phony because it never touches upon the real reasons for the mission. There are no facts which could possibly be relevant to the debate as it is presently framed.
Whether we should or should not be in Iraq is a non-issue now.
The issue is that we ARE there. Why argue in semantics instead of supporting whatever measures it takes to complete the mission while leaving the country in the best possible shape?
-
Whether we should or should not be in Iraq is a non-issue now. The issue is that we ARE there. Why argue in semantics instead of supporting whatever measures it takes to complete the mission while leaving the country in the best possible shape?
That does sum things up nicely, though given the predsiposed mindset Tee exposes with relish, we already know his answer :-\
-
<<The issue is that we ARE there. Why argue in semantics instead of supporting whatever measures it takes to complete the mission while leaving the country in the best possible shape?>>
Sure. Maybe you ought to define the mission first. And see whether "leaving the country in the best possible shape" is compatible with any of the mission's TRUE objectives.
-
<<The issue is that we ARE there. Why argue in semantics instead of supporting whatever measures it takes to complete the mission while leaving the country in the best possible shape?>>
Sure. Maybe you ought to define the mission first.
Been there done that. Simply because the actual definition doesn't fit YOUR definition, doesn't refute Miss Henny's point, in the least
And see whether "leaving the country in the best possible shape" is compatible with any of the mission's TRUE objectives.
Given the actual mission objectives, vs your lame-arse versions that it's all about the oil, it absolutely is. And let's even play your game for a microsecond. You don't think the U.S. would want to leave Iraq in the best possible shape and defensibility, in order to protect those prescious oil wells, (that we would have simply annexed ourselves and placed our own military around them 24/7, not letting any Iraqis near them, if it were actually all about the oil....not that reality plays much of a part in Tee's world)
-
<<And let's even play your game for a microsecond. You don't think the U.S. would want to leave Iraq in the best possible shape and defensibility, in order to protect those prescious oil wells, (that we would have simply annexed ourselves and placed our own military around them 24/7, not letting any Iraqis near them, if it were actually all about the oil....not that reality plays much of a part in Tee's world)>>
I'd say an independent Iraq in full control of its own oil as in Saddam's day is preferable to an Iraq which is able to cut foreigners in on its wealth and is at the same time beholden to American power for its existence. So there's a huge difference between the mission's real objective, control of a major mid-East oil producer, and what's best for Iraq, i.e. total independence including independence in oil.
-
Which of course completely glosses over that if this WERE for control of a "major mid east oil producer", we'd ALREADY BE IN CONTROL OF IT ::)
-
<<Which of course completely glosses over that if this WERE for control of a "major mid east oil producer", we'd ALREADY BE IN CONTROL OF IT>>
Which is one of the many, many reasons why this war is so humiliating and embarrassing for you. It's a major blow to U.S. prestige in the world. And very well deserved, too.
-
It's a major blow to U.S. prestige in the world.
It would be if it were a stated goal. It wasn't. Even Greenspan clarified his remarks.
-
It would be a major blow to U.S. prestige even to the shrinking pool of True Believers who still believe in Bush's account of his motives. Four years and you haven't subdued a nation of only 23 million people. Despite all your advantages in air-power and weaponry. Despite your enormous wealth. But back to the real world: where NOBODY believes the bullshit reasons given for the invasion, big humiliation. Big embarrassment. Regardless of motive.
<<Even Greenspan clarified his remarks.>>
I was expecting that. He's not out to make enemies. I believed him the first time. I also believe the administration guy who told him "We can't talk about that [oil.]" It's about oil. Nothing else makes sense.
-
<<Which of course completely glosses over that if this WERE for control of a "major mid east oil producer", we'd ALREADY BE IN CONTROL OF IT>>
Which is one of the many, many reasons why this war is so humiliating and embarrassing for you. It's a major blow to U.S. prestige in the world. And very well deserved, too.
You're hysterical, Tee. The U.S., this all mighty, all consuming, all evil entity, with the military might of no other country, who, IF they were everything you keep claiming they are, (supported by SQUAT evidence by the way), could in less than 24hrs secure said oil wells, the fact that they haven't and won't be is one of the "many, many reasons why", you're so full of horse manure. It's precisely how Ami demonstrated also, no matter the result, it supposedly bolsters your position.....that's called a template. If the U.S. were to take over Iraq's oul reserves, that would be validation of their evil. The fact they don't apparently validates how incompotent they are at doing so. It's literally hilarious :D
-
Well, sirs, I am just one of those folks who don't believe that evil and omnipotence go hand in hand. Despite your pathetic boasting of the power and might of the U.S.A., it has had its ass kicked and handed over on a platter by the Viet Cong, peasant revolutionaries who were overmatched in guns, air-power, technology of all kinds and sheer wealth - - but they had something Americans lack: balls. And so they won that war and drove the U.S. forces out of their country like a pack of whipped dogs. Same thing is happening in Iraq. America lacks the manpower to fight this war and is afraid to go to a draft because the citizens won't stand for it. The Iraqi Resistance has the balls to stand and die for their land, but the only team you can whip up to face them are the dead-enders who had to join up from economic necessity and green-card-seekers, the vast majority of your citizens have no appetite for this struggle and won't lay their own ass on the line for it, that is painfully obvious.
The simple answer to your ludicrous and pathetic boasting is, get over yourselves. You are NOT some all-powerful superpower, you are a bunch of spoiled over-indulged lazy and mostly cowardly citizens who employ a high-tech army to take on barefoot guerrilla fighters, killing a million civilians because you don't have the balls to engage the enemy mano-a-mano without calling in air strikes and artillery without regard to any civilian targets. And STILL you can't subdue this small country of 23 million people in four years of slaughter. They are still slugging it out with you, a nation of 300 million. And you claim you are NOT embarrassed by this? You are NOT humiliated by this? Incredible.
If I followed your "logic" I would have to conclude that if Hitler were truly evil, he would have conquered the world, and the fact that he didn't, and ended up utterly defeated only "proves" that he was really a good person. Honestly, I don't know how your brain works, sirs, but you had really better disabuse yourself of the idea that the crushing defeat that the U.S. is about to receive in Iraq is somehow a proof of its virtue. That is just plain crazy.
-
And if we followed your (il)logic, and actually entertained the idea that the U.S. was this big massive power grabbing military machine, we wouldn't be having this coversation. You see, that's the interger you keep ommitting in all these proclaimations of how terrible, & evil this country & and its military are......it's military capability. Bottom line iis that if we wanted the oil, we could have taken it. With the amount of soldiers & military hardware we have not just in the region, but in Iraq itself, that'd action would have been taking candy from a baby. If we wanted Chalabi as head of Iraq, with all this "puppeteering" we supposedly are in charge of, he'd be heading it. The fact is neither are the case, and your only fall back is that they were simply too incompotent to achieve those objectives.
I can't imagine how thin the air is in your reality
-
<<I can't imagine how thin the air is in your reality>>
No? Just take a look at the air in YOUR reality. The most powerful nation on earth that can have anything it wants by snapping its fingers (so you say) is stymied after four years of fighting a nation of only 23 million. It has no manpower left to face a second war should one crop up. ALL of its active combatants are either on extensions of extensions of their original tour of duty, or will be in 2008. Instead of victory, all you have to show for four years of fighting is either smarmy excuses ("We coulda had it if . . . ") or increasingly ludicrous promises (after 4 years!!) of "just around the next turn" or "stay the course and . . . " Four years, BTW, is LONGER than your entire participation in WWII, just to put this in a little perspective - - from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima. And you're fighting 23 million people, less than TEN PERCENT of your own population.
Your problem, sirs, is that you are easily taken in by bullshit. Most people are more impressed by results. And the results are not good. So even the best bullshit in the world no longer impresses most of us. The spell doesn't last forever. Unfortunately, you are still taken in by it.
This is a real-life fairy tale, and the title of the story is "The Emperor's New Clothes." You are going to be the last guy in the crowd who figures it all out. Poor sucker.
-
<<I can't imagine how thin the air is in your reality>>
Just take a look at the air in YOUR reality. The most powerful nation on earth that can have anything it wants by snapping its fingers (so you say) is stymied after four years of fighting a nation of only 23 million.
Because what YOU say they want is the oil, and what reality says, and most of the rationally minded people say, is they want is a democratically free Iraq. The former would be a piece of cake, surround each oil well with a couple of Marine platoons, Patriot batteries, and several Abrams Tanks, and claim it's payment for taking out their dictator. The latter requires diplomatic action, citizens not scared to come out for fear of their families being killed for daring to "collaborate", a functional government and security force. In other words, the latter takes a hell of alot more time, resources & logistics. The latter requires much more care in trying to minimize both civilian casualties and damage to the infrastructure.
In otherwords, the latter is reality, while the formoer is pure AMBE
-
Spoken like a man with a true, full and complete ignorance of all history. To Americans like you, world history began sometime last week, or to the real scholars among you, at the time of the first George W. Bush inauguration.
Colonialism is an old old story. The U.S. isn't the first country to make a grab at somebody else's resources, and it won't be the last. From the time of the Spanish Empire in Latin America to the time of the last British domination of Iraq, the pattern is always the same. The WHOLE COUNTRY is claimed for the exploiting power. They don't just throw up a perimeter around the mines or the oil wells or whatever they came to exploit and rob the hell out of them without pretending to govern the rest of the country. And the reason they don't do this is they all, from Ferdinand and Isabella to Queen Victoria to George W. Bush, don't want to look like the bandits and crooks and robbers that they are. Even the fucking Japs and Germans set up governments in each country they occupied and tried to pretend they were being responsibly governed for their own good.
Your proposal is so idiotic that it's barely worth answering, except for the fact that it pains me that such a level of ignorance can even exist. Even in America. You really believe that Bush and his cohorts would even for one second consider sending in a force sufficient only to secure the oil wells and then start pumping out every drop they could sell? After all the effort they have put into manufacturing lies and bullshit to create the illusion of benevolence that cloaks their every deed, just so as to keep the American sheeple as much as possible on their side? There is no imperial power on earth that has ever shown that kind of open contempt for public opinion. That is probably the craziest fucking thing I have ever heard you say, and believe me you have said plenty of crazy shit.
-
Actually, spoken as someone who can grasp current reality. And the reason you have to claim your position as iditoc is because it is. If this was simply about the oil wells & their control, and as evil as you keep claiming Bush is, with complete disregard of both Iraqi people and even his own troops, who everyone says he doesn't care a wit for either, of course he could annex the oil fields, surround them with a few thousand troops, stamp a big American flag on them, and say "Ours".
IF he were this diabolically evil entity you keep claiming he is, and IF the military is this big massive low hanging mass of murdering rapists
Reality however demonstrates that not to be, and your continued tact of lack of proof is proof posistive, simply demonstrates the levels of desperation you have to sink to, in order to adhere to your template
-
Essentially your argument depends on Bush doing something that even the Nazis at their most victorious didn't do. Does Bush look to you like a guy who doesn't give a shit what people think about him? Then why all these speeches trying to justify what he's doing?
Let me straighten you out on what I actually say about Bush. I never claimed he was more evil than the Nazis, only that he was on a rough par with them. With a smaller number of victims because he's more of a punk than Hitler was.
So why would my theory call for Bush to go beyond what the Nazis themselves did?
-
Because what YOU say they want is the oil, and what reality says, and most of the rationally minded people say, is they want is a democratically free Iraq.
I have a question about this.
If we want a democracy in Iraq, why aren't we doing something about the Saudi's funding of the Sunni insurgents, who are still causing the most violence to the people of Iraq and to our own soldiers in that country? Reports of Saudi funding for Sunni insurgents have been made since 2006 and our focus has still been aimed primarily at Shi'a insurgents and debatable ties to Iranian arms shipments.
If we are serious about democracy in Iraq, not oil and not any other agenda, then why are we so keen on allowing the Saudis and Sunni insurgents to do as they please?
-
JS - to ask the question is to answer it. NOBODY gives a shit about democracy in Iraq. Why would the U.S. be concerned about democracy in Iraq if they aren't concerned about it anywhere else in the Middle East?
-
JS - to ask the question is to answer it. NOBODY gives a shit about democracy in Iraq. Why would the U.S. be concerned about democracy in Iraq if they aren't concerned about it anywhere else in the Middle East?
I was hoping someone who believes in democracy in Iraq could provide an answer.
This turning a blind eye to the Saudis and Sunnis in general, seems to undermine the entire argument for democracy in Iraq.
-
JS - to ask the question is to answer it. NOBODY gives a shit about democracy in Iraq. Why would the U.S. be concerned about democracy in Iraq if they aren't concerned about it anywhere else in the Middle East?
I was hoping someone who believes in democracy in Iraq could provide an answer. This turning a blind eye to the Saudis and Sunnis in general, seems to undermine the entire argument for democracy in Iraq.
Apparently Js is now advocating military intervention all across the Middle East :-\ Go figure
Essentially your argument depends on Bush doing something that even the Nazis at their most victorious didn't do.
You mean to tell me, Germany didn't ring up their own command & control, if not flag as well, when they took France?? Germany wasn't running & ruling Austria as if it was theirs More of that revisionist history I see being employed. ::) And one more time, this is about supposedly taking over oil wells, not an entire country, something we could do within a 24hr period, IF that were our chief goal
Does Bush look to you like a guy who doesn't give a shit what people think about him?
What?? Yo Tee, it's YOU claiming he doesn't give a sheet about anyone or anything. YOU are the one claiming how he has no problem sending anyone to their death, and killing anyone in the process, so long as it accomplishes his nefarious goals. As I said, reality trumps your prescious asanine irrational view of what Bush and our military are supposed to be.
So why would my theory call for Bush to go beyond what the Nazis themselves did?
Because your theory is nothing more than hateful speculation, devoid of ANY substance. The Nazis went WAY beyond simple control of some oil wells. They systematically murdered millions in camps, while ruling over a vast area of Europe, at the height of their military control. And Bush is supposedly a Hitler want-to-be, evil as evil can be, in charge of the greatest military currently on the globe. Best gets some oxygen, Tee. I'd recommend at least 3liters/minute, perhaps even 4 to start off with
-
Apparently Js is now advocating military intervention all across the Middle East :-\ Go figure
Nice. Try and get into a sincere discussion and you get a smart ass comment.
-
JS
Perhaps diplomatic pressure is being applied to the Saudi's. and i'm aware of Saudi statements that they would aid the sunni's if Iran had undo influence on IOraq. I'm not aware that they are actively funding sunni insurgents now.
Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
-
Apparently Js is now advocating military intervention all across the Middle East :-\ Go figure
Nice. Try and get into a sincere discussion and you get a smart ass comment.
Yo Js, smart ass is this complaining how it must not be democracy that went in Iraq, since we're not going after any other Suuni or Saudi led Government. This is that shell game the left plays that really is beneath folks like yourself, but unfortunately I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You see that tactic every frellin time you read a comment about "There's the 143rd reason that the Administration said we went into Iraq for). The reason we don't go after any of these other Governments is THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ.
We went in because of the WMD threat and terrorist connections following 911. Everything that has happened since is as a result of that reason we went into Iraq. Your "complaint" would imply we went into Iraq solely to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Your "complaint" then obligates a massive military intervention to help bring about Democracy to all the other locales you mention. so, the smart-as response is the shell game of picking which reason the left thinks we went into Iraq, in any given thread, when the reason, we went in HAVE NEVER CHANGED
-
<<You mean to tell me, Germany didn't ring up their own command & control, if not flag as well, when they took France?? >>
NO, moron, they didn't. They never "took" France either, they signed an armistice with France, which means simply a cease-fire. France got to keep her navy and her overseas empire. Germany occupied part of France and left part unoccupied. The Vichy government had legal authority over French citizens in both parts. Then after the Allies (British and American) landed without much opposition in France's North African colonies, Germany occupied the rest of France militarily but the French government in Vichy still passed laws for all of France. French industry filled German military orders voluntarily. They were guarded by French police. Even the S.T.O. (the law which conscripted French youth for factory work in Germany) was a law passed by the Vichy government. The only Nazi flags you'd ever see in France were on the German Embassy and Consulates and over German military bases.
<<<< Germany wasn't running & ruling Austria as if it was theirs >>
Austria WAS theirs. They incorporated it into the German Reich. It was (in their eyes) racially and linguistically German and had to be naturally a part of the Reich. Austria was an exception. There were some native Austrian fascists who needed to be liquidated because they believed in an Austrian fascist national destiny independent of Germany but apart from that the Germans ruled Austria like they ruled their own country. They didn't treat them as a conquered people. Hitler himself was an Austrian. So were a lot of the top Nazis. The rest of the Austrians LOVED Hitler. They had no problem at all with joining Nazi Germany. There was never an Austrian Resistance. It was only after the Nazis lost the war that the Austrians came up with their sob story, Boo hoo we were occupied and enslaved by mean old Nazi Germany. It's ludicrous to consider them an occupied country. Many of them were bigger Nazis than the Nazis.
They set up puppet governments wherever they could. Slovakia, Denmark, Norway (where do you think the word "quisling" comes from?) etc. Or relied on native fascist parties to form collaborationist governments, as in Romania, Hungary, Croatia. Some countries like Poland which was the worst example they ruled by force through a German General Government, but even that assumed responsibility for the whole country, which it attempted to police and rule. NEVER did they just surround the means of production and take no responsibility for anything else.
<<The More of that revisionist history I see being employed. Roll Eyes >>
As always, you're talking out of your ass. You don't even know history, WTF would you know about "revisionist" history?
<<And one more time, this is about supposedly taking over oil wells, not an entire country, something we could do within a 24hr period, IF that were our chief goal>>
And talking out of your ass. I've already answered that totally absurd and incredibly ignorant assertion, that would deprive them of any shred of legality and brand them as bandits and criminals in the eyes of the world and even their own people. Even YOU would have to admit that they were a gang of amoral criminals if they did what you say they could do. They need some support for their criminal ventures, that it comes from the dumbest of the dumb is not good, but it's better than no support at all.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:58:01 AM
<<Does Bush look to you like a guy who doesn't give a shit what people think about him?
<<What?? Yo Tee, it's YOU claiming he doesn't give a sheet about anyone or anything. YOU are the one claiming how he has no <<problem sending anyone to their death, and killing anyone in the process, so long as it accomplishes his nefarious goals. As I said, reality trumps your prescious asanine irrational view of what Bush and our military are supposed to be.>>
Really? And just where did I claim that Bush never tried to cover his tracks and find phony excuses to fool as many morons as he could fool?
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:58:01 AM
<<So why would my theory call for Bush to go beyond what the Nazis themselves did?
<<Because your theory is nothing more than hateful speculation, devoid of ANY substance. >>
Well, OK, but that STILL doesn't answer my question. Why would a theory based on nothing more than hateful speculation and devoid of any substance require that Bush should have to act worse than the Nazis in pubic view?
<<The Nazis went WAY beyond simple control of some oil wells. They systematically murdered millions in camps, while ruling over a vast area of Europe, at the height of their military control. >>
Sure they did. But they always kept up the pretence that they were LIBERATING Europe (from Bolshevism and Jews) and were creating a new Europe for the future, free of both Jews and Bolshevists.
<< And Bush is supposedly a Hitler want-to-be, evil as evil can be, in charge of the greatest military currently on the globe. >>
Yeah but still concerned, as the Nazis were, to look good while he's doing evil.
<<Best gets some oxygen, Tee. I'd recommend at least 3liters/minute, perhaps even 4 to start off with>>
Best grow a fucking brain, sirs, or at least try to learn something about Nazis and European history before making such an ass of yourself again.
-
JS
Perhaps diplomatic pressure is being applied to the Saudi's. and i'm aware of Saudi statements that they would aid the sunni's if Iran had undo influence on IOraq. I'm not aware that they are actively funding sunni insurgents now.
Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/dailyUpdate.html)
CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml)
Int'l forecaster (http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/ptrainwreck.php?Id=183)
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6664457.stm)
-
Yo Js, smart ass is this complaining how it must not be democracy ofwe want in Iraq, since we're not going after any other Suuni or Saudi led Government. This is that shell game the left plays that really is beneath folks like yourself, but unfortunately I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You see that tactic every frellin time you read a comment about "There's the 143rd reason that the Administration said we went into Iraq for). The reason we don't go after any of these other Governments is THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ.
We went in because of the WMD threat and terrorist connections following 911. Everything that has happened since is as a result of that reason we went into Iraq. Your "complaint" would imply we went into Iraq solely to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Your "complaint" then obligates a massive military intervention to help bring about Democracy to all the other locales you mention. so, the smart-as response is the shell game of picking which reason the left thinks we went into Iraq, in any given thread, when the reason, we went in HAVE NEVER CHANGED
Sirs, you seem to misinterpret things here very badly. Whatever reasons we went into Iraq are in the past. I don't give a damn about those in this context. Nor do I give a damn about your incessant whining about "the left" and whatever bizarre political games you think need to be played. I honestly, do not care.
I am talking about IRAQ. One country. I never said that we needed to invade Saudi Arabia, nor did I suggest that we had to make every other country around Iraq a democracy. So you can take your strawmen arguments and put them away. I don't care about them, because you made them, not me.
Now, what I do care about is Iraq and President Bush, nominee Fred Thompson, and many others have explained that we are there to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Don't ask me where they got that idea Sirs. I'm not the one who invented it. But, there it is.
So, my question is this, are we truly supporting a democratic Iraq when we are seemingly not bothering to stop the flow of weapons and funding to the Sunni Insurgents? Yet, we seem very gung-ho to go after the Shi'a insurgents and Iran, who we seem to have singled out as their supplier.
Now, if you have nothing but strawmen and smart ass remarks as a reply, then kindly step aside and let the adults talk. If you have something to add, please be a part of the conversation. It isn't that difficult of a concept.
-
The rest of the Austrians LOVED Hitler. They had no problem at all with joining Nazi Germany. There was never an Austrian Resistance. It was only after the Nazis lost the war that the Austrians came up with their sob story, Boo hoo we were occupied and enslaved by mean old Nazi Germany.
Bullshit.
-
Nothing personal Ami, you seem like a good guy. Let's just agree to disagree on Austria. It is what it is and neither one of us can change history.
-
Yo Js, smart ass is this complaining how it must not be democracy ofwe want in Iraq, since we're not going after any other Suuni or Saudi led Government. This is that shell game the left plays that really is beneath folks like yourself, but unfortunately I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You see that tactic every frellin time you read a comment about "There's the 143rd reason that the Administration said we went into Iraq for). The reason we don't go after any of these other Governments is THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ.
We went in because of the WMD threat and terrorist connections following 911. Everything that has happened since is as a result of that reason we went into Iraq. Your "complaint" would imply we went into Iraq solely to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Your "complaint" then obligates a massive military intervention to help bring about Democracy to all the other locales you mention. so, the smart-as response is the shell game of picking which reason the left thinks we went into Iraq, in any given thread, when the reason, we went in HAVE NEVER CHANGED
Sirs, you seem to misinterpret things here very badly. Whatever reasons we went into Iraq are in the past. I don't give a damn about those in this context. Nor do I give a damn about your incessant whining about "the left" and whatever bizarre political games you think need to be played. I honestly, do not care.
I do care, when distortions are being applied by "those who dislike our being in Iraq" (if that's better than leftists, for you), trying to play games by claiming "if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?", as if that's why we're there. Yes, we're there now, but you're also the one that responded to Tee in your concerns about the sincerity of our trying to bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not trying to do so anywhere else. Your "problem", is that's not why we went into Iraq, so why WOULD we be trying to bring democracy to other middle east locales?? ???
-
JS,
My thought on this topic is that in what has deteriorated into a civil war, our government might be choosing the "lesser of two evils."
To support the Shi'ites is to support Iran.
-
I do care, when distortions are being applied by "those who dislike our being in Iraq" (if that's better than leftists, for you), trying to play games by claiming "if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?", as if that's why we're there. Yes, we're there now, but you're also the one that responded to Tee in your concerns about the sincerity of our trying to bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not trying to do so anywhere else. Your "problem", is that's not why we went into Iraq, so why WOULD we be trying to bring democracy to other middle east locales?? ???
I applied no such "distortions."
if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?
Not once have I made this argument. Not once! Every reply I have made here is in context to Iraq and Iraq only.
In other words, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.
-
JS,
My thought on this topic is that in what has deteriorated into a civil war, our government might be choosing the "lesser of two evils."
To support the Shi'ites is to support Iran.
My problem with that Ms. Henny, is that I don't see that as a necessary choice. More than that, I'm not sure that is the lesser of two evils.
Most Iraqis are Shi'ites. We knew that going into this war. If we wanted Sunni minority control, we could have left Saddam in power.
-
My problem with that Ms. Henny, is that I don't see that as a necessary choice. More than that, I'm not sure that is the lesser of two evils.
Most Iraqis are Shi'ites. We knew that going into this war. If we wanted Sunni minority control, we could have left Saddam in power.
Perhaps you're not sure that this is the lesser of two evils, but the government might - and I would suggest that they probably do.
With Saddam in power, Sunnis were favored, but it was a secular Baathist control. Moreover, I don't think that civil war was anticipated when the mission to overthrow Saddam was undertaken.
-
Perhaps you're not sure that this is the lesser of two evils, but the government might - and I would suggest that they probably do.
With Saddam in power, Sunnis were favored, but it was a secular Baathist control. Moreover, I don't think that civil war was anticipated when the mission to overthrow Saddam was undertaken.
If a civil war was not anticipated, or at least strongly considered as a possible scenario, then I might suggest a high degree of incompetence in forward planning.
-
I do care, when distortions are being applied by "those who dislike our being in Iraq" (if that's better than leftists, for you), trying to play games by claiming "if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?", as if that's why we're there. Yes, we're there now, but you're also the one that responded to Tee in your concerns about the sincerity of our trying to bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not trying to do so anywhere else. Your "problem", is that's not why we went into Iraq, so why WOULD we be trying to bring democracy to other middle east locales?? ???
I applied no such "distortions."
YES, you did, when you complained about the sincerity of our wanting to help bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not helping to bring it anywhere else. That directly implies that we went into Iraq to bring them Democracy. THAT's a distortion since it isn't the reason, simply why we're sthere now. At least it's not a bald faced lie that Tee perpetuates with his "oil theory" garbage, but it's still a distortion, and a frequent game that's played by those who dislike Bush and the war.
if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?
Not once have I made this argument. Not once! Every reply I have made here is in context to Iraq and Iraq only. In other words, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.
I'm rambling about your original statement "I have a question about this. If we want a democracy in Iraq, why aren't we doing something about the Saudi's funding of the Sunni insurgents, who are still causing the most violence to the people of Iraq and to our own soldiers in that country?"
The answer is because we're not in the business of wanting to bring Democracy wherever we feel like, INCLUDING IRAQ >:(
-
Sirs, whether you like it or not, this administration and other Republicans regard bringing democracy to Iraq as a vital benchmark and possibly the most important aspect of the entire war. In other words, the top measure of success.
Once again, I never claimed that we need to bring democracy to any nation, especially those outside of Iraq. I never claimed that we need to use military force on Saudi Arabia. Those were your strawmen, not mine.
And yes, we ARE in that business. You're president said so. "Spreading freedom," remember?
So my question is very valid, whether you play semantics with the answer is up to you and only goes to demonstrate your willingness to address the actual issues in Iraq or peripheral nonsense.
-
<<If a civil war was not anticipated, or at least strongly considered as a possible scenario, then I might suggest a high degree of incompetence in forward planning.>>
They seriously underestimated the fierceness of the resistance to their invasion and occupation and they all too typically overestimated their own strength. They keep forgetting that their opponents aren't afraid to die and they'll fight for their land. This is going to add up to the most serious ass-whipping I've seen them take since 1975. What's more, one that starts after their downward slide as a world power has already begun. Here's where you really have to start watching carefully for the creeping fascism to go into overdrive.
-
Sirs, whether you like it or not, this administration and other Republicans regard bringing democracy to Iraq as a vital benchmark and possibly the most important aspect of the entire war. In other words, the top measure of success.
Absolutely.....NOW, AFTER we dealt with the primary reason we went in. PRIOR to our going in however, it was the threat of WMD and the connections Iraq had with terrorists that could use them on us, following the vents of 911.
Once again, I never claimed that we need to bring democracy to any nation, especially those outside of Iraq. I never claimed that we need to use military force on Saudi Arabia. Those were your strawmen, not mine.
"I have a question about this. If we want a democracy in Iraq, why aren't we doing something about the Saudi's funding of the Sunni insurgents, who are still causing the most violence to the people of Iraq and to our own soldiers in that country?"
YOUR words, not mine
And yes, we ARE in that business. You're president said so. "Spreading freedom," remember?
Spreading freedom, of course. Encouraging it and advocating it where-ever possible, of course. Invading other countries to bring it about?? What are you smoking?
So my question is very valid,
No, it's NOT. It's a distortion, that you yourself just validated in trying to claim that Bush wants to spread freedom. Let's apply an opposite question. Given our reasons for going into Iraq, were to deal with the WMD threat Iraq had, in the potential for they being sold to terrorists who just took out 3000+ U.S. civilians, why would we go into Saudi Arabia, and any other Suuni led countries, to try and "bring Democracy to them"?? Or perhaps more accurately, why aren't we doing more?
-
Nothing personal Ami, you seem like a good guy. Let's just agree to disagree on Austria. It is what it is and neither one of us can change history.
That's right. The Austrian Resistance existed whether or not you acknowledge it.
-
Absolutely.....NOW, AFTER we dealt with the primary reason we went in. PRIOR to our going in however, it was the threat of WMD and the connections Iraq had with terrorists that could use them on us, following the vents of 911.
Irrelevant to the present.
YOUR words, not mine
Yes, my question. No where in it will you find advocation for invading another nation or pushing democracy on other nations. A question, seeking an answer.
Spreading freedom, of course. Encouraging it and advocating it where-ever possible, of course. Invading other countries to bring it about?? What are you smoking?
Never claimed that was the reason for the invasion. Again, I'm talking about the present. I don't smoke, thanks.
No, it's NOT. It's a distortion, that you yourself just validated in trying to claim that Bush wants to spread freedom. Let's apply an opposite question. Given our reasons for going into Iraq, were to deal with the WMD threat Iraq had, in the potential for they being sold to terrorists who just took out 3000+ U.S. civilians, why would we go into Saudi Arabia, and any other Suuni led countries, to try and "bring Democracy to them"?? Or perhaps more accurately, why aren't we doing more?
There is no "distortion." It is a straightforward question. If you do not want to answer, then don't. Quit making an ass of yourself in the process. The majority of US soldiers who have died in combat in Iraq, have died from Sunni insurgents. End of. This has little to do with your "distortions" and whatever other bizarre games you're playing here.
Toddle off now.
-
Absolutely.....NOW, AFTER we dealt with the primary reason we went in. PRIOR to our going in however, it was the threat of WMD and the connections Iraq had with terrorists that could use them on us, following the vents of 911.
Irrelevant to the present.
COMPLETELY RELEVENT, in dealing with this distortion effort on the timeline. WHY we went in originally, is NOT why we're still there now. So trying to reference complaints/concerns to issues of why we're there now, is answered by the fact that's not the original reason we went in.
YOUR words, not mine
Yes, my question. No where in it will you find advocation for invading another nation or pushing democracy on other nations. A question, seeking an answer.
The point at which you presented your question, was directly related to Tee's implied false guise of bringing democracy to Iraq, because of course, it's just all for the oil
Spreading freedom, of course. Encouraging it and advocating it where-ever possible, of course. Invading other countries to bring it about?? What are you smoking?
Never claimed that was the reason for the invasion. Again, I'm talking about the present. I don't smoke, thanks.
Well, glad you don't smoke, that's a good thing. So, what DO YOU suggest in helping to bring about democracy to Saudi Arabia, and other Suuni led countries??
There is no "distortion." It is a straightforward question. If you do not want to answer, then don't. Quit making an ass of yourself in the process.
I'm not the one with the distortion problem
The majority of US soldiers who have died in combat in Iraq, have died from Sunni insurgents. End of.
And............................? You advocating we go after anyone who's Suuni? and you haven't answered my question. Given our reasons for going into Iraq was to deal with the WMD threat, why would we go into any other country to bring about Democracy?
Toddle off now.
Kitchen too hot apparently
-
COMPLETELY RELEVENT, in dealing with this distortion effort on the timeline. WHY we went in originally, is NOT why we're still there now. So trying to reference complaints/concerns to issues of why we're there now, is answered by the fact that's not the original reason we went in.
My question has to do with the here and now. It has nothing to do with the invasion or "the timeline." I'm talking about today, the present, right now.
The point at which you presented your question, was directly related to Tee's implied false guise of bringing democracy to Iraq, because of course, it's just all for the oil
Believe it or not, I did not collude with Tee to reinforce any of his arguments. This was my question and I've voiced this concern before.
Well, glad you don't smoke, that's a good thing. So, what DO YOU suggest in helping to bring about democracy to Saudi Arabia, and other Suuni led countries??
At this time, quite frankly, I don't suggest anything because it has nothing to do with our current situation in Iraq and Saudi funding and arms shipments to Sunni Insurgents in Iraq.
I'm not the one with the distortion problem
Well, there's a problem alright. Somehow you've read much more into this than was rational.
And............................? You advocating we go after anyone who's Suuni? and you haven't answered my question. Given our reasons for going into Iraq was to deal with the WMD threat, why would we go into any other country to bring about Democracy?
Let me try, very simply:
1. The Sunni insurgents ARE IN IRAQ. They are not in another country. I don't know why you keep suggesting that.
2. No one is suggesting going into another country and forcing democracy upon them. At least, I certainly am not.
3. GIven #1 and #2, why are we sitting by and allowing the Sunni Insurgents (IN IRAQ) to readily re-arm and find funding, while we go gung-ho at the Shi'ite militias and the Iranians. Basically the Iranians and Saudis are guilty of the same crime (if either is proven true), why is Saudi Arabia given a free pass? Why are Sunni Insurgents given leniency over Shi'a insurgents?
4. I don't know how to make it more clear. Your ranting and raving about reasons for invasion are not relevant to this discussion. This is now, not 2003.
Kitchen too hot apparently
No. Just frustrating trying to get points across to a thick, iron skillet that keeps repeating the same, compeltely irrelevant mantra over and over again.
-
JS
Perhaps diplomatic pressure is being applied to the Saudi's. and i'm aware of Saudi statements that they would aid the sunni's if Iran had undo influence on IOraq. I'm not aware that they are actively funding sunni insurgents now.
Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/dailyUpdate.html)
CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml)
Int'l forecaster (http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/ptrainwreck.php?Id=183)
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6664457.stm)
Saudi citizens funding the Sunni's is not the same as the government doing so. Your statement at best was misleading.
-
The point at which you presented your question, was directly related to Tee's implied false guise of bringing democracy to Iraq, because of course, it's just all for the oil
Believe it or not, I did not collude with Tee to reinforce any of his arguments. This was my question and I've voiced this concern before.
I doubt seriously you were in collusion, the timing and how you phrased your question simply reinforced his asanine position
So, what DO YOU suggest in helping to bring about democracy to Saudi Arabia, and other Suuni led countries??
At this time, quite frankly, I don't suggest anything because it has nothing to do with our current situation in Iraq and Saudi funding and arms shipments to Sunni Insurgents in Iraq.
So, let me get this straight.....You were complaining about Bush doing precisely what you'd advocate...nothing presently ::)
And............................? You advocating we go after anyone who's Suuni? and you haven't answered my question. Given our reasons for going into Iraq was to deal with the WMD threat, why would we go into any other country to bring about Democracy?
1. The Sunni insurgents ARE IN IRAQ. They are not in another country. I don't know why you keep suggesting that.
Why then did you reference Saudis originally??
3. GIven #1 why are we sitting by and allowing the Sunni Insurgents (IN IRAQ) to readily re-arm and find funding, while we go gung-ho at the Shi'ite militias and the Iranians.
You just said nothing should be done, currently. So, let's see if there's a new answer, what would you suggest doing to the Iraqi Suuni??
Basically the Iranians and Saudis are guilty of the same crime (if either is proven true), why is Saudi Arabia given a free pass? Why are Sunni Insurgents given leniency over Shi'a insurgents?
Hey, I've been on board the wagon to pull out of Saudi Arabia LONG ago. I have no interest or sympathy for its regime. So, I'm not giving them a pass, what-so-ever. Are you again re-suggesting military intervention, that you supposedly never were advocating before?
-
Saudi citizens funding the Sunni's is not the same as the government doing so. Your statement at best was misleading.
I did not realize that I claimed the Saudi government was directly involved. Yet, this is similar to Iran. We have no direct evidence linking Tehran or Riyadh to the violence in Iraq.
That doesn't mean that either is not pulling strings. Does it? (Of course it does not mean that they are, either)
-
Are you again re-suggesting military intervention, that you supposedly never were advocating before?
You're an idiot.
-
Well, I see you've transitioned down to the H mode of debate :-\ Let me look back and see if at any time I stooped down that far to simply firing off personal insults & slurs...........................................................................................
nope, that'd be all you
-
Sure you have Sirs, just without coming out and saying it.
You keep making veiled insults that I've lied and said one thing while meaning another.
I have not. I'm tired of the accusations and your unwillingness to engage in thoughtful conversation. Therefore, I've given you the moniker you've earned in this debate.
For example: "Are you again re-suggesting military intervention, that you supposedly never were advocating before?"
Could have been asked in an appropriate way, but no, you chose the passive-aggressive, cowardly Sirs way of veiled insult and implying meaning that never existed.
I'd much rather deal with someone who's at least honest without the facade. I'll pass on your bullshit insults and your childish debate tactics. Grow a spine, then discuss like a damned adult.
-
Sure you have Sirs, just without coming out and saying it.
Oh I like that, now we have the Tee approach to validation, where lack of proof is proof positive
You keep making veiled insults that I've lied and said one thing while meaning another.
NEVER said lied, I said distorted. We'll leave the bald faced lies to Tee & knute. To the point though, did you, or did you not say "This turning a blind eye to the Saudis and Sunnis in general, seems to undermine the entire argument for democracy in Iraq"??
THAT directly implies that the attempt to bring about democracy by this administration is apparently insincere because in your view, they're not doing enough against the Saudis and Suuni, (and also bolsters Tee's garbage, that you made your comments in response to.) YOU said that, not I, and when I called you on it, you tried to make this into some semantic bubble game, where it's apparently just questioning this very minute, all the while ignoring both my questions as to what you would do, and simply gripe of how I'm apparently an idiot.
With all the garbage that gets flung around here, especially from the likes of knute, that you have at no time '[ve noted ever criticized, I'm the apparent idiot. You know Js, that level of objectivity that I thought you had, being one of the few lefties in this forum to have any, pretty much got sucked dry in this thread. You're appearing to become more and more of a blinded anti-war, anti-Bush partisan, because I'm not coming to your view of things. Welcome to Brass-land
-
<<We'll leave the bald faced lies to Tee & knute. >>
How about leaving them with you, where they start and finish?
-
<<We'll leave the bald faced lies to Tee & knute. >>
How about leaving them with you, where they start and finish?
Probably because they neither start nor finish with me. Nice try, though
-
<<Probably because they neither start nor finish with me.>>
There's another one.
<<Nice try, though>>
Nah, with you it's real easy.
-
As long as you're entertained tee
-
In my firmament of entertainers, you're one of the brightest stars, sirs.
-
Apparently beyond bald face lying about Bush lying us into war, stolen election, tt's all about the oil, widespread support of all torture, yada, rant, blather, & all the rest of like minded garbage, needing to get the last word in is also necessary for the Tee-ego.
By all means, the floor is yours
-
<<By all means, the floor is yours>>
Thank you.
<<Apparently beyond bald face lying about Bush lying us into war, stolen election, tt's all about the oil, widespread support of all torture>>
You have a serious problem accepting those truths, but most people already have, maybe what needs to be seriously examined is your own inability to face up to painful truths.
<< yada, rant, blather, & all the rest of like minded garbage>>
I think you'll need to get more specific if you want to be taken seriously.
<< needing to get the la word in is also necessary for the Tee-ego.>>
It is really necessary not to give the last word to lying bullshit artists like yourself, sirs. I hope something more than ego is involved, but if it's only ego, so be it.
-
They don't just throw up a perimeter around the mines or the oil wells or whatever they came to exploit and rob the hell out of them without pretending to govern the rest of the country. \
==================================
This is pretty much what the Brits did in the UAE, Bahrein, Qatar and Kuwait, carved off from Saudi Arabia in the first three cases and Iraq from the latter.
Other instances: Port Arthur, HongKong, Goa and Macao
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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
-
<<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.
-
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
-
<<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.
-
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
...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 ::)
-
<<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.")
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg)
-
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 ::)