Saddam Hussein Captured!
Richard
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/3708151/
Nohbody
wrote:
> Merry Christmas Mr. President.
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/3708151/
Heh, Operation Red Dawn.
Operation planner a John Milius fan, perhaps?
--
Dan Poore
ICQ UIN: 3908950 <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3908950>
A Meeting of Minds <http://nohbody.com/schtuff/meeting.html> - a
(mostly) cliche-free first contact story (updated periodically)
Diane Wilson
to.address says...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 05:48:04 -0500, "Richard" <ric...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Merry Christmas Mr. President.
> >
> > http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/3708151/
>
> Heh, Operation Red Dawn.
>
> Operation planner a John Milius fan, perhaps?
>
>
when the US names an operation "Red Dawn".
Diane
Kurt Ullman
Saddam and instead arrested Aqualung.
--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
Chris Vail
"Richard" <ric...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b_udnep2JuV...@comcast.com...
As we say in Texas:
Y I P P E E K I E - AY ! ! ! !
I think they should turn him over to the
Kurds....
Chris
Kurt Ullman
concluded they REALLY busted Aqualung.
Sitting down in Baghdad
Eyeing Teh-he-ran with bad intent...
cMAD
> Merry Christmas Mr. President.
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/3708151/
Mission accomplished.
Now peace will break out. Or not?
cMAD
Dr.Evil
of the operation name?
Paul J. Adam
Depends whose versions of events to date you believe. Is the problem
"former regime loyalists" desperate to bring back The Good Old Days, or
is it foreign insurgents rushing to Iraq to slap some Yanks? (the
so-called 'flypaper strategy')? [1]
In one case the opposition just lost its figurehead, in the other case
the US solved a problem for the fundamentalists who won't be slowed or
deterred one jot.
[1] Reality is likely to be 'all of the above and a lot more besides'...
but a serious BZ for finding Hussein and bringing him in alive. Can't
hurt and has much potential to help.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Harold Hutchison
> Depends whose versions of events to date you believe. Is the problem
> "former regime loyalists" desperate to bring back The Good Old Days, or
> is it foreign insurgents rushing to Iraq to slap some Yanks? (the
> so-called 'flypaper strategy')? [1]
>
Call it both. Those are the two main elements, and when they are dealt
with the problem will be solved for the most part.
> In one case the opposition just lost its figurehead, in the other case
> the US solved a problem for the fundamentalists who won't be slowed or
> deterred one jot.
>
>
> [1] Reality is likely to be 'all of the above and a lot more besides'...
> but a serious BZ for finding Hussein and bringing him in alive. Can't
> hurt and has much potential to help.
>
I would say, to use a somewhat famous quip, that the coalition is "miday
to it's objective."
:)
--
Stretegypage.com Contributor
"There is no way I'm backing out; I'll find an angel here somehow."
Jennifer Love Hewitt, "Avenue of the Stars"
"The only person who can kill your dream is yourself."
Tom Clancy, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, August 10, 2003
Scott Podsednik was robbed.
Grey Satterfield
J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <3FDCD920...@freenet.de>, cMAD <cm...@freenet.de> writes
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>> Merry Christmas Mr. President.
>>>
>>> http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/3708151/
>>
>> Mission accomplished.
>>
>> Now peace will break out. Or not?
>
> Depends whose versions of events to date you believe. Is the problem
> "former regime loyalists" desperate to bring back The Good Old Days, or
> is it foreign insurgents rushing to Iraq to slap some Yanks? (the
> so-called 'flypaper strategy')? [1]
>
> In one case the opposition just lost its figurehead, in the other case
> the US solved a problem for the fundamentalists who won't be slowed or
> deterred one jot.
>
>
> [1] Reality is likely to be 'all of the above and a lot more besides'...
> but a serious BZ for finding Hussein and bringing him in alive. Can't
> hurt and has much potential to help.
Bravo Zulu, indeed. The best part of it is the lift it gives to the grunts
on the ground. They are entitled to the credit we got for capturing Saddam.
Did anybody else see see John Kerry on TV today? He said that capturing
Saddam does not either hurt the campaigns of the Democratic presidential
nominees. Kerry added something to the effect that the Bush administration
should take this opportunity to reach out to the French, Germans, et al., to
make up for our earlier arrogance. I am now certain that Kerry will not be
the Democratic nominee, but I am not so certain that his disastrous campaign
will not require him to seek long term psychotherapy. Maybe not, though,
because Kerry's comments were no more crazy than what the rest of the
Democratic presidential candidates are saying.
Grey Satterfield
cMAD
> Did anybody else see see John Kerry on TV today? He said that capturing
> Saddam does not either hurt the campaigns of the Democratic presidential
> nominees. Kerry added something to the effect that the Bush administration
> should take this opportunity to reach out to the French, Germans, et al., to
> make up for our earlier arrogance.
Unfortunately, I don't think my elected government is smart enough to stop all
US armed forces flights to and from Germany, due to some technical problems,
for, say, one week. It would become clear very fast how much of the US
statements about lack of support of the war effort are true, and how much of
them are, indeed, sheer arrogance.
cMAD
Grey Satterfield
<cm...@freenet.de> wrote:
This is a perception not shared -- thank God -- by the bulk of the American
people. If France and Germany assume responsibility for their own defense
they will have earned the right to complain. But for so long as the United
States bears the obligation to fight the war on terror France and Germany
are going to have to accept the decisions we make. Live with it.
Grey Satterfield
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
Satterfield <gsatte...@cox.net>, to say:
It doesn't really matter how the Germans feel about things, nor
does their participation, or its lack, in our latest Most
Excellent Adventure really matter. A quick look at this site:
shows that the relevant real estate in .de is owned by America.
We hung onto some of the land after the war, and I've heard of no
plans to submit a quit claim deed any time soon. Chances are,
we'll be landing our aircraft there as much as we like, for as
long as we like.
If that arrogance, we earned it.
Tom Clancy
Surprising also, isn't it, how, unlike his kids, he opted to sit it out instead
of shooting it out? (Actually not, of course. He was all show and no go. Par
for this particular course.)
On reflection, better that he should be tried by an Islamic court, and, if
found guilty, given an Islamic haircut. Always good to show respect for
religion, after all. Say halftime on Monday Night Football.
I can hear it now:
"Nice edge on that scimitar, isn't it, Al?"
"That's right, Curt."
Where is Alex Karras wheh we really need him?
TC
Success will ruin your life.
DGDevin
news:20031215012452...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> On reflection, better that he should be tried by an Islamic court, and, if
> found guilty, given an Islamic haircut. Always good to show respect for
> religion, after all. Say halftime on Monday Night Football.
Turn him over to the Kurds, I'm sure people who saw their kids choke to
death on his poison gas can think of a way to give him a memorable send-off.
Chris Vail
"Grey Satterfield" <gsatte...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BC02554B.3BF0%gsatte...@cox.net...
> On 12/14/03 4:10 PM, in article K$48pikg$N3$Ew...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk,
"Paul
> J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In one case the opposition just lost its figurehead, in the other case
> > the US solved a problem for the fundamentalists who won't be slowed or
> > deterred one jot.
> >
> >
> > [1] Reality is likely to be 'all of the above and a lot more besides'...
> > but a serious BZ for finding Hussein and bringing him in alive. Can't
> > hurt and has much potential to help.
>
> Bravo Zulu, indeed. The best part of it is the lift it gives to the
grunts
> on the ground. They are entitled to the credit we got for capturing
Saddam.
It'll be a while before some soldiers
are going to permitted to purchase
their own adult beverages. Hell, I'd
buy, and I'm broke.
Chris
cMAD
> He sure is a scuzzy-looking bastard, isn't he?
Actually ...
... at the University of Heidelberg, there are two brothers who are professors of
theoretical physics.
One of them [K.D.] looks like Saddam with full beard.
The other [H.J.] looks like Saddam after he's been shaved.
cMAD
Kurt Ullman
(Tom Clancy) wrote:
>Where is Alex Karras wheh we really need him?
>
Last I heard back in Gary, IN. His neice came through a couple years ago
as a Psych Resident on my unit. If the neice and the stories are any
indication, the whole family was closer to Mongo than any were comfortable
with (g). She is probably doing well in the Psych game.
She got me an autographed copy of Blazing Saddles after I got in
between her and a rather irate patient.
cMAD
Better yet, turn him over to the religious authorities in Iran.
This would not only vindicate Ayatollah Darya^H^H^H^H^HChomeini, but _really_
make sure that he gets a trial in the best traditions of the 7th century AD.
cMAD <- Turning over Saddam's former friends who provided him with the weapons
to start and sustain the war against Iran, too, would be even better. But, one
thing at a time ...
Owe Jessen
Spam" <sdan...@gorge.net> :
>
>It doesn't really matter how the Germans feel about things, nor
>does their participation, or its lack, in our latest Most
>Excellent Adventure really matter. A quick look at this site:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/z91w
>
>shows that the relevant real estate in .de is owned by America.
>We hung onto some of the land after the war, and I've heard of no
>plans to submit a quit claim deed any time soon. Chances are,
>we'll be landing our aircraft there as much as we like, for as
>long as we like.
>
>If that arrogance, we earned it.
Maybe, but you don't have bought all the air in Germany that you need
to fly the planes through, though.
Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de
Bruce In Cleveland
Waiting for the Eventual Webster Reunion?
Marten Kemp
I'm reminded of the gladiator school in "Something Funny Happened
on the Way to the Forum".
Of course, minutes after the event the Internet will be flooded
with Quicktime movies.
--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
Marten Kemp
There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about an airline captain
being berated by Ground Control in Templehof. The controller
finishes up with, "Haven't you ever flown into Berlin before?"
The reply is, "In 1945 flying a B-17."
cMAD
I'm tempted to say that you also earn the response then, in particular the response
from people who react a little more violent to such display of arrogance.
There's, of course, a problem with that.
The victims of this arrogance (US servicemen not coming home, or coming home minus a
few limbs) are different from the people who are arrogant (e.g. that former good
friend of Saddam's, who sold him weapons when it was in the US interest).
cMAD
Mary Shafer
<martende...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
> There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about an airline captain
> being berated by Ground Control in Templehof. The controller
> finishes up with, "Haven't you ever flown into Berlin before?"
>
> The reply is, "In 1945 flying a B-17."
Well, you clobbered that one. The punchline is "Any number of times
in 1945, but we never landed".
It's usually told about Frankfurt-am-Main, because the controllers
there have a reputation for having a short fuse. And, probably,
because it's a big, busy airport. I like the British Airways version
the best, because I like the two accents in contrast.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
jhha...@swbell.net
What arrogance of the US brought about Hitler?
What arrogance of the US brought about bin Laden? Besides spreading our
culture all over the world? The arrogance of success? Oh well.
JH
James Kratzer
If they wait until after the SuperBowl, they can do a 90-minute special on
it and have the half-time show from Afghan (if we get real lucky and nail
Bin Laden).
Now THAT would be a real hit for sweeps week!
We DO get a little blood-thirsty here, on occasion, don't we?
Keep scribbling; we'll read more. As in Oliver Twist.
Jim Kratzer
The Mad Yank
Proud Vietnam Veteran
LOUD VFW Lifer
cMAD
For that one, _French_ arrogance was a strong contributing factor. In all fairness,
President Wilson tried to avert it.
> What arrogance of the US brought about bin Laden?
For one thing, leaving the Afghan mujaheddin to their fate, once they were no longer
useful against the Soviet Union.
Another contributing factor was, undoubtedly, the support of decidedly undemocratic
regimes, in the case of Saudi Arabia, even close to theocracies, when expedient to keep
regions rich in resources under control.
Don't forget, one of these undemocratic regimes was Saddam's.
> Besides spreading our
> culture all over the world?
Well, if you bring McDonald's, and even Eurodisney, to Germany and France, one can call
that, with some considerable stretch of the imagination, a cultural contribution.
In the Middle East, the recent success in catching Saddam notwithstanding, things look
more like the replacement of one form of terror by another - so far.
> The arrogance of success? Oh well.
Well, Saddam's gone. Good riddance.
But success is a little more elusive.
cMAD
cMAD
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:16:52 GMT, cMAD <cm...@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> >cMAD <- Turning over Saddam's former friends who provided him with the weapons
> >to start and sustain the war against Iran, too, would be even better. But, one
> >thing at a time ...
>
> Why, cMAD, I must say I'm very surprised to hear you say that, as you
> are usually pro-German in your stance. (1)
>
> So, do you really believe that the West German officials should be
> turned over, or does that only apply when you think the culprits are
> American? (2)
All of them should be turned over, irrespective of nationality.
Quite a lot of government corruption can be traced to German arms dealers, too.
The only gradual difference seems to be that the corrupting influence of arms
dealers has spread further into mainstream politics with the current US government
than it has with the current German one.
> (1) I'm referring to the sale, by West Germany and also Italy, of
> Saddam's first chemical weapons plant (located at Akhashat), which
> caused enormous Iranian and Kurdish casualties, probably even in
> excess of the conventional German arms sold to both sides during and
> since the Iran-Iraq war.
>
> (2). The USA did indeed provide some weapons and intel to Iraq during
> the Iran-Iraq war, but considering the need to contain islamic
> fundamentalism and not to mention that Iran had that and more coming
> (Iranian hostage crisis) I can't fault the US for supplying any or
> Iran's enemies under those circumstances. But, to be even-handed about
> things, we helped Iran, too, later in that war (IMHO not a
> particularly bright move).
Well, you certainly helped some genies out of their bottles there ... and are
paying dearly for it.
cMAD
Michael Kennedy
"cMAD" <cm...@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:3FDE87A1...@freenet.de...
> "Chris J......" wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:16:52 GMT, cMAD <cm...@freenet.de> wrote:
> >
> > >cMAD <- Turning over Saddam's former friends who provided him with the
weapons
> > >to start and sustain the war against Iran, too, would be even better.
But, one
> > >thing at a time ...
> >
> > Why, cMAD, I must say I'm very surprised to hear you say that, as you
> > are usually pro-German in your stance. (1)
> >
> > So, do you really believe that the West German officials should be
> > turned over, or does that only apply when you think the culprits are
> > American? (2)
>
> All of them should be turned over, irrespective of nationality.
> Quite a lot of government corruption can be traced to German arms dealers,
too.
> The only gradual difference seems to be that the corrupting influence of
arms
> dealers has spread further into mainstream politics with the current US
government
> than it has with the current German one.
Next you'll be referring to Daddy Warbucks. This is an old canard from the
left. Kissinger was asked about our "tilt" at the time and replied that it
was a shame both both countries couldn't lose. What we did with Iraq at the
time was a response to Iranian outrages, embassy, hostages, hezbollah and
few others not to mention the Carter desert f***up. It was also done in the
open. The recent French and German support for Saddam was in secret and may
have something to do with their opposition to the war. They remember when
the Stasi files became public.
The rest of the Arabs saw Saddam as a shield against Shiite radical
behavior. By 2002, the most radical behavior was by Sunnis and Iran was
looking like a democratic revolution was brewing. Times change. At least for
most of us.
Mike Kennedy
Michael Kennedy
You mean the ones who run and hide after setting up a booby trap ?
> There's, of course, a problem with that.
> The victims of this arrogance (US servicemen not coming home, or coming
home minus a
> few limbs) are different from the people who are arrogant (e.g. that
former good
> friend of Saddam's, who sold him weapons when it was in the US interest).
You got the country wrong again. In the 1980s we gave him intel during the
Iran war. He did buy some biological culture medium and cultures that were
available to any laboratory that ordered them. Not from the US government.
His weapons were French and Russian. And from the evidence found after a
recent rocket attack on a Baghdad hotel, the French were still selling
things to him in the past year or two.
Saddam's best quote was when the IGC people asked him why he tamely
surrendered. He replied, indicating the US soldiers nearby, "Would you fight
them?"
More bad news for the lefties:
http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/13596.htm
Mike Kennedy
>
> cMAD
>
>
Michael Kennedy
> "jhha...@swbell.net" wrote:
>
> > cMAD wrote:
> > > "Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:34:24 -0600, something compelled Grey
> > >>Satterfield <gsatte...@cox.net>, to say:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>On 12/14/03 6:59 PM, in article 3FDD0757...@freenet.de, "cMAD"
> > >>><cm...@freenet.de> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
snip
German revanchism had a little bit to do with it. We should have marched
into Berlin in 1918 and hung the Kaiser from a lamppost. Then they would not
have had the chance to carp about the Jewish politicians stabbing the army
in the back. They were beaten but their noses were not rubbed in it.
Sportsmanship is OK in football but not with Germans, apparently. They got
the message in 1945 but it cost another 50 million lives.
>
> > What arrogance of the US brought about bin Laden?
>
> For one thing, leaving the Afghan mujaheddin to their fate, once they were
no longer
> useful against the Soviet Union.
You guys are whining that we should leave Iraq immediately. That we are
"occupiers". What would you have said if we tried to run Afghanistan in 1989
? Their fate was self government. I agree that we could have helped more but
guess who got elected in 1992. We were also a little distracted in 1990 and
91. A guy named Saddam.
> Another contributing factor was, undoubtedly, the support of decidedly
undemocratic
> regimes, in the case of Saudi Arabia, even close to theocracies, when
expedient to keep
> regions rich in resources under control.
So we should go in there and kick out the Saudi monarchy ? Talk about
unilateralism.
> Don't forget, one of these undemocratic regimes was Saddam's.
>
> > Besides spreading our
> > culture all over the world?
>
> Well, if you bring McDonald's, and even Eurodisney, to Germany and France,
one can call
> that, with some considerable stretch of the imagination, a cultural
contribution.
It's a shame that people prefer McDonalds to La Prunier, isn't it ?
> In the Middle East, the recent success in catching Saddam notwithstanding,
things look
> more like the replacement of one form of terror by another - so far.
You hope.
>
> > The arrogance of success? Oh well.
>
> Well, Saddam's gone. Good riddance.
> But success is a little more elusive.
Hope springs eternal in some breasts. Maybe another meteorite will hit the
Earth. That would make you guys smile.
Mike Kennedy
>
> cMAD
>
>
Diane Wilson
> For one thing, leaving the Afghan mujaheddin to their fate, once they were no longer
> useful against the Soviet Union.
OK. What, precisely, *should* the US have done? And how would
world opinion have responded?
> Another contributing factor was, undoubtedly, the support of decidedly undemocratic
> regimes, in the case of Saudi Arabia, even close to theocracies, when expedient to keep
> regions rich in resources under control.
Time to put your policy where your mouth is.
If the US supports an "undemocratic regime," we get criticized.
If the US attempts to reform an "undemocratic regime," we get
criticized.
If the US overthrows an "undemocratic regime," we get criticized.
If the US supports an opposition group that wants to overthrow an
"undemocratic regime," we get criticized.
If the US leaves an "undemocratic regime" to its fate, we get criticized.
So what, exactly, are the remaining options?
And in the specific case of the Saudis, if the "undemocratic
regime" falls, the most likely successor (and certainly the
one that would have popular support in the country) would
be a hardline Islamic theocracy, i.e., an undemocratic regime.
Sigh. What's a poor, misunderstood superpower to do?
Diane
"The technical answer is, Fuck it. We *are* the new Rome." (Ralph Peters)
Yama
"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
news:5o8stvoa9n46udr10...@4ax.com...
> (2). The USA did indeed provide some weapons and intel to Iraq during
> the Iran-Iraq war, but considering the need to contain islamic
> fundamentalism and not to mention that Iran had that and more coming
> (Iranian hostage crisis) I can't fault the US for supplying any or
> Iran's enemies under those circumstances.
I think that's double standards if anything - USA "had to" contain islamic
fundamentalism, but Germans, French and Soviets were just cynically
profiting from the war.
Personally, I'm not all that sure that islamic fundamentalism had to be
contained any more than Christian fundamentalism: I think USA (and not just
USA) grossly overstated the actual threat and resulting over-reaction and
counter-reaction led to situation we are in today...
We have seen that secular governments can be just as or more dangerous than
fundamentalist ones. Besides, it's not like Shah's regime was huge success
anyway. Good riddance I say.
About Saddam - it seems that various instances are tripping to each other in
getting to try him. I say - if everyone wants a piece of him, let them have
it. All of them have some justification - Iraqi, Iranian, international
court, Kuwaiti...I mean, what's the rush? It's not like he is going
anywhere. Lets explore full range of his actual crimes. After he has gone
through every of these courts, there could be decision made about where he
should serve his few thousand year sentence.
Although current Iraqi government is already busy measuring a suitable rope
for him, I do not favour death penalty - it's not just that I don't like it
in principle, it's also much too glorious way for Saddam to end his days and
may make him look like a martyr in the eyes of his remaining followers. It's
much more fitting that he rots in some God-forsaken jail until he is senile.
Paul J. Adam
<yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes
>"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
>news:5o8stvoa9n46udr10...@4ax.com...
>> (2). The USA did indeed provide some weapons and intel to Iraq during
>> the Iran-Iraq war, but considering the need to contain islamic
>> fundamentalism and not to mention that Iran had that and more coming
>> (Iranian hostage crisis) I can't fault the US for supplying any or
>> Iran's enemies under those circumstances.
>
>I think that's double standards if anything - USA "had to" contain islamic
>fundamentalism, but Germans, French and Soviets were just cynically
>profiting from the war.
This, I can agree with.
>Personally, I'm not all that sure that islamic fundamentalism had to be
>contained any more than Christian fundamentalism: I think USA (and not just
>USA) grossly overstated the actual threat and resulting over-reaction and
>counter-reaction led to situation we are in today...
This I'm less sure about. The Iranian revolution was _scary_.
Street-level, fundamentalist, unconcerned with issues like
"international law"[1], and threatening to spread into its neighbours
while preaching the jihad of the sword against the Great and Lesser
Satans (the US and USSR).
Compare and contrast with that nice secular Mr S. Hussein, The Big
Palace, El Presidente Street, Baghdad, BG1 1BC. Keeps a lid on his
religious fanatics, believes in emancipation for women and education for
the masses, in a region of despots and bastards he's one of the less
unlikeable bastards in 1979.
Was the West in general and the US in particular too nice to Hussein?
With hindsight, yes. But it wasn't a casual or easy decision.
On the flipside, it's remarkable how many folk really seem to believe
that the "Tanker War" was an Iranian assault on shipping in which the US
had to intervene. In fact the Iraqis carried out over five hundred
attacks on Iran-bound ships without protest or condemnation, and it was
only when the Iranians got organised and started effectively hitting the
traffic supplying Iraq and its allies (thoroughly legal under
established custom and practice) that the US and allies publicly
intervened.
Complicated situation, often grossly oversimplified.
>We have seen that secular governments can be just as or more dangerous than
>fundamentalist ones. Besides, it's not like Shah's regime was huge success
>anyway. Good riddance I say.
A nasty regime minding its own business is a local problem. A nasty
regime advocating revolution in its neighbours too, is a regional
problem - just as much as a nasty regime invading the Country Next Door.
>
[1] When _they_ break it it's a wicked evil breach with years, decades,
_centuries_ of custom.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
David E. Powell
news:X6HDb.18148$gN.11140@fed1read05...
For what? He didn't start the war, you know. If you want to hang anyone,
hang the guy who killed the Archduke.
Then they would not
> have had the chance to carp about the Jewish politicians stabbing the army
> in the back. They were beaten but their noses were not rubbed in it.
> Sportsmanship is OK in football but not with Germans, apparently. They got
> the message in 1945 but it cost another 50 million lives.
What did it for the Germans was not the defeat in WW1 alone. It was the
collapse of the Weimar state - thanks in large part to the French and others
rubbing their noses in the defeat at Versailles, and so ruining their
economy that any chance for Democracy had to make do with at least one hand
tied behind its back.
Then after the seeds were planted, with the occupation of the Ruhr and what
not (Not to mention Scapa Flow and so on) the European powers of the west
then tried to play isolationist, allowing the Nazis to remilitarize. First
make them mad, then let things take their course. Complete foolishness. And
the "rubbing their noses in it" you speak of had a lot to do with it.
Germany's military was stripped, the Ruhr occupied, and the country forced
to accept blame for starting a war that they had jumped into with about
everyone else after Serbia and Austria-Hungary got into things. In fact,
Austria-Hungary would not have called Germany, had not Russia jumped in on
Serbia's side. (That decision worked out REAL well for the Romanovs....!)
> > > What arrogance of the US brought about bin Laden?
> >
> > For one thing, leaving the Afghan mujaheddin to their fate, once they
were
> no longer
> > useful against the Soviet Union.
>
> You guys are whining that we should leave Iraq immediately. That we are
> "occupiers". What would you have said if we tried to run Afghanistan in
1989
> ? Their fate was self government. I agree that we could have helped more
but
> guess who got elected in 1992. We were also a little distracted in 1990
and
> 91. A guy named Saddam.
I don't think anyone wwould have wanted the US to jump in after the Russians
left, not 100 percent. But as for providing some suggestions backed up by
promises of financial aid, infrastructure help, etc. could have been
doable - and was not done. It would have been a small investment in
hindsight, but.... a lot of things can be said in hindsight. As for Bin
Laden, it wasn't US arrogance that brought him, it was his own ignorance.
Saddam and the 1992 election also distracted the USA when Yugoslavia was
starting to break up, which was another tragedy.
Depends where it hits.... not like anyone would want that. Darn good thing
Madass Hussein is in the 4th ID sneezer though. A big "Well done" to those
soldiers.
> Mike Kennedy
>
>
> >
> > cMAD
Michael Kennedy
"Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brnr3h$8mg$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
>
> "Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
> news:5o8stvoa9n46udr10...@4ax.com...
> > (2). The USA did indeed provide some weapons and intel to Iraq during
> > the Iran-Iraq war, but considering the need to contain islamic
> > fundamentalism and not to mention that Iran had that and more coming
> > (Iranian hostage crisis) I can't fault the US for supplying any or
> > Iran's enemies under those circumstances.
>
> I think that's double standards if anything - USA "had to" contain islamic
> fundamentalism, but Germans, French and Soviets were just cynically
> profiting from the war.
>
> Personally, I'm not all that sure that islamic fundamentalism had to be
> contained any more than Christian fundamentalism: I think USA (and not
just
> USA) grossly overstated the actual threat and resulting over-reaction and
> counter-reaction led to situation we are in today...
So in your opinion the Mossad attacked the World Trade Center ? I see.
>
> We have seen that secular governments can be just as or more dangerous
than
> fundamentalist ones. Besides, it's not like Shah's regime was huge success
> anyway. Good riddance I say.
The Shah was an autocrat but a pipsqueak in terrorism. The mullahs are
experts.
>
> About Saddam - it seems that various instances are tripping to each other
in
> getting to try him. I say - if everyone wants a piece of him, let them
have
> it. All of them have some justification - Iraqi, Iranian, international
> court, Kuwaiti...I mean, what's the rush? It's not like he is going
> anywhere. Lets explore full range of his actual crimes. After he has gone
> through every of these courts, there could be decision made about where he
> should serve his few thousand year sentence.
The Iraqis should have him. Starting a war should not result in execution by
the victors. Maybe by the people who got talked into letting him.
>
> Although current Iraqi government is already busy measuring a suitable
rope
> for him, I do not favour death penalty - it's not just that I don't like
it
> in principle, it's also much too glorious way for Saddam to end his days
and
> may make him look like a martyr in the eyes of his remaining followers.
It's
> much more fitting that he rots in some God-forsaken jail until he is
senile.
Two sides to that issue. If he is still alive, he is also an object of
attention and could be a magnet for attempts at rescue, like Mussolini.
Mike Kennedy
>
>
>
Michael Kennedy
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4533424337806d27...@news.teranews.com...
> "Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:X6HDb.18148$gN.11140@fed1read05...
> >
> > "cMAD" <cm...@freenet.de> wrote in message
> > news:3FDE85DE...@freenet.de...
> > > "jhha...@swbell.net" wrote:
> > >
> > > > cMAD wrote:
> > > > > "Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:34:24 -0600, something compelled Grey
> > > > >>Satterfield <gsatte...@cox.net>, to say:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>On 12/14/03 6:59 PM, in article 3FDD0757...@freenet.de,
> "cMAD"
> > > > >>><cm...@freenet.de> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What arrogance of the US brought about Hitler?
> > >
> > > For that one, _French_ arrogance was a strong contributing factor. In
> all
> > fairness,
> > > President Wilson tried to avert it.
> >
> > German revanchism had a little bit to do with it. We should have marched
> > into Berlin in 1918 and hung the Kaiser from a lamppost.
>
> For what? He didn't start the war, you know. If you want to hang anyone,
> hang the guy who killed the Archduke.
That was taken care of. The Kaiser was responsible to a degree that modern
states can't approach. He hated his uncle, who happened to be King of
England. He started to build battleships. It goes on from there. There is a
school of thought that holds we should have stayed out although that was
tough because the Germans were so clumsy about pissing people off. The
Kaiser had a lot to do with unrestricted sub warfare which brought us in.
The German rape of Belgium really brought the Brits in. If the Germans had
been a little less hunnish, they might have been allowed to kick some French
ass, like they did in 1870.
>
> Then they would not
> > have had the chance to carp about the Jewish politicians stabbing the
army
> > in the back. They were beaten but their noses were not rubbed in it.
> > Sportsmanship is OK in football but not with Germans, apparently. They
got
> > the message in 1945 but it cost another 50 million lives.
>
> What did it for the Germans was not the defeat in WW1 alone. It was the
> collapse of the Weimar state - thanks in large part to the French and
others
> rubbing their noses in the defeat at Versailles, and so ruining their
> economy that any chance for Democracy had to make do with at least one
hand
> tied behind its back.
That may be overrated as a cause of the Weimar collapse. The French were
afraid of Germany and tried to use Versailles to keep them down. It didn't
work. The Weimar gov't was illegally training troops in the USSR in the late
1920s. It wasn't just Hitler. I haven't read "1919" yet and that may change
my mind about Versailles.
>
> Then after the seeds were planted, with the occupation of the Ruhr and
what
> not (Not to mention Scapa Flow and so on) the European powers of the west
> then tried to play isolationist, allowing the Nazis to remilitarize. First
> make them mad, then let things take their course. Complete foolishness.
And
> the "rubbing their noses in it" you speak of had a lot to do with it.
No. The army was convinced that they had not lost. Occupation would have
been better in teaching all the Germans that they had lost the war and what
it was like to lose. Ludendorf knew they lost and so did Hindenberg but they
allowed others to stir up the people. One of whom was Hitler.
> Germany's military was stripped, the Ruhr occupied, and the country forced
> to accept blame for starting a war that they had jumped into with about
> everyone else after Serbia and Austria-Hungary got into things.
You just can't make excuses for Germany. Austria-Hungary was weak and the
Germans knew it. Serbia might have beaten them on their own. Everyone feared
Russia. The whole Western offensive of Schleiffen was designed to fight
Russia as the real enemy. They would knock off France quickly then go East.
It almost worked and we might all be better off if it had. If it had ended
in 1914, a whole different world might have happened. After the Somme and
Ypres, there was no going back.
> In fact,
> Austria-Hungary would not have called Germany, had not Russia jumped in on
> Serbia's side. (That decision worked out REAL well for the Romanovs....!)
The Germans told the Russians not to mobilize or they would. Then the Kaiser
left for a vacation. What an idiot !
>
> > > > What arrogance of the US brought about bin Laden?
> > >
> > > For one thing, leaving the Afghan mujaheddin to their fate, once they
> were
> > no longer
> > > useful against the Soviet Union.
> >
> > You guys are whining that we should leave Iraq immediately. That we are
> > "occupiers". What would you have said if we tried to run Afghanistan in
> 1989
> > ? Their fate was self government. I agree that we could have helped more
> but
> > guess who got elected in 1992. We were also a little distracted in 1990
> and
> > 91. A guy named Saddam.
>
> I don't think anyone wwould have wanted the US to jump in after the
Russians
> left, not 100 percent. But as for providing some suggestions backed up by
> promises of financial aid, infrastructure help, etc. could have been
> doable - and was not done. It would have been a small investment in
> hindsight, but.... a lot of things can be said in hindsight. As for Bin
> Laden, it wasn't US arrogance that brought him, it was his own ignorance.
He thought Gore had won the election. Somalia gave him the game plan.
Mike Kennedy
David E. Powell
I thought it would pain these folks to go to war, as most nobles were
interrelated.... but still, I don't care if he had a picture of the King of
England on a dartboard. When his ally got dragged into war, the treaty
dragged Germany in as well. England came in after Germany did, not vice
versa.
> He started to build battleships.
Um, yeah. So? I mean, the Brits kept their Empire strong through a Navy.
Germany had a new Empire in Tsingtao, Africa, and elsewhere. Going by the
model of the times, a navy would be seen as necessary. Heck, the US built
the Great White Fleet. I don't see anyone arguing that T.R. should have been
strung up over it! The British were the model, so people copied them. The
Dreadnought was a microcosm that turned into the tail wagging the dog, IMO.
It goes on from there. There is a
> school of thought that holds we should have stayed out although that was
> tough because the Germans were so clumsy about pissing people off. The
> Kaiser had a lot to do with unrestricted sub warfare which brought us in.
Well, yeah. Though going unrestricted kind of made sense. I mean, how else
does one use a submarine? And what were all those neutral ships carrying
back and forth to England? The same type of supplies the US tried to cut off
from Japan in WW2 by using subs, I'll reckon. The Germans were not wrong in
using subs that way, they were ahead of their time. Unfortunately for the
Germans the people at sea wanted Cruiser rules and chivalry, while on land
soldiers killed each other with poison gas.
> The German rape of Belgium really brought the Brits in.
Well, their going through Belgium certainly helped the
propaganda/information campaign on the part of people trying to get help for
the fight from the US, too. The Italians shot cannons to cause avalanches on
Austrian troops, and the war in the Balkans saw atrocities on both sides.
But they were allies of the French and British, so they got benefits at
Versailles after all of that.
There are also the tactics the British used in South Africa, regarding
Civilian populations.
If the Germans had
> been a little less hunnish, they might have been allowed to kick some
French
> ass, like they did in 1870.
Alliances have little to do with Hunnishness and a lot to do with national
interests. The Germans were not a big naval power in 1870. Nor were they at
war in the East as well as the West. In both cases, Britain had more reason
for concern. The US got more reason for concern as Russian and Allied debt
from arms purchases piled up. I can't see it as all on the Kaiser.
> > Then they would not
> > > have had the chance to carp about the Jewish politicians stabbing the
> army
> > > in the back. They were beaten but their noses were not rubbed in it.
> > > Sportsmanship is OK in football but not with Germans, apparently. They
> got
> > > the message in 1945 but it cost another 50 million lives.
> >
> > What did it for the Germans was not the defeat in WW1 alone. It was the
> > collapse of the Weimar state - thanks in large part to the French and
> others
> > rubbing their noses in the defeat at Versailles, and so ruining their
> > economy that any chance for Democracy had to make do with at least one
> hand
> > tied behind its back.
>
> That may be overrated as a cause of the Weimar collapse. The French were
> afraid of Germany and tried to use Versailles to keep them down. It didn't
> work.
Well, yeah. It basically added salt to the wound. Which was my problem with
the "rub their noses in it" comment.
The Weimar gov't was illegally training troops in the USSR in the late
> 1920s. It wasn't just Hitler. I haven't read "1919" yet and that may
change
> my mind about Versailles.
Well, the thing is, considering stuff like the occupation of the Ruhr and so
on, I don't know if any European power would have taken the terms of
Versailles and liked it. Not sure about the USSR though - in the treaty of
Brest-Litovsk they gave up a lot of territory - unless they were hoping the
Western Allies would finish the task of beating Germany and they wouldn't
have to stick by it - which worked brilliantly, actually, if it was the
plan. The dumb thing, of course, was not being around for the Versailles
treaty. One of the brightest ideas Kerensky had was to stay in the war.
> > Then after the seeds were planted, with the occupation of the Ruhr and
> what
> > not (Not to mention Scapa Flow and so on) the European powers of the
west
> > then tried to play isolationist, allowing the Nazis to remilitarize.
First
> > make them mad, then let things take their course. Complete foolishness.
> And
> > the "rubbing their noses in it" you speak of had a lot to do with it.
>
> No. The army was convinced that they had not lost. Occupation would have
> been better in teaching all the Germans that they had lost the war and
what
> it was like to lose. Ludendorf knew they lost and so did Hindenberg but
they
> allowed others to stir up the people. One of whom was Hitler.
Oh, I agree. Heck, the navy mutinied. They wren't going to go for the "Death
Ride" idea.
> > Germany's military was stripped, the Ruhr occupied, and the country
forced
> > to accept blame for starting a war that they had jumped into with about
> > everyone else after Serbia and Austria-Hungary got into things.
>
> You just can't make excuses for Germany. Austria-Hungary was weak and the
> Germans knew it. Serbia might have beaten them on their own.
Well, the Croats would have done a lot of the work for the
Austro-Hungarians, I'd guess, and the Austro-Hungarians had some good
weapons. Though if it went guerrilla, Serbia would have proven a tough nut.
It would have been nasty, yes. The thing was, Austria-Hungary would be in a
must-win situation, given the shakiness of the empire. If they lost or got
in a long war with Serbia, things might start to fragment. So they probably
wanted to move quick for that reason as well as the personal sense of
revenge.
Everyone feared
> Russia. The whole Western offensive of Schleiffen was designed to fight
> Russia as the real enemy.
Shades of WW2. Though in this case Russia jumped in first. I just can't
single out the country that was something like fourth in as being the one
that deliberately started everything here.
They would knock off France quickly then go East.
> It almost worked and we might all be better off if it had. If it had ended
> in 1914, a whole different world might have happened. After the Somme and
> Ypres, there was no going back.
>
> > In fact,
> > Austria-Hungary would not have called Germany, had not Russia jumped in
on
> > Serbia's side. (That decision worked out REAL well for the
Romanovs....!)
>
> The Germans told the Russians not to mobilize or they would. Then the
Kaiser
> left for a vacation. What an idiot !
Well, in fairness to the Kaiser, the Russians did not have the rail system
the Germans did. And their commanders in the area of East Prussia and Poland
were incredibly skilled to get troops together and ready as fast as they
did, while much of Russia was still fighting to mobilize. The Kaiser did
underestimate them in that regard.
Maybe a case of applying one's own doctrine to the enemy, thinking they will
think in your terms (Wait until fully mobilized, take very long to get
mobilized enough) and not consider they might do something different (Boris,
there's a war! Let's get some of these guys here together and attack quick
to stir things up while our other forces mobilize and we can buy time for
them!) Always a mistake, and I have to agree with you here that the Germans
were kind of caught off guard. Fortunately they had some brilliant
commanders in the East to counter these forces. Unfortunately the forces
they reinforced the East with took some weight off of the big swing in the
West, so.... there could be part of the bogging down you mention.
Again, he applied the Game Plan that worked somewhere else with someone
else, and considered that other person would react the same way. Maybe bin
Laden and the Kaiser have some commonality after all....
> Mike Kennedy
>
Harold Hutchison
> Was the West in general and the US in particular too nice to Hussein?
> With hindsight, yes. But it wasn't a casual or easy decision.
>
And therein lies the ultimate problem. One has to act on the
information one has in hand. Nobody is clairvoyant.
Believe me, if I knew around the end of April what I know now, I would
have kept much better control over my heart than I did, and I would not
have to hope that I get a date that I would like to have, because the
only way it's going to happen is if an amazing girl goes through some
serious heartache.
I fell for that girl, and at this point, if I have any say in the
matter, I'd rather take the heartbreak myself.
--
Strategypage.com Contributor
"There is no way I'm backing out; I'll find an angel here somehow."
Jennifer Love Hewitt, "Avenue of the Stars"
"The only person who can kill your dream is yourself."
Tom Clancy, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, August 10, 2003
Scott Podsednik was robbed.
cMAD
> Sigh. What's a poor, misunderstood superpower to do?
Get rid of double standards.
cMAD
Michael Kennedy
I wouldn't call it "dragged". Without Germany, no war. The Kaiser threatened
England out of sheer bloodymindedness
.
>
> > He started to build battleships.
>
> Um, yeah. So? I mean, the Brits kept their Empire strong through a Navy.
> Germany had a new Empire in Tsingtao, Africa, and elsewhere. Going by the
> model of the times, a navy would be seen as necessary. Heck, the US built
> the Great White Fleet. I don't see anyone arguing that T.R. should have
been
> strung up over it! The British were the model, so people copied them. The
> Dreadnought was a microcosm that turned into the tail wagging the dog,
IMO.
Germany was a land power. The colony issue was all ego. Read about the
crises in 1905 and others. Germany was driving the thing. Austria was brain
dead.
>
> It goes on from there. There is a
> > school of thought that holds we should have stayed out although that was
> > tough because the Germans were so clumsy about pissing people off. The
> > Kaiser had a lot to do with unrestricted sub warfare which brought us
in.
>
> Well, yeah. Though going unrestricted kind of made sense. I mean, how else
> does one use a submarine? And what were all those neutral ships carrying
> back and forth to England? The same type of supplies the US tried to cut
off
> from Japan in WW2 by using subs, I'll reckon. The Germans were not wrong
in
> using subs that way, they were ahead of their time. Unfortunately for the
> Germans the people at sea wanted Cruiser rules and chivalry, while on land
> soldiers killed each other with poison gas.
You're determined to absolve Germany of blame. In that you are almost unique
in history (outside of Germany and maybe you aren't).
>
> > The German rape of Belgium really brought the Brits in.
>
> Well, their going through Belgium certainly helped the
> propaganda/information campaign on the part of people trying to get help
for
> the fight from the US, too.
They massacred Belgians for partisan activity. The British enlarged on it
later for propaganda but the first stories were true.
> The Italians shot cannons to cause avalanches on
> Austrian troops, and the war in the Balkans saw atrocities on both sides.
Not the same as reprisals against civilians. In WWI that was unique to the
Germans except perhaps in the Balkans.
> But they were allies of the French and British, so they got benefits at
> Versailles after all of that.
To the winners... Too bad Italy forgot that in 1940.
>
> There are also the tactics the British used in South Africa, regarding
> Civilian populations.
The British invented concentration camps but I'm not aware of major
atrocities.
>
> If the Germans had
> > been a little less hunnish, they might have been allowed to kick some
> French
> > ass, like they did in 1870.
>
> Alliances have little to do with Hunnishness and a lot to do with national
> interests.
Disagree. The rise of national armies changed everything after 1800.
> The Germans were not a big naval power in 1870.
No need to be. Had they not been they might have won.
> Nor were they at
> war in the East as well as the West. In both cases, Britain had more
reason
> for concern.
Only reason for concern was the German High Seas Fleet which was built to
intimidate Britain. Read "Dreadnaught".
> The US got more reason for concern as Russian and Allied debt
> from arms purchases piled up. I can't see it as all on the Kaiser.
Disagree but that is what makes horseraces.
Mike Kennedy
Chris Vail
> Diane Wilson wrote:
>
> > Sigh. What's a poor, misunderstood superpower to do?
>
> Get rid of double standards.
Get that log out of thine own eye
before seeking to remove the splinter
from someone else's.
Chris
Yama
> > contained any more than Christian fundamentalism: I think USA (and not
> just
> > USA) grossly overstated the actual threat and resulting over-reaction
and
> > counter-reaction led to situation we are in today...
>
> So in your opinion the Mossad attacked the World Trade Center ? I see.
I wonder what leap of logic is needed to such conclusion. All I want is to
point out that WTC attack happened 2001, not 1981.
> > We have seen that secular governments can be just as or more dangerous
> than
> > fundamentalist ones. Besides, it's not like Shah's regime was huge
success
> > anyway. Good riddance I say.
>
> The Shah was an autocrat but a pipsqueak in terrorism. The mullahs are
> experts.
Terrorism is not the only reason regimes can be unpleasant. Otherwise Syria,
Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan would have been invaded long before Iraq...
> > About Saddam - it seems that various instances are tripping to each
other
> in
> > getting to try him. I say - if everyone wants a piece of him, let them
> have
> > it. All of them have some justification - Iraqi, Iranian, international
> > court, Kuwaiti...I mean, what's the rush? It's not like he is going
> > anywhere. Lets explore full range of his actual crimes. After he has
gone
> > through every of these courts, there could be decision made about where
he
> > should serve his few thousand year sentence.
>
> The Iraqis should have him. Starting a war should not result in execution
by
> the victors. Maybe by the people who got talked into letting him.
I agree Iraqis should have him. But I don't see reason why others should not
have him either. At any rate, Iraqi will probably be the only authority
which can sentence him to death.
> > Although current Iraqi government is already busy measuring a suitable
> rope
> > for him, I do not favour death penalty - it's not just that I don't like
> it
> > in principle, it's also much too glorious way for Saddam to end his days
> and
> > may make him look like a martyr in the eyes of his remaining followers.
> It's
> > much more fitting that he rots in some God-forsaken jail until he is
> senile.
>
> Two sides to that issue. If he is still alive, he is also an object of
> attention and could be a magnet for attempts at rescue, like Mussolini.
Perhaps, if he stayed in Iraq. If he avoids death sentence, most likely he
will be transferred to some other country. Perhaps he could have Milosevic
as his cellmate. They could play Risk together and see if it works better
that way.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>Perhaps, if he stayed in Iraq. If he avoids death sentence, most likely he
>will be transferred to some other country. Perhaps he could have Milosevic
>as his cellmate. They could play Risk together and see if it works better
>that way.
>
I have a feeling Milosevic will get at most life in prison, and so
will Hussein if we let the UN have him.
At any rate, it has already been announced that the Iraqis will have
them. I'm sure the US will insist on lawyers to keep everything
proper. I'm just wondering if he knows enough for us and the Iraqis
to be willing to plea-bargin with him for life in prison.
Owe Jessen
<yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> :
>
>Although current Iraqi government is already busy measuring a suitable rope
>for him, I do not favour death penalty - it's not just that I don't like it
>in principle, it's also much too glorious way for Saddam to end his days and
>may make him look like a martyr in the eyes of his remaining followers. It's
>much more fitting that he rots in some God-forsaken jail until he is senile.
>
dead." :-) Would be nice to see that happen -- unlike the case of
Milosevic, who is not a whisker better, but seems to have been more
careful in how he conducted business.
Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de
Michael Kennedy
>
> "Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:X8PDb.22067$pY.20093@fed1read04...
> > "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:brnr3h$8mg$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
> > > Personally, I'm not all that sure that islamic fundamentalism had to
be
> > > contained any more than Christian fundamentalism: I think USA (and not
> > just
> > > USA) grossly overstated the actual threat and resulting over-reaction
> and
> > > counter-reaction led to situation we are in today...
> >
> > So in your opinion the Mossad attacked the World Trade Center ? I see.
>
> I wonder what leap of logic is needed to such conclusion. All I want is to
> point out that WTC attack happened 2001, not 1981.
I think Islamic fundamentalism, a poor term because it is literal Islam
actually, began with Khomeni, at least on the world stage. Wahabbism is
probably a heresy in the Christain sense but I don't know enough about Islam
(in spite of 4 or 5 books) to say. I don't think we overstated the threat.
Christian fundamentalism is no threat because the Christian religion is one
of passivity. It wasn't always practiced that way but Islam is a violent
religion which was practiced in a more passive way since about 1500. As each
religion returns to a literal interpretation, Christianity becomes more
passive and Islam becomes more violent.
>
> > > We have seen that secular governments can be just as or more dangerous
> > than
> > > fundamentalist ones. Besides, it's not like Shah's regime was huge
> success
> > > anyway. Good riddance I say.
> >
> > The Shah was an autocrat but a pipsqueak in terrorism. The mullahs are
> > experts.
>
> Terrorism is not the only reason regimes can be unpleasant. Otherwise
Syria,
> Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan would have been invaded long before Iraq...
They can be unpleasnat to their neighbors by terrorism. Idi Amin, another
Muslim ruler, left others alone and slaughtered his own people. The Saudis
have been content to stay home but their support of madrassas in other
countries that praech violence is coming back to cause trouble. Pakistan has
an old quarrel with India, one in which they have a good point about
Kashmir. They have been helpful although corrupt at home. They are the only
Muslim country to have a female head of state until Indonesia recently.
>
> > > About Saddam - it seems that various instances are tripping to each
> other
> > in
> > > getting to try him. I say - if everyone wants a piece of him, let them
> > have
> > > it. All of them have some justification - Iraqi, Iranian,
international
> > > court, Kuwaiti...I mean, what's the rush? It's not like he is going
> > > anywhere. Lets explore full range of his actual crimes. After he has
> gone
> > > through every of these courts, there could be decision made about
where
> he
> > > should serve his few thousand year sentence.
> >
> > The Iraqis should have him. Starting a war should not result in
execution
> by
> > the victors. Maybe by the people who got talked into letting him.
>
> I agree Iraqis should have him. But I don't see reason why others should
not
> have him either. At any rate, Iraqi will probably be the only authority
> which can sentence him to death.
Agreed
Mike Kennedy
David E. Powell
No war? Are you sure? I mean, Russia and Austro-Hungary and Germany and
France were all in (Plus Serbia) before England got in.
> > > He started to build battleships.
> >
> > Um, yeah. So? I mean, the Brits kept their Empire strong through a Navy.
> > Germany had a new Empire in Tsingtao, Africa, and elsewhere. Going by
the
> > model of the times, a navy would be seen as necessary. Heck, the US
built
> > the Great White Fleet. I don't see anyone arguing that T.R. should have
> been
> > strung up over it! The British were the model, so people copied them.
The
> > Dreadnought was a microcosm that turned into the tail wagging the dog,
> IMO.
>
> Germany was a land power. The colony issue was all ego.
Well, yes. An Ego excercise all the great powers were getting into.
Remember, Germany, like Japan and Italy - and even the US - had gotten to
the colonial race late. Heck, one could argue that the US was seen as a land
power before the 1890s, more than a naval one, until the US went into a
naval building and modernization program. Also, the US was concentrating
more on land expansion in the 1800s.
Read about the
> crises in 1905 and others. Germany was driving the thing. Austria was
brain
> dead.
I'll have to check that out. Austria may have been "brain dead," but if I am
Emperor and a rival nation seems to be behind/endorsing the shooting of my
relative, and also a representative of my country, I am going to be pretty
annoyed.
> > It goes on from there. There is a
> > > school of thought that holds we should have stayed out although that
was
> > > tough because the Germans were so clumsy about pissing people off. The
> > > Kaiser had a lot to do with unrestricted sub warfare which brought us
> in.
> >
> > Well, yeah. Though going unrestricted kind of made sense. I mean, how
else
> > does one use a submarine? And what were all those neutral ships carrying
> > back and forth to England? The same type of supplies the US tried to cut
> off
> > from Japan in WW2 by using subs, I'll reckon. The Germans were not wrong
> in
> > using subs that way, they were ahead of their time. Unfortunately for
the
> > Germans the people at sea wanted Cruiser rules and chivalry, while on
land
> > soldiers killed each other with poison gas.
>
> You're determined to absolve Germany of blame. In that you are almost
unique
> in history (outside of Germany and maybe you aren't).
I am not so much trying to absolve them as look at things logically. Britain
was blockading Germany by surface blockade - and one of the first big U-Boat
successes was against ships in that blockade (Otto Weddigen in U-9 sinking
three cruisers) - And yes, maybe they could have focused on going after
military ships alone. However, WW2 seems to bear out the idea of going after
all kinds of shipping with submarines. And frankly, in WW1 a lot seemed to
go out the window in terms of humanity and land warfare. So the use of
submarines to attack merchant shipping without warning does not suprise me.
As I said, a lot of ships going to England were carrying supplies - fuel,
war materials, even food - which could support a war effort.
> > > The German rape of Belgium really brought the Brits in.
> >
> > Well, their going through Belgium certainly helped the
> > propaganda/information campaign on the part of people trying to get help
> for
> > the fight from the US, too.
>
> They massacred Belgians for partisan activity. The British enlarged on it
> later for propaganda but the first stories were true.
Well, don't partisans fall outside the usual rules of war? I mean, look at
the thing with Afghanistan, and the "unlawful combatant" doctrine of the US.
A huge stretch, perhaps, but insurgency is a traditionally risky business.
(Ask the Texans of the Alamo.)
> > The Italians shot cannons to cause avalanches on
> > Austrian troops, and the war in the Balkans saw atrocities on both
sides.
>
> Not the same as reprisals against civilians. In WWI that was unique to the
> Germans except perhaps in the Balkans.
I wouldn't be suprised if it was true big time in the Balkans. Remember
where the whole war started. Also, the book "Balkan Ghosts" by Robert D.
Kaplan seems to present the wars in that region as being historically very
nasty and bloody, especially regarding civilian populations. I would not be
suprised if WW1 was that way as well.
Then you have the whole Russian Revolution and those reprisals against
civilians, concurrent and lasting into the years after WW1.
> > But they were allies of the French and British, so they got benefits at
> > Versailles after all of that.
>
> To the winners... Too bad Italy forgot that in 1940.
And if Germany had won, would you say the same? Besides, the big thing
America trumpeted when entering the war, and tilting things for the allies,
was the 14 points. Unfortunately the urge to "rub it in" saw a lot of that
cashiered. When the League of Nations fell apart, it was the final blow to
Wilson's plan. But Versailles was the big repudiation.
> > There are also the tactics the British used in South Africa, regarding
> > Civilian populations.
>
> The British invented concentration camps but I'm not aware of major
> atrocities.
Wouldn't starving women and children to death in said camps constitute an
atrocity? because if it does not, I am not sure what is. Also, the British
took said efforts in response to a partisan war, on the part of the Boers.
Not that I don't dig England, I do. But the Boer war was a pretty nasty
thing.
> > If the Germans had
> > > been a little less hunnish, they might have been allowed to kick some
> > French
> > > ass, like they did in 1870.
> >
> > Alliances have little to do with Hunnishness and a lot to do with
national
> > interests.
>
> Disagree. The rise of national armies changed everything after 1800.
You mean that national interests were not a factor after 1800 in alliances?
How come Russia fought Napoleon after earlier relations with him, then the
Brits turn around and fight Russia in the Crimea a couple decades later?
National interests let to an attempt by nations to pit enemies against each
other, and form alliances of convenience - setting up the dominoes, as it
were, for WW1. And IMO, Napoleon got a lot of nations to join against him
out of their national interests after 1800, when he started using his new
national army to great effect on his neighbors....
> > The Germans were not a big naval power in 1870.
>
> No need to be. Had they not been they might have won.
If they have no navy and it all plays out as it did (BEF, the Russians
fighting harder than expected in Poland early on, the Taxicab Army of the
Marne) they still lose. Unless a lack of a Dreadnought fleet would suddenly
make Britain change their minds about Belgium. Which would make it an
alliance not based on enemy hunnishness, but on national interests ;+)
> > Nor were they at
> > war in the East as well as the West. In both cases, Britain had more
> reason
> > for concern.
>
> Only reason for concern was the German High Seas Fleet which was built to
> intimidate Britain. Read "Dreadnaught".
I will have to track that one down.... thanks.
> > The US got more reason for concern as Russian and Allied debt
> > from arms purchases piled up. I can't see it as all on the Kaiser.
>
> Disagree but that is what makes horseraces.
Another said reason for the Allied efforts in Russia after the war: The
previous Tsarist government owed them money. And the Communists were not big
on the idea of spending hard money to repay those debts to the west. But I
respect your right to disagree. Heck, one of my favorite Presidents ever was
Theodore Roosevelt, and his opinions on the Kaiser are pretty well known :+)
> Mike Kennedy
Yama
to
> > point out that WTC attack happened 2001, not 1981.
>
> I think Islamic fundamentalism, a poor term because it is literal Islam
> actually, began with Khomeni, at least on the world stage. Wahabbism is
> probably a heresy in the Christain sense but I don't know enough about
Islam
> (in spite of 4 or 5 books) to say. I don't think we overstated the threat.
> Christian fundamentalism is no threat because the Christian religion is
one
> of passivity. It wasn't always practiced that way but Islam is a violent
> religion which was practiced in a more passive way since about 1500. As
each
> religion returns to a literal interpretation, Christianity becomes more
> passive and Islam becomes more violent.
I think this is incorrect. We are so used to modern interpretation of
Christianity that we are forgetting how it was in the past. Any modern
Christian would have been burned as a heretic 500 years ago.
There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as their
Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare. This has more to do
with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
particularly peaceful.
Rise of the Islamic fundamentalism is mostly due to failure of Islamic
autocratic and socialistic states.
> They can be unpleasnat to their neighbors by terrorism. Idi Amin, another
> Muslim ruler, left others alone and slaughtered his own people. The Saudis
> have been content to stay home but their support of madrassas in other
> countries that praech violence is coming back to cause trouble. Pakistan
has
> an old quarrel with India, one in which they have a good point about
> Kashmir. They have been helpful although corrupt at home.
Pakistani were the patrons and supporters (creators, in fact) of Taliban and
no small amount of terrorist groups have originated from Pakistan, mostly,
but not inclusively, directed against India.
> They are the only
> Muslim country to have a female head of state until Indonesia recently.
Turkey?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>"Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:Pu9Eb.29666$BQ5.20170@fed1read03...
>> "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:brqdlc$c5n$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
>> > I wonder what leap of logic is needed to such conclusion. All I want is
>> > to point out that WTC attack happened 2001, not 1981.
>> I think Islamic fundamentalism, a poor term because it is literal Islam
>> actually, began with Khomeni, at least on the world stage. Wahabbism is
>> probably a heresy in the Christain sense but I don't know enough about
>> Islam (in spite of 4 or 5 books) to say. I don't think we overstated the
>> threat. Christian fundamentalism is no threat because the Christian
>> religion is one of passivity. It wasn't always practiced that way but
>> Islam is a violent religion which was practiced in a more passive way
>> since about 1500. As each religion returns to a literal interpretation,
>> Christianity becomes more passive and Islam becomes more violent.
>I think this is incorrect. We are so used to modern interpretation of
>Christianity that we are forgetting how it was in the past. Any modern
>Christian would have been burned as a heretic 500 years ago.
Which does not address the point raised by Michael.
>There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as their
>Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare. This has more to do
>with societies themselves.
Ah, but the respective religions are part and parcel of the respective
societies.
>Many people would consider Buddhism as very peaceful religion, but
>pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not particularly peaceful.
>Rise of the Islamic fundamentalism is mostly due to failure of Islamic
>autocratic and socialistic states.
Which is mostly due to the culture - aided and abetted by the Islamic
religion - which locks the people in the past.
>> They can be unpleasnat to their neighbors by terrorism. Idi Amin, another
>> Muslim ruler, left others alone and slaughtered his own people. The Saudis
>> have been content to stay home but their support of madrassas in other
>> countries that praech violence is coming back to cause trouble. Pakistan
>> has an old quarrel with India, one in which they have a good point about
>> Kashmir. They have been helpful although corrupt at home.
>Pakistani were the patrons and supporters (creators, in fact) of Taliban and
>no small amount of terrorist groups have originated from Pakistan, mostly,
>but not inclusively, directed against India.
>> They are the only
>> Muslim country to have a female head of state until Indonesia recently.
>Turkey?
Indeed. Tansu Ciller 1993-1995.
--
"Atrocity and terror are not political weapons,
and to those who would use them...your day is over.
We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate
and we will no longer be afraid.....It's your turn to be afraid."
President James Marshall "Air Force One"
Yama
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:kvs3uv0fuuap7kocu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:14:54 +0200, "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as their
> >Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare. This has more to do
> >with societies themselves.
>
> Ah, but the respective religions are part and parcel of the respective
> societies.
Partly yes, but religion seldom or never defines all cultural norms.
> >Many people would consider Buddhism as very peaceful religion, but
> >pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not particularly peaceful.
>
> >Rise of the Islamic fundamentalism is mostly due to failure of Islamic
> >autocratic and socialistic states.
>
> Which is mostly due to the culture - aided and abetted by the Islamic
> religion - which locks the people in the past.
This is a misconception. Most of the Islamic societies are not "locked in
the past" - they live in the past, just like all other tribal societies in
Africa, Asia and America. Arab nations are not really national states like
most European states: they tend to be artificial tribal nations, whose
people would still live in the tents without oil revenues. Thats why they
have so much problems, just like almost all other former colonies.
You note that for example Bosnians (who are Muslims) are not any more
aggressive or "primitive" than their Christian neighbours - in fact it was
the Christians who began genocidal war against them.
Michael Kennedy
>
> "Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Pu9Eb.29666$BQ5.20170@fed1read03...
> > "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:brqdlc$c5n$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
> > > I wonder what leap of logic is needed to such conclusion. All I want
is
> to
> > > point out that WTC attack happened 2001, not 1981.
> >
> > I think Islamic fundamentalism, a poor term because it is literal Islam
> > actually, began with Khomeni, at least on the world stage. Wahabbism is
> > probably a heresy in the Christain sense but I don't know enough about
> Islam
> > (in spite of 4 or 5 books) to say. I don't think we overstated the
threat.
> > Christian fundamentalism is no threat because the Christian religion is
> one
> > of passivity. It wasn't always practiced that way but Islam is a violent
> > religion which was practiced in a more passive way since about 1500. As
> each
> > religion returns to a literal interpretation, Christianity becomes more
> > passive and Islam becomes more violent.
>
> I think this is incorrect. We are so used to modern interpretation of
> Christianity that we are forgetting how it was in the past. Any modern
> Christian would have been burned as a heretic 500 years ago.
That is why it is often written that Islam needs a Reformation. It hasn't
happened yet. Burning heretics was not in keeping with Jesus' teaching.
Jihad is in keeping with Muhammed's.
>
> There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as their
> Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare.
If you are talking about abortion clinic bombings, I don't think those
people represent any group larger than a handful. There are many people who
are anti-abortion (a majority in the US) but very few who would advocate
violence. The Middle East is full of such advocacy in newspapers, TV and
government pronouncements.
> This has more to do
> with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
> peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
> particularly peaceful.
Which are they ? I think they are a minority in Japan although I could be
wrong. The militarism was not Buddhist in origin.
>
> Rise of the Islamic fundamentalism is mostly due to failure of Islamic
> autocratic and socialistic states.
Agreed.
>
> > They can be unpleasnat to their neighbors by terrorism. Idi Amin,
another
> > Muslim ruler, left others alone and slaughtered his own people. The
Saudis
> > have been content to stay home but their support of madrassas in other
> > countries that praech violence is coming back to cause trouble. Pakistan
> has
> > an old quarrel with India, one in which they have a good point about
> > Kashmir. They have been helpful although corrupt at home.
>
> Pakistani were the patrons and supporters (creators, in fact) of Taliban
and
> no small amount of terrorist groups have originated from Pakistan, mostly,
> but not inclusively, directed against India.
The Taliban came more from madrassa schools funded by the Saudis. The Paks
were unable to fund education for children, especially boys. The Saudis
stepped in but the madrassas became centers of terror support and
fundamentalist rants. They are not teaching useful skills. It is becoming
more and more clear that the House of Saud made a pact with the devil when
they supported Wahabbism.
>
> > They are the only
> > Muslim country to have a female head of state until Indonesia recently.
>
> Turkey?
Good point. I stand corrected. Of course, Turkey is an example of a secular
Muslim state. The only example now that Lebanon is gone.
Mike Kennedy
>
>
>
Michael Kennedy
>
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:kvs3uv0fuuap7kocu...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:14:54 +0200, "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as their
> > >Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare. This has more to
do
> > >with societies themselves.
> >
> > Which is mostly due to the culture - aided and abetted by the Islamic
> > religion - which locks the people in the past.
>
> This is a misconception. Most of the Islamic societies are not "locked in
> the past" - they live in the past, just like all other tribal societies in
> Africa, Asia and America. Arab nations are not really national states like
> most European states: they tend to be artificial tribal nations, whose
> people would still live in the tents without oil revenues. Thats why they
> have so much problems, just like almost all other former colonies.
>
> You note that for example Bosnians (who are Muslims) are not any more
> aggressive or "primitive" than their Christian neighbours - in fact it was
> the Christians who began genocidal war against them.
The Bosnians are a special case. The Bosnian Muslims are slavs who converted
to Islam under the Ottoman Empire. They were the merchants and town dwellers
who avoided the taxes and repression of the Orthodox by converting. The
Orthodox who resisted conversion lived in small villages, remained
agricultural and lived in a tribal society. Advancement was denied them by
the Turks. They developed an intense hatred of the Muslims who were the
equivalent of "rice Christians" in China or the Irish who converted to keep
their land. In each case, the action of the ruling class led to intense
resentment against the privileged group who had converted. In Albania almost
all converted but small groups living in high mountains remained Catholic.
The Serbs felt oppressed and, once they had thrown off the Turk, became very
hostile to the slavs who were Muslim. They are still called "Turks" by the
Serbs but they are not Turks, they are slavs, many blond and blue eyed.
Read- Black Lamb and Grey Falcon by Rebecca West. Best book ever written
about the Balkans.
Mike Kennedy
.
>
>
cMAD
> "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:brs20p$1ph$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
>
> > This has more to do
> > with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
> > peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
> > particularly peaceful.
>
> Which are they ?
Sri Lanka.
> I think they are a minority in Japan although I could be
> wrong. The militarism was not Buddhist in origin.
cMAD
Michael Kennedy
> "Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:U_SDb.24174$pY.21229@fed1read04...
> >
> > "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:6caefc89daac11f8...@news.teranews.com...
> > > "Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:jqPDb.22245$pY.16830@fed1read04...
> >
snip
> > > > He started to build battleships.
> > >
> > > Um, yeah. So? I mean, the Brits kept their Empire strong through a
Navy.
> > > Germany had a new Empire in Tsingtao, Africa, and elsewhere. Going by
> the
> > > model of the times, a navy would be seen as necessary. Heck, the US
> built
> > > the Great White Fleet. I don't see anyone arguing that T.R. should
have
> > been
> > > strung up over it! The British were the model, so people copied them.
> The
> > > Dreadnought was a microcosm that turned into the tail wagging the dog,
> > IMO.
> >
> > Germany was a land power. The colony issue was all ego.
>
> Well, yes. An Ego excercise all the great powers were getting into.
> Remember, Germany, like Japan and Italy - and even the US - had gotten to
> the colonial race late. Heck, one could argue that the US was seen as a
land
> power before the 1890s, more than a naval one, until the US went into a
> naval building and modernization program. Also, the US was concentrating
> more on land expansion in the 1800s.
The US was a sea power before it was the US. We had China traders going out
of New England when it was still a colony. Part of the resentment was over
restrictions on US shipping. If Jefferson had built a few 74 gun ships
instead of gunboats, there would have been no War of 1812.
>
> Read about the
> > crises in 1905 and others. Germany was driving the thing. Austria was
> brain
> > dead.
>
> I'll have to check that out. Austria may have been "brain dead," but if I
am
> Emperor and a rival nation seems to be behind/endorsing the shooting of my
> relative, and also a representative of my country, I am going to be pretty
> annoyed.
Austria and Serbia had a quarrel. Austria gave Serbia and ultimatum which
was designed to be unacceptable. Serbia accepted it ! Russia was threatening
to support Serbia as fellow slavs. If Germany stayed out, the Austrians
would probably have gotten concessions from Serbia, Russia would have
chaired the peace conference and it all would have blown over. There had
been war in the Balkans for 50 years as they pushed out the Turks. There had
been one in 1913 ! Bismark said, "The entire Balkans are not worth the
bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." Bismark was fired by Wilhelm. Von
Moltke was incompetent and was pushed out soon after the war started.
Wilhelm should have had enough sense to stay home and monitor events.
>
> > > It goes on from there. There is a
> > > > school of thought that holds we should have stayed out although that
> was
> > > > tough because the Germans were so clumsy about pissing people off.
The
> > > > Kaiser had a lot to do with unrestricted sub warfare which brought
us
> > in.
> > >
> > > Well, yeah. Though going unrestricted kind of made sense. I mean, how
> else
> > > does one use a submarine? And what were all those neutral ships
carrying
> > > back and forth to England? The same type of supplies the US tried to
cut
> > off
> > > from Japan in WW2 by using subs, I'll reckon. The Germans were not
wrong
> > in
> > > using subs that way, they were ahead of their time.
We were in a total war when we went to submarine warfare against Japan.
Germany had not begun the war as a total war. They did not want to fight us,
although they probably thought we could never get there in time to influence
the outcome, even if we wanted to.
>Unfortunately for
> the
> > > Germans the people at sea wanted Cruiser rules and chivalry, while on
> land
> > > soldiers killed each other with poison gas.
> >
> > You're determined to absolve Germany of blame. In that you are almost
> unique
> > in history (outside of Germany and maybe you aren't).
>
> I am not so much trying to absolve them as look at things logically.
Britain
> was blockading Germany by surface blockade - and one of the first big
U-Boat
> successes was against ships in that blockade (Otto Weddigen in U-9 sinking
> three cruisers) - And yes, maybe they could have focused on going after
> military ships alone.
If they wanted to keep the war localized to Europe. They knew we went to war
in 1812 over ship issues. We did have a large fleet by that time.
> However, WW2 seems to bear out the idea of going after
> all kinds of shipping with submarines.
Once the war was total, absolutely.
> And frankly, in WW1 a lot seemed to
> go out the window in terms of humanity and land warfare.
Yup.
> So the use of
> submarines to attack merchant shipping without warning does not suprise
me.
Only if you want to fight a limited number of enemies. If you want to fight
everybody, go ahead.
> As I said, a lot of ships going to England were carrying supplies - fuel,
> war materials, even food - which could support a war effort.
It's a choice. They made the wrong one.
>
> > > > The German rape of Belgium really brought the Brits in.
> > >
> > > Well, their going through Belgium certainly helped the
> > > propaganda/information campaign on the part of people trying to get
help
> > for
> > > the fight from the US, too.
> >
> > They massacred Belgians for partisan activity. The British enlarged on
it
> > later for propaganda but the first stories were true.
>
> Well, don't partisans fall outside the usual rules of war? I mean, look at
> the thing with Afghanistan, and the "unlawful combatant" doctrine of the
US.
> A huge stretch, perhaps, but insurgency is a traditionally risky business.
> (Ask the Texans of the Alamo.)
I'm referring to civilian non-combatant retaliation. We frowned on that when
Quantrell did it in the Civil War and that was minor. I'm not aware of us
lining up a village in Afghanistan and shooting them all. That's what the
Germans did in Belgium.
>
> > > The Italians shot cannons to cause avalanches on
> > > Austrian troops, and the war in the Balkans saw atrocities on both
> sides.
> >
> > Not the same as reprisals against civilians. In WWI that was unique to
the
> > Germans except perhaps in the Balkans.
>
> I wouldn't be suprised if it was true big time in the Balkans. Remember
> where the whole war started. Also, the book "Balkan Ghosts" by Robert D.
> Kaplan seems to present the wars in that region as being historically very
> nasty and bloody, especially regarding civilian populations. I would not
be
> suprised if WW1 was that way as well.
No argument.
>
> Then you have the whole Russian Revolution and those reprisals against
> civilians, concurrent and lasting into the years after WW1.
Civil wars are nasty. Ours was too.
>
> > > But they were allies of the French and British, so they got benefits
at
> > > Versailles after all of that.
> >
> > To the winners... Too bad Italy forgot that in 1940.
>
> And if Germany had won, would you say the same? Besides, the big thing
> America trumpeted when entering the war, and tilting things for the
allies,
> was the 14 points.
That was Wilson who was a bit naive.
> Unfortunately the urge to "rub it in" saw a lot of that
> cashiered. When the League of Nations fell apart, it was the final blow to
> Wilson's plan. But Versailles was the big repudiation.
I'm reading Paris 1919 now. Clemenceau has a lot to answer for but France
had good reason to be vengeful and fearful. he is alleged to have asked to
be buried facing Germany and upright. He was right. They came again.
>
> > > There are also the tactics the British used in South Africa, regarding
> > > Civilian populations.
> >
> > The British invented concentration camps but I'm not aware of major
> > atrocities.
>
> Wouldn't starving women and children to death in said camps constitute an
> atrocity?
I don't think that happened as a tactic. The British lost 13,000 troops to
typhoid fever. Any gathering of people in one area before immunizations
appeared was fatal for a lot of them.
> because if it does not, I am not sure what is. Also, the British
> took said efforts in response to a partisan war, on the part of the Boers.
> Not that I don't dig England, I do. But the Boer war was a pretty nasty
> thing.
Agreed but I'm not aware of them starving people on purpose. They starved
their own troops in Crimea in 1854. Good old British muddle.
>
> > > If the Germans had
> > > > been a little less hunnish, they might have been allowed to kick
some
> > > French
> > > > ass, like they did in 1870.
> > >
> > > Alliances have little to do with Hunnishness and a lot to do with
> national
> > > interests.
> >
> > Disagree. The rise of national armies changed everything after 1800.
>
> You mean that national interests were not a factor after 1800 in
alliances?
No, I mean there were no national armies before 1800 (actually 1793 with the
Revolution but Napoleon really revolutionized armies).
> How come Russia fought Napoleon after earlier relations with him, then the
> Brits turn around and fight Russia in the Crimea a couple decades later?
> National interests let to an attempt by nations to pit enemies against
each
> other, and form alliances of convenience - setting up the dominoes, as it
> were, for WW1. And IMO, Napoleon got a lot of nations to join against him
> out of their national interests after 1800, when he started using his new
> national army to great effect on his neighbors....
You missed my point.
>
> > > The Germans were not a big naval power in 1870.
> >
> > No need to be. Had they not been they might have won.
>
> If they have no navy and it all plays out as it did (BEF, the Russians
> fighting harder than expected in Poland early on, the Taxicab Army of the
> Marne) they still lose.
The British would not have allied with the French without the High Seas
Fleet. England and France nearly fought a war about 1903 (over Egypt-forget
the year)
> Unless a lack of a Dreadnought fleet would suddenly
> make Britain change their minds about Belgium. Which would make it an
> alliance not based on enemy hunnishness, but on national interests ;+)
Germany and England were natural allies. The Brits were not involved in the
1870 war, for example. The British royal family was German !
>
> > > Nor were they at
> > > war in the East as well as the West. In both cases, Britain had more
> > reason
> > > for concern.
> >
> > Only reason for concern was the German High Seas Fleet which was built
to
> > intimidate Britain. Read "Dreadnaught".
>
> I will have to track that one down.... thanks.
He has a new one out that is a sequel. Castles of Steel, I think, is the
title. It's about the battles.
>
> > > The US got more reason for concern as Russian and Allied debt
> > > from arms purchases piled up. I can't see it as all on the Kaiser.
> >
> > Disagree but that is what makes horseraces.
>
> Another said reason for the Allied efforts in Russia after the war: The
> previous Tsarist government owed them money. And the Communists were not
big
> on the idea of spending hard money to repay those debts to the west. But I
> respect your right to disagree. Heck, one of my favorite Presidents ever
was
> Theodore Roosevelt, and his opinions on the Kaiser are pretty well known
:+)
He also couldn't stand Churchill.
Mike Kennedy
>
> > Mike Kennedy
>
>
Michael Kennedy
> Michael Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:brs20p$1ph$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
> >
> > > This has more to do
> > > with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
> > > peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
> > > particularly peaceful.
> >
> > Which are they ?
>
> Sri Lanka.
The terrorists in Sri Lanka are the Tamils who are Hindus (I think). The
Buddhists were driven out of India before the Muslim invasion. The Tamils
are Indian and oppose the Sinhalese who are the native Sri Lankans (Ceylon
before the name change). Tamils occupy the adjacent part of India and the
north of Sri Lanka where (I think) they immigrated in the past. I'm not well
read in that history so may be wrong about the origin of the Tamils.
Mike Kennedy
David E. Powell
True. But US sea power languished for a bit after the Civil War, IIRC. You
make a good point about Jefferson's naval buildowns (and abandoning of
things like stocks of seasoned timber, etc.) And, of course, the role of US
Shipping in troubles with France in the early 1800s, the Barbary Conflict,
and with the War of 1812 as you say (Impressment, etc.) You are right in
that the US Navy sent ships out far from US shores in all of those
conflicts. You also got me looking at the 30 or so years before WW1, instead
of the 100 or so years before it. My apologies.
> > Read about the
> > > crises in 1905 and others. Germany was driving the thing. Austria was
> > brain
> > > dead.
> >
> > I'll have to check that out. Austria may have been "brain dead," but if
I
> am
> > Emperor and a rival nation seems to be behind/endorsing the shooting of
my
> > relative, and also a representative of my country, I am going to be
pretty
> > annoyed.
>
> Austria and Serbia had a quarrel. Austria gave Serbia and ultimatum which
> was designed to be unacceptable. Serbia accepted it ! Russia was
threatening
> to support Serbia as fellow slavs. If Germany stayed out, the Austrians
> would probably have gotten concessions from Serbia, Russia would have
> chaired the peace conference and it all would have blown over.
Legit? I always thought the Serbs and Austrians were ready to go at it from
the start. Maybe I confused the radicals in both nations with their actual
governments.
There had
> been war in the Balkans for 50 years as they pushed out the Turks. There
had
> been one in 1913 !
Yes.... and it hadn't touched off the powder keg. True.
Bismark said, "The entire Balkans are not worth the
> bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." Bismark was fired by Wilhelm. Von
> Moltke was incompetent and was pushed out soon after the war started.
> Wilhelm should have had enough sense to stay home and monitor events.
OK, I see this point. But there was probably a lot of overeagerness in
several governments. The system itself created the conditions for the war to
develop. More than one person contributed to the creation of it.
Which was their mistake in 1917.... after they avoided war in 1915 by
stopping it after they hit the Lusitania. After that you are right, that
they should have known.
> >Unfortunately for
> > the
> > > > Germans the people at sea wanted Cruiser rules and chivalry, while
on
> > land
> > > > soldiers killed each other with poison gas.
> > >
> > > You're determined to absolve Germany of blame. In that you are almost
> > unique
> > > in history (outside of Germany and maybe you aren't).
> >
> > I am not so much trying to absolve them as look at things logically.
> Britain
> > was blockading Germany by surface blockade - and one of the first big
> U-Boat
> > successes was against ships in that blockade (Otto Weddigen in U-9
sinking
> > three cruisers) - And yes, maybe they could have focused on going after
> > military ships alone.
>
> If they wanted to keep the war localized to Europe. They knew we went to
war
> in 1812 over ship issues. We did have a large fleet by that time.
Nod.... and anyone following military matters could have guesses that the US
still had an officer corps and group of noncommissioned officers to build an
army around, after the last years of war against Indians, against Spain, and
in the Phillipines, etc.
> > However, WW2 seems to bear out the idea of going after
> > all kinds of shipping with submarines.
>
> Once the war was total, absolutely.
>
> > And frankly, in WW1 a lot seemed to
> > go out the window in terms of humanity and land warfare.
>
> Yup.
>
> > So the use of
> > submarines to attack merchant shipping without warning does not suprise
> me.
>
> Only if you want to fight a limited number of enemies. If you want to
fight
> everybody, go ahead.
Perhaps.... but doesn't said nation sending the ships out have a
responsibility to tell their companies, arms dealers, etc. "Hey, we don't
want to get our people killed so you can make a buck, so keep your ships out
of the war zone where ships are being sunk."
> > As I said, a lot of ships going to England were carrying supplies -
fuel,
> > war materials, even food - which could support a war effort.
>
> It's a choice. They made the wrong one.
True. But it was compounded by the neutral countries who knowingly sent
ships into a shooting gallery.
> > > > > The German rape of Belgium really brought the Brits in.
> > > >
> > > > Well, their going through Belgium certainly helped the
> > > > propaganda/information campaign on the part of people trying to get
> help
> > > for
> > > > the fight from the US, too.
> > >
> > > They massacred Belgians for partisan activity. The British enlarged on
> it
> > > later for propaganda but the first stories were true.
> >
> > Well, don't partisans fall outside the usual rules of war? I mean, look
at
> > the thing with Afghanistan, and the "unlawful combatant" doctrine of the
> US.
> > A huge stretch, perhaps, but insurgency is a traditionally risky
business.
> > (Ask the Texans of the Alamo.)
>
> I'm referring to civilian non-combatant retaliation. We frowned on that
when
> Quantrell did it in the Civil War and that was minor. I'm not aware of us
> lining up a village in Afghanistan and shooting them all. That's what the
> Germans did in Belgium.
Ouch? Legit? The problem I always had with reading books of the period was
how luridly embellished everything is. When you see several things you know
are lies, it is hard to trust anything.
> > > > The Italians shot cannons to cause avalanches on
> > > > Austrian troops, and the war in the Balkans saw atrocities on both
> > sides.
> > >
> > > Not the same as reprisals against civilians. In WWI that was unique to
> the
> > > Germans except perhaps in the Balkans.
> >
> > I wouldn't be suprised if it was true big time in the Balkans. Remember
> > where the whole war started. Also, the book "Balkan Ghosts" by Robert D.
> > Kaplan seems to present the wars in that region as being historically
very
> > nasty and bloody, especially regarding civilian populations. I would not
> be
> > suprised if WW1 was that way as well.
>
> No argument.
>
> >
> > Then you have the whole Russian Revolution and those reprisals against
> > civilians, concurrent and lasting into the years after WW1.
>
> Civil wars are nasty. Ours was too.
Yes. I could bring up the Allied Expeditionary Force, but I am not sure how
much of that was an attempt to collect some of the money owed Western
governments by the Tsarist government, and how much was a reaction to the
Communist revolution in general.
> > > > But they were allies of the French and British, so they got benefits
> at
> > > > Versailles after all of that.
> > >
> > > To the winners... Too bad Italy forgot that in 1940.
> >
> > And if Germany had won, would you say the same? Besides, the big thing
> > America trumpeted when entering the war, and tilting things for the
> allies,
> > was the 14 points.
>
> That was Wilson who was a bit naive.
True, but the reasons he gave were the reasons Americans were told their
boys were being sent off to war. Which makes it important. As it was, I am
inclined to agree with the "Warbucks" assessment. Helping France and Germany
win as an exercise in corporate welfare measured in blood so the companies
could be assured of the profits from arms sales on those "neutral" ships.
> > Unfortunately the urge to "rub it in" saw a lot of that
> > cashiered. When the League of Nations fell apart, it was the final blow
to
> > Wilson's plan. But Versailles was the big repudiation.
>
> I'm reading Paris 1919 now. Clemenceau has a lot to answer for but France
> had good reason to be vengeful and fearful. he is alleged to have asked to
> be buried facing Germany and upright. He was right. They came again.
If you beat a dog for a bunch of years (1919-1920s) then cut the leash
(1930s) do not be suprised if it bites you.
> > > > There are also the tactics the British used in South Africa,
regarding
> > > > Civilian populations.
> > >
> > > The British invented concentration camps but I'm not aware of major
> > > atrocities.
> >
> > Wouldn't starving women and children to death in said camps constitute
an
> > atrocity?
>
> I don't think that happened as a tactic.
I'm pretty sure it was part of the policy. Being so widespread and rampant.
The British lost 13,000 troops to
> typhoid fever. Any gathering of people in one area before immunizations
> appeared was fatal for a lot of them.
Yes, but starvation and mistreatment will heighten chances disease will
break out.
> > because if it does not, I am not sure what is. Also, the British
> > took said efforts in response to a partisan war, on the part of the
Boers.
> > Not that I don't dig England, I do. But the Boer war was a pretty nasty
> > thing.
>
> Agreed but I'm not aware of them starving people on purpose. They starved
> their own troops in Crimea in 1854. Good old British muddle.
That could be blamed on long supply chains. The farms were not that far from
the camps. Cutting the rebels off from supplies and civilian population was
the strategy to beat the Boers, and it worked.
I guess so. Britain had a professional army before 1800, IIRC. And if you
mean conscription and industrialization changing things I will certainly
agree. I just didn't get the meaning.
> > > > The Germans were not a big naval power in 1870.
> > >
> > > No need to be. Had they not been they might have won.
> >
> > If they have no navy and it all plays out as it did (BEF, the Russians
> > fighting harder than expected in Poland early on, the Taxicab Army of
the
> > Marne) they still lose.
>
> The British would not have allied with the French without the High Seas
> Fleet. England and France nearly fought a war about 1903 (over
Egypt-forget
> the year)
Are you sure it was Dreadnoughts, or Belgium? If Belgium was the sticking
point, one would think Britain still jumps in. That was the argument I was
making.
> > Unless a lack of a Dreadnought fleet would suddenly
> > make Britain change their minds about Belgium. Which would make it an
> > alliance not based on enemy hunnishness, but on national interests ;+)
>
> Germany and England were natural allies. The Brits were not involved in
the
> 1870 war, for example. The British royal family was German !
True.
> > > > Nor were they at
> > > > war in the East as well as the West. In both cases, Britain had more
> > > reason
> > > > for concern.
> > >
> > > Only reason for concern was the German High Seas Fleet which was built
> to
> > > intimidate Britain. Read "Dreadnaught".
> >
> > I will have to track that one down.... thanks.
>
> He has a new one out that is a sequel. Castles of Steel, I think, is the
> title. It's about the battles.
Thanks again.
> > > > The US got more reason for concern as Russian and Allied debt
> > > > from arms purchases piled up. I can't see it as all on the Kaiser.
> > >
> > > Disagree but that is what makes horseraces.
> >
> > Another said reason for the Allied efforts in Russia after the war: The
> > previous Tsarist government owed them money. And the Communists were not
> big
> > on the idea of spending hard money to repay those debts to the west. But
I
> > respect your right to disagree. Heck, one of my favorite Presidents ever
> was
> > Theodore Roosevelt, and his opinions on the Kaiser are pretty well known
> :+)
>
> He also couldn't stand Churchill.
I have often wondered at some of TR's dislikes. The Kaiser had a couple of
things in common with him. Love of naval planning, overcoming a childhood
ailment, a sense of national destiny. Churchill probably had a few things in
common with TR. At least if TR liked cigars.
> Mike Kennedy
DEP
> > > Mike Kennedy
> >
> >
>
>
Michael Kennedy
> > The US was a sea power before it was the US. We had China traders going
> out
> > of New England when it was still a colony. Part of the resentment was
over
> > restrictions on US shipping. If Jefferson had built a few 74 gun ships
> > instead of gunboats, there would have been no War of 1812.
>
> True. But US sea power languished for a bit after the Civil War, IIRC.
Admiral Mahan. The Influence of Sea Power on History. 1890. I have a first
edition. The British revolutionized everything with Dreadnaught but we have
a fleet.
> You
> make a good point about Jefferson's naval buildowns (and abandoning of
> things like stocks of seasoned timber, etc.) And, of course, the role of
US
> Shipping in troubles with France in the early 1800s, the Barbary Conflict,
> and with the War of 1812 as you say (Impressment, etc.) You are right in
> that the US Navy sent ships out far from US shores in all of those
> conflicts. You also got me looking at the 30 or so years before WW1,
instead
> of the 100 or so years before it. My apologies.
You really should read "Dreadnaught". It is very enlightening. More so IMHO
than the Tuchman book. She focuses on the crisis and not on the long lead
in. Especially the German gunboat meddling.
Read Liddell Hart's book "History of the First World War" and Keegan's book.
I only got interested after reading Dreadnaught. Next year I would like to
walk the battlefields of northern France. Might have to wait two years.
>
> There had
> > been war in the Balkans for 50 years as they pushed out the Turks. There
> had
> > been one in 1913 !
>
> Yes.... and it hadn't touched off the powder keg. True.
>
> Bismark said, "The entire Balkans are not worth the
> > bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." Bismark was fired by Wilhelm.
Von
> > Moltke was incompetent and was pushed out soon after the war started.
> > Wilhelm should have had enough sense to stay home and monitor events.
>
> OK, I see this point. But there was probably a lot of overeagerness in
> several governments. The system itself created the conditions for the war
to
> develop. More than one person contributed to the creation of it.
Yes but the best chance to stop it was the Kaiser's and he took a vacation
and left a dope like von Moltke in charge. The elder von Moltke was a great
general but the younger (a nephew, I think) did not have the right stuff to
be where he was.
snip
> And what were all those neutral ships
> > carrying
> > > > > back and forth to England?
No one had used submarines that way before. My father was in a WWI sub. They
didn't know if it would come up again.
>The same type of supplies the US tried to
> > cut
> > > > off
> > > > > from Japan in WW2 by using subs, I'll reckon. The Germans were not
> > wrong
> > > > in
> > > > > using subs that way, they were ahead of their time.
> >
> > We were in a total war when we went to submarine warfare against Japan.
> > Germany had not begun the war as a total war. They did not want to fight
> us,
> > although they probably thought we could never get there in time to
> influence
> > the outcome, even if we wanted to.
>
> Which was their mistake in 1917.... after they avoided war in 1915 by
> stopping it after they hit the Lusitania. After that you are right, that
> they should have known.
Everyone miscalculated except Grey. He is the one quoted saying, "The lights
are going out all over Europe tonight and they shall not come on again in
our lifetime." The German miscalculation, and the errors of the 1914
offensive, ruined the century. One hundred years from now this will be
called the 30 years war. 1914 to 1945.
snip
> > > So the use of
> > > submarines to attack merchant shipping without warning does not
suprise
> > me.
> >
> > Only if you want to fight a limited number of enemies. If you want to
> fight
> > everybody, go ahead.
>
> Perhaps.... but doesn't said nation sending the ships out have a
> responsibility to tell their companies, arms dealers, etc. "Hey, we don't
> want to get our people killed so you can make a buck, so keep your ships
out
> of the war zone where ships are being sunk."
That makes the blockade successful. The Lusitania did have military supplies
aboard. The governments usually indemnify the ship owners plus rates go sky
high so one voyage can pay for the ship.
snip
Strachan's book "World War I A History" describes the reprisals on page 40.
Chief among these was the destruction of Louvain with its incomparable
library..Keegan ("The First World War") attributes the reprisals to the
blowing up of the bridges above and below Liege. The Kaiser, King Albert's
cousin, had warned him not to commit "unfriendly acts". With typical German
insensitivity to the honor of others, they expected to walk through Belgium
in spite of violating its neutrality. When the Belgians resisted, the
Germans got paranoid about partisans. Keegan writes that a postwar inquiry
found no evidence of partisan activity in Belgium in 1914.
snip
> > > And if Germany had won, would you say the same? Besides, the big thing
> > > America trumpeted when entering the war, and tilting things for the
> > allies,
> > > was the 14 points.
> >
> > That was Wilson who was a bit naive.
>
> True, but the reasons he gave were the reasons Americans were told their
> boys were being sent off to war. Which makes it important. As it was, I am
> inclined to agree with the "Warbucks" assessment. Helping France and
Germany
> win as an exercise in corporate welfare measured in blood so the companies
> could be assured of the profits from arms sales on those "neutral" ships.
Probably not significant except as a "buyer's remorse" issue in the 1920s.
>
> > > Unfortunately the urge to "rub it in" saw a lot of that
> > > cashiered. When the League of Nations fell apart, it was the final
blow
> to
> > > Wilson's plan. But Versailles was the big repudiation.
> >
> > I'm reading Paris 1919 now. Clemenceau has a lot to answer for but
France
> > had good reason to be vengeful and fearful. he is alleged to have asked
to
> > be buried facing Germany and upright. He was right. They came again.
>
> If you beat a dog for a bunch of years (1919-1920s) then cut the leash
> (1930s) do not be suprised if it bites you.
It bit the French pretty hard in 1870. France was wrecked in 1914-18. The
Germans did a great job of whining. The treaty was unreasonable but nobody
had ever seen anything like WWI.
That is true but I don't believe that reprisals were the policy. There was a
lot of support for the Boers in England. It would have come out if there had
been real atrocities.
That was it. Napoleon had the first national army.
>
> > > > > The Germans were not a big naval power in 1870.
> > > >
> > > > No need to be. Had they not been they might have won.
> > >
> > > If they have no navy and it all plays out as it did (BEF, the Russians
> > > fighting harder than expected in Poland early on, the Taxicab Army of
> the
> > > Marne) they still lose.
> >
> > The British would not have allied with the French without the High Seas
> > Fleet. England and France nearly fought a war about 1903 (over
> Egypt-forget
> > the year)
>
> Are you sure it was Dreadnoughts, or Belgium? If Belgium was the sticking
> point, one would think Britain still jumps in. That was the argument I was
> making.
Belgium was immediate. Without the High Seas Fleet, England would not have
been a French ally. The ships made England end a 100 year alliance with
Prussia.
snip
. Heck, one of my favorite Presidents ever
> > was
> > > Theodore Roosevelt, and his opinions on the Kaiser are pretty well
known
> > :+)
> >
> > He also couldn't stand Churchill.
>
> I have often wondered at some of TR's dislikes. The Kaiser had a couple of
> things in common with him. Love of naval planning, overcoming a childhood
> ailment, a sense of national destiny. Churchill probably had a few things
in
> common with TR. At least if TR liked cigars.
They were too much alike according to Alice Longworth, TR's daughter. She
was a Grande Dame of Washington until after WWII. Her famous aphorism was
"If you can't say anything nice about somebody, come right over here and sit
down by me."
Mike Kennedy
cMAD
> "cMAD" <cm...@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:3FE23DA1...@freenet.de...
> > Michael Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:brs20p$1ph$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
> > >
> > > > This has more to do
> > > > with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
> > > > peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
> > > > particularly peaceful.
> > >
> > > Which are they ?
> >
> > Sri Lanka.
>
> The terrorists in Sri Lanka are the Tamils who are Hindus (I think).
Correct.
> The
> Buddhists were driven out of India before the Muslim invasion.
Not sure.
> The Tamils
> are Indian and oppose the Sinhalese who are the native Sri Lankans (Ceylon
> before the name change). Tamils occupy the adjacent part of India and the
> north of Sri Lanka where (I think) they immigrated in the past.
Actually, since it has been a while since the Tamils immigrated:
http://countrystudies.us/sri-lanka/6.htm
one might consider them native as well.
If you go one level up from the link, you'll get an outline of the history.
> I'm not well
> read in that history so may be wrong about the origin of the Tamils.
To make a long history short, after independence, several parties, supported by
a significant part of the Buddhist clergy, tried to gain political capital from
discriminating against all minorities, including the Tamils. From there, the
violence escalated on both sides.
cMAD
Grey Satterfield
Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
> They were too much alike according to Alice Longworth, TR's daughter. She
> was a Grande Dame of Washington until after WWII. Her famous aphorism was
> "If you can't say anything nice about somebody, come right over here and sit
> down by me."
I would love to have known Alice Roosevelt Longworth. She was a great wit
and was apparently as well connected as any Washington insider who ever
lived. Her husband, Nicholas Longworth, was speaker of the house; the
Longworth House Office Building is named for him. Alice Longworth lived
until 1980 when she was well into her nineties.
Grey Satterfield
Brian Sharrock
"Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:m9rrtv84pt0de6hk9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:43:44 GMT, Marten Kemp
> <martende...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
>
>
> > There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about an airline captain
> > being berated by Ground Control in Templehof. The controller
> > finishes up with, "Haven't you ever flown into Berlin before?"
> >
> > The reply is, "In 1945 flying a B-17."
>
> Well, you clobbered that one. The punchline is "Any number of times
> in 1945, but we never landed".
>
> It's usually told about Frankfurt-am-Main, because the controllers
> there have a reputation for having a short fuse. And, probably,
> because it's a big, busy airport. I like the British Airways version
> the best, because I like the two accents in contrast.
>
In 199?, I had occasion to negotiate with KAE (Krupp-Atlas-Elektronik)
at their factory in Bremen. I was accompanied by a colleague from the
company's marketing department - a former Group Captain RAF.
Yes, you've guessed it: - When asked the polite question over coffee
and biscuits; "Have you visited our factory in Bremen before?" _Bill_
gave the conversation-stopping response "Oh, many times, 'course
we never landed!".
--
Brian
Marten Kemp
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:43:44 GMT, Marten Kemp
> <martende...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about an airline captain
>>being berated by Ground Control in Templehof. The controller
>>finishes up with, "Haven't you ever flown into Berlin before?"
>>
>>The reply is, "In 1945 flying a B-17."
>
>
> Well, you clobbered that one. The punchline is "Any number of times
> in 1945, but we never landed".
>
> It's usually told about Frankfurt-am-Main, because the controllers
> there have a reputation for having a short fuse. And, probably,
> because it's a big, busy airport. I like the British Airways version
> the best, because I like the two accents in contrast.
>
>
That's what happens when I post from memory and before being
fortified with approprite amounts of the Holy Caffeine.
My apologies.
--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
Jason Atkinson
<mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
>I'm reading Paris 1919 now. Clemenceau has a lot to answer for but France
>had good reason to be vengeful and fearful. he is alleged to have asked to
>be buried facing Germany and upright. He was right. They came again.
Yes, and Hitler's foreign policy in the 1930's was best summed up as
scrapping Versailles, which gives some clues as to why they came
again. France kicked Germany hard enough to piss them off but not
hard enough to kill them. Of course, the Weimar democrats and
socialists could have done a better job defending their republic, but
they didn't have much to work with.
Michael Kennedy
"Brian Sharrock" <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fe30f4d$0$13902$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
>
> "Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
> news:m9rrtv84pt0de6hk9...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:43:44 GMT, Marten Kemp
> > <martende...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about an airline captain
> > > being berated by Ground Control in Templehof. The controller
> > > finishes up with, "Haven't you ever flown into Berlin before?"
> > >
> > > The reply is, "In 1945 flying a B-17."
> >
> > Well, you clobbered that one. The punchline is "Any number of times
> > in 1945, but we never landed".
My father-in-law was flying over Hoover dam about 30 years ago when his
seatmate commented , "I trained to bomb that target." They struck up a
conversation (needless to say, what an ice-breaker) and the seatmate was a
businessman who had been a Luftwaffe pilot who trained for a mission that
was to be staged out of Mexico. Obviously the mission never went anywhere.
The German businessman turned out to be the father of a friend of mine, the
wife of another surgeon (now former wife).
Mike Kennedy
Michael Kennedy
"Jason Atkinson" <Jatki...@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:qd96uvcb3em57401c...@4ax.com...
They actually were nearly as complicit in violating the treaty. If the US
Federal Reserve had not botched the 1929 crash and recession, if the
Smoot-Hawley tariff had not been signed, if Coolidge had not squeezed the
French so hard on war debts, if the French has marched into the Rhineland in
1936, etc., etc. Once the 1914 offensive failed, our fate for the next 50 to
70 years was sealed. If the Kaiser had stayed home and used some sense,
this century might have been a golden age with a modernizing Russia and
European peace. If Wilhelm's father had not died of cancer of the larynx,
his care botched by an English doctor, he might have ruled long enough to
avoid his son's mistakes. Wilhelm might have gotten his hatred of the
English (love-hate actually) from the problems of his father.
Mike Kennedy
Fred J. McCall
:The victims of this arrogance (US servicemen not coming home, or coming home minus a
:few limbs) are different from the people who are arrogant (e.g. that former good
:friend of Saddam's, who sold him weapons when it was in the US interest).
Why would the Russians and the French sell Saddam weapons when it was
in the US interest?
In other words, you might want to take a look at what was in Mr
Hussein's arsenal vice what the lying polemics of the left like to
claim.
--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush
Gml...@scvnet.com
Hmmm, I wonder if Hoover Dam would have made a good target? It's a pretty
tough hunk of concrete between two mountains of solid rock. Breaching it
would flood the downstream areas, but there just wasn't all that much
downstream at that time. It might have flooded Yuma and perhaps some
farming regions of the Imperial Valley. It would have temporarily cut off
highway traffic across the Colorado. The other loss would have been of
electrical generating capacity for the LA area.. I wonder what percentage
of LA's electricity was from Hoover Dam?
In terms of impact, a direct attack on LA may have been more effective, both
in terms of damage to defense infrastructure and in psychological effect.
George
Fred J. McCall
:All of them should be turned over, irrespective of nationality.
:Quite a lot of government corruption can be traced to German arms dealers, too.
:The only gradual difference seems to be that the corrupting influence of arms
:dealers has spread further into mainstream politics with the current US government
:than it has with the current German one.
And thus you give the 'MAD' in your chosen sobriquet and entirely new
meaning than we would have previously considered.
Statements as contrary to our current reality as your preceding one
are, indeed, sufficiently ludicrous to qualify as 'mad'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
<Gml...@scvnet.com>, to say:
>Hmmm, I wonder if Hoover Dam would have made a good target?
I live in the Columbia River Gorge, and after 9/11/01 some of my
(more excitable) friends were stating their concern about
terrorists flying an airliner into the The Dalles dam.
I pointed out to them that so far none of our adversaries had
demonstrated the talent needed to hit a target that small, and
even if they could, hell, it's a DAM and it's big and strong and
that I doubt an aluminum airliner could do more than scorch the
concrete should it be lucky enough to hit it.
Now, the electricity handling facilities surrounding the dam are
a fragile and worthy target, but they should be easy to replace
were anything to happen to them.
Ogden Johnson III
>"Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
>> They were too much alike according to Alice Longworth, TR's daughter. She
>> was a Grande Dame of Washington until after WWII. Her famous aphorism was
>> "If you can't say anything nice about somebody, come right over here and sit
>> down by me."
>I would love to have known Alice Roosevelt Longworth. She was a great wit
>and was apparently as well connected as any Washington insider who ever
>lived. Her husband, Nicholas Longworth, was speaker of the house; the
>Longworth House Office Building is named for him. Alice Longworth lived
>until 1980 when she was well into her nineties.
The "ne plus ultra" of the "Grande Dammes of Washington", the breed
did not long survive her. Even among a highly competitive, if small,
crowd, she stood head and shoulders above every pretender to the
crown. I have mention before that my start of political awareness at
13 coincided with my step-father's transfer to Washington. Alice
Roosevelt Longworth was in full force in 1956 and thereafter, and I
grew to know her well from coverage in the Washington Star, News, and
Post & Times-Herald [as it was known when I started reading it, their
purchase of the Times-Herald was only a couple of years before 1956 -
it has long since reverted to just identifying itself as The
Washington Post]. I, too, would have loved to have know her. Alas,
it wasn't in the cards for a USMC Major, much less his step-son. ;->
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
Michael Kennedy
<Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote in message news:3fe3...@news.bnb-lp.com...
I tend to agree. Hitler was probably on one of his romantic dreams about how
he was going to burst Roosevelt's bubble. If Hitler had not declared war on
us, I don't know what would have happened. He did it first. We might have
declared on Japan only given the sentiment of the time.
Pretty good topic of conversation between seatmates.
Mike Kennedy
Yama
> > Christianity that we are forgetting how it was in the past. Any modern
> > Christian would have been burned as a heretic 500 years ago.
>
> That is why it is often written that Islam needs a Reformation. It hasn't
> happened yet. Burning heretics was not in keeping with Jesus' teaching.
> Jihad is in keeping with Muhammed's.
I think you will notice that plenty of heretics (and witches etc) were
burned even after the reformation. It has naturally more to do with social
norms and structures rather than religion. Problem with most Islamic states
(and few other states with some other religion) is that they are tribal
nations with typical tribal customs dragged forcefully to 20th century. It
didn't work too well in some aspects.
> > There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as their
> > Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare.
>
> If you are talking about abortion clinic bombings, I don't think those
> people represent any group larger than a handful. There are many people
who
> are anti-abortion (a majority in the US) but very few who would advocate
> violence. The Middle East is full of such advocacy in newspapers, TV and
> government pronouncements.
See above. The reason Christian fundamentalists are so rare has little to do
with religion itself.
> > This has more to do
> > with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
> > peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
> > particularly peaceful.
>
> Which are they ? I think they are a minority in Japan although I could be
> wrong. The militarism was not Buddhist in origin.
AFAIK, most Japanese are both Shintoist and Buddhist.
Glance to history (and present) of Burma, Thailand, Laos etc. will quickly
dispel any notions that Buddhist nations are peaceful.
> > Pakistani were the patrons and supporters (creators, in fact) of Taliban
> and
> > no small amount of terrorist groups have originated from Pakistan,
mostly,
> > but not inclusively, directed against India.
>
> The Taliban came more from madrassa schools funded by the Saudis. The Paks
> were unable to fund education for children, especially boys.
Pakistani, however, were perfectly able to support Taliban with weapons,
personnel, intelligence...
> > > They are the only
> > > Muslim country to have a female head of state until Indonesia
recently.
> >
> > Turkey?
>
> Good point. I stand corrected. Of course, Turkey is an example of a
secular
> Muslim state. The only example now that Lebanon is gone.
There are/have been other secular Muslim states (not necessarily democratic,
though). Syria, Iraq...
Michael Kennedy
> Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > "Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:brs20p$1ph$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
> > > I think this is incorrect. We are so used to modern interpretation of
> > > Christianity that we are forgetting how it was in the past. Any modern
> > > Christian would have been burned as a heretic 500 years ago.
> >
> > That is why it is often written that Islam needs a Reformation. It
hasn't
> > happened yet. Burning heretics was not in keeping with Jesus' teaching.
> > Jihad is in keeping with Muhammed's.
>
> I think you will notice that plenty of heretics (and witches etc) were
> burned even after the reformation.
Agreed but that was 200 years ago. The unique thing is that the government
of Massachusetts actually recognized the wrongs committed agaisnt the
innocent in salem and paid restitution to many of the surviving victims.
UNfortunately, the same state has been unable to recognize the recent child
abuse hysteria for what is was and some victims are still in prison. AT
least they are alive.
> It has naturally more to do with social
> norms and structures rather than religion. Problem with most Islamic
states
> (and few other states with some other religion) is that they are tribal
> nations with typical tribal customs dragged forcefully to 20th century. It
> didn't work too well in some aspects.
I agree. Still, they are not working economically and 14th century economics
doesn't work.
>
> > > There are Christian fundamentalists who are just as aggressive as
their
> > > Islamic counterparts - they are just extremely rare.
> >
> > If you are talking about abortion clinic bombings, I don't think those
> > people represent any group larger than a handful. There are many people
> who
> > are anti-abortion (a majority in the US) but very few who would advocate
> > violence. The Middle East is full of such advocacy in newspapers, TV and
> > government pronouncements.
>
> See above. The reason Christian fundamentalists are so rare has little to
do
> with religion itself.
I didn't say the fundamentalists are rare. The violent ones are rare. The
fundamentalists are taking the place, in numbers, of the mainstream
Protestant churches which have become left wing social clubs.
>
> > > This has more to do
> > > with societies themselves. Many people would consider Buddhism as very
> > > peaceful religion, but pre-dominantly Buddhist countries are not
> > > particularly peaceful.
> >
> > Which are they ? I think they are a minority in Japan although I could
be
> > wrong. The militarism was not Buddhist in origin.
>
> AFAIK, most Japanese are both Shintoist and Buddhist.
> Glance to history (and present) of Burma, Thailand, Laos etc. will quickly
> dispel any notions that Buddhist nations are peaceful.
Well, the history of religion is full of people who violate the principles
of the religion in its name. The scary thing about Islam is that it
advocates violence. The others don't.
>
> > > Pakistani were the patrons and supporters (creators, in fact) of
Taliban
> > and
> > > no small amount of terrorist groups have originated from Pakistan,
> mostly,
> > > but not inclusively, directed against India.
> >
> > The Taliban came more from madrassa schools funded by the Saudis. The
Paks
> > were unable to fund education for children, especially boys.
>
> Pakistani, however, were perfectly able to support Taliban with weapons,
> personnel, intelligence...
The money came from the Saudis though.
>
> > > > They are the only
> > > > Muslim country to have a female head of state until Indonesia
> recently.
> > >
> > > Turkey?
> >
> > Good point. I stand corrected. Of course, Turkey is an example of a
> secular
> > Muslim state. The only example now that Lebanon is gone.
>
> There are/have been other secular Muslim states (not necessarily
democratic,
> though). Syria, Iraq...
Not a very happy list. They are tyrannies. With Quadaffi giving up, the
Syrians must be quaking.
Mike Kennedy
>
>
Ash Wyllie
>Good point. I stand corrected. Of course, Turkey is an example of a secular
>Muslim state. The only example now that Lebanon is gone.
Lebanon had a Christian majority, or at least a Christian plurality. Until
Arafat arrived.
-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX
Ash Wyllie
>> conversation (needless to say, what an ice-breaker) and the seatmate was a
>> businessman who had been a Luftwaffe pilot who trained for a mission that
>> was to be staged out of Mexico. Obviously the mission never went anywhere.
>> The German businessman turned out to be the father of a friend of mine,
>the
>> wife of another surgeon (now former wife).
>Hmmm, I wonder if Hoover Dam would have made a good target? It's a pretty
>tough hunk of concrete between two mountains of solid rock. Breaching it
>would flood the downstream areas, but there just wasn't all that much
>downstream at that time. It might have flooded Yuma and perhaps some
>farming regions of the Imperial Valley. It would have temporarily cut off
>highway traffic across the Colorado. The other loss would have been of
>electrical generating capacity for the LA area.. I wonder what percentage
>of LA's electricity was from Hoover Dam?
The German's duplicated Wallis's bomb used one the Ruhr dams. So they had a
weapon that could breach the Hoover dam.
>In terms of impact, a direct attack on LA may have been more effective, both
>in terms of damage to defense infrastructure and in psychological effect.
Losing all that electricity would hurt.
Michael Kennedy
"Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote in message
news:340.485T26...@lr.net...
> Michael Kennedy opined
>
>
> >Good point. I stand corrected. Of course, Turkey is an example of a
secular
> >Muslim state. The only example now that Lebanon is gone.
>
> Lebanon had a Christian majority, or at least a Christian plurality. Until
> Arafat arrived.
But the state was functionally secular. The rotating presidency and prime
minister were supposed to keep balance between Christian and Muslim. It
worked until Arafat who has brought more misery to more people than anyone
since Hitler. Unlike Hitler he has hundreds of millions in Swiss banks.
Mike Kennedy
Tom Clancy
didn’t have any of those.
It’s about 50 feet thick at the top—been there (that’s where Mike
Crichton and I chatted once; he’s a good guy) and there’s a two-lane road
across the top, plus sidewalks, etc. A Japanese Long-Lance 24” torpedo could
not have breached that much concrete, and that was the biggest torpedo in WW2.
There was no air-dropped version of that—in fact there was no submarine
version of it.
One other thing: how the hell could the Germans get to Nevada? Even refueling
in Toronto, they didn’t have anything that could fly that far.
Why not send some spooks with hand grenades? Oh, that would not have worked
either. To disable the dam, better to use small pyro charges on the generators.
If you could get into the elevators unobserved.
TC
Success will ruin your life.
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy), to say:
>One other thing: how the hell could the Germans get to Nevada?
I-80 to Reno, and then south on 95?
Ok, I'll get my coat.
Howard Berkowitz
ch...@noadress.com wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:11:02 -0800, "Chris Vail"
> <cvail@NOT_THIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >I think they should turn him over to the
> >Kurds....
>
> I most strongly disagree. Doing so could be seen as cruel and unfair
> as the Shia in the South also have a bone to pick with Saddam.
>
> The fair solution, then, is to hand Saddam over to both the Kurds and
> the Shia. They each get half, delivered to their respective areas.
>
What about the oppressed Sunni?
Fred J. McCall
:In article <3njqtv444pmv96em8...@4ax.com>,
They're family. They can have his genitals.
Ash Wyllie
>Hoover Dam is 660 feet thick at its base. A job for a small nuke. The Germans
>didn’t have any of those.
>It’s about 50 feet thick at the top—been there (that’s where Mike
>Crichton and I chatted once; he’s a good guy) and there’s a two-lane road
>across the top, plus sidewalks, etc. A Japanese Long-Lance 24” torpedo
>could not have breached that much concrete, and that was the biggest torpedo
>in WW2. There was no air-dropped version of that—in fact there was no
>submarine version of it.
They woouldn't use torpedoes. Using a Wallis skip bomb to put several hundred
kilos of high explosives 30m below the water line would do a lot more damage.
Of course the Germans did not have any Lancasters, which complicates the
problem immensely.
>One other thing: how the hell could the Germans get to Nevada? Even refueling
>in Toronto, they didn’t have anything that could fly that far.
Up from Mexico. Mexico is often not all that friendly with us. A wink and a
nod might give the Germans an airfield and fuel.
>Why not send some spooks with hand grenades? Oh, that would not have worked
>either. To disable the dam, better to use small pyro charges on the
>generators. If you could get into the elevators unobserved.
>TC
>Success will ruin your life.
Michael Kennedy
> Tom Clancy opined
>
> >Hoover Dam is 660 feet thick at its base. A job for a small nuke. The
Germans
>
> >Itâ?Ts about 50 feet thick at the topâ?"been there (thatâ?Ts where Mike
> >Crichton and I chatted once; heâ?Ts a good guy) and thereâ?Ts a two-lane
road
> >across the top, plus sidewalks, etc. A Japanese Long-Lance 24â?ť torpedo
> >could not have breached that much concrete, and that was the biggest
torpedo
> >submarine version of it.
>
> They woouldn't use torpedoes. Using a Wallis skip bomb to put several
hundred
> kilos of high explosives 30m below the water line would do a lot more
damage.
> Of course the Germans did not have any Lancasters, which complicates the
> problem immensely.
It was one of those dreams of Hitler that often didn't come true (the V2 did
come true and no one anticipated it.) Still they apparently did train pilots
in the concept. I never did ask him about it; I only met him once and I'm
sure he is long gone. My father-in-law died last year at 87. Another WWII
vet gone.
Mike Kennedy
>
> >One other thing: how the hell could the Germans get to Nevada? Even
refueling
> >in Toronto, they didnâ?Tt have anything that could fly that far.
James Kratzer
fantasies. They might get all kinds of upset and call you terrible names.
I can see that thought really keeps you awake at night, right?
To you and yours, and to all who haunt a.b.t-c, Merry Christmas, Happy
Chanukah, Happy New Year, and I don't know if there's a corresponding
holiday or holy day for either the Buddhist, Islamic, or Hindu faiths, but
if so, the sentiment passes on to those of you who read here.
Happy New Year as well. Let's hope the next one goes better than this one
has at times.
Jim Kratzer
The Mad Yank
Proud Vietnam Veteran
LOUD VFW Lifer
Harold Hutchison
> Hoover Dam is 660 feet thick at its base. A job for a small nuke. The Germans
> didn’t have any of those.
>
Reportedly, Bill Casey helped play a part in making sure they Germans
never got that.
> It’s about 50 feet thick at the top—been there (that’s where Mike
> Crichton and I chatted once; he’s a good guy) and there’s a two-lane road
> across the top, plus sidewalks, etc. A Japanese Long-Lance 24” torpedo could
> not have breached that much concrete, and that was the biggest torpedo in WW2.
> There was no air-dropped version of that—in fact there was no submarine
> version of it.
>
*makes mental note to double-check the screenplay about the Yamamoto
take down to make sure the Long Lance hasn't been used from aircraft or
submarines*
> One other thing: how the hell could the Germans get to Nevada? Even refueling
> in Toronto, they didn’t have anything that could fly that far.
>
The only folks who might have pulled that off were the Japanese, and
from what I take from Samuel Eliot Morison's history (I blew $150 on the
15-volume set a few years back - best money I ever spent, but I would
hate to see what that did to my dork factor).
> Why not send some spooks with hand grenades? Oh, that would not have worked
> either. To disable the dam, better to use small pyro charges on the generators.
> If you could get into the elevators unobserved.
>
> TC
> Success will ruin your life.
Big if. And you need folks who would not mind diong to achieve the
objective. The Japanese had no shortage of folks who would do that.
But did the Nazis have anyone like that?
--
Strategypage.com Contributor
"There is no way I'm backing out; I'll find an angel here somehow."
Jennifer Love Hewitt, "Avenue of the Stars"
"The only person who can kill your dream is yourself."
Tom Clancy, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, August 10, 2003
Scott Podsednik was robbed.
Howard Berkowitz
Harold Hutchison <hch...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Big if. And you need folks who would not mind dying to achieve the
> objective. The Japanese had no shortage of folks who would do that.
> But did the Nazis have anyone like that?
Yes, although not widespread. The Leonidas Staffel was a squadron of
pilots who had volunteered to fly suicide missions in modified V-1's.
Hanna Reitsch was among the first to sign up -- and remember she was the
first that actually managed to fly a prototype. I think there's little
question she'd have accepted a Hoover Dam mission, and was a
sufficiently hot pilot that if anyone could have done it...
There were less formal ramming campaigns against Allied bombers in 1945.
David E. Powell
news:hcb-EC63CE.0...@text.giganews.com...
Well, attacking dams in the US might appeal to the German leadership of the
time for several reasons, besides the practical - after all, the TVA's
hydropower and other dams were a big percentage then, and there were the
famous British bouncing bomb attacks on German dams, which brings in the
revenge aspect.
A piloted V-1, given a close enough launch pad/ramp, might be an adequate,
if suicidal, weapon for such an attack. Though what kind of aircraft the
Germans would be able to get to Mexico would be a question. Unless the plan
was to get a hold of civilian plane in Mexico and convert it to a flying
bomb or bomber.
Whether or not they could crack the concrete of some of those dams is the
question. Though they might only have to get part of the way through, and
have the water pressure do the rest. At least forcing a draining of the
reservoirs and a cut of the power production. Fortunately the plan seems ot
have never gotten past the plan stage.
DEP
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com>, to say:
>Well, attacking dams in the US might appeal to the German leadership of the
>time for several reasons, besides the practical - after all, the TVA's
>hydropower and other dams were a big percentage then, and there were the
>famous British bouncing bomb attacks on German dams, which brings in the
>revenge aspect.
It looks like a good idea, but the British attacks on the German
dams had little to no effect on the German ability to build
stuff,* and didn't make much of a contribution to their eventual
downfall. There's that, and it was the Grand Coolie dam in
Washington that ultimately got the planes built. Good confluence
of cheap power and cheap river transportation for bauxite and
aluminum made for an airplane building juggernaut.
*Or so I heard on the History Channel or something like it.
Maybe it was in an issue of American Heritage.
Brian Sharrock
>
> >Hoover Dam is 660 feet thick at its base. A job for a small nuke. The
Germans
> >didn’t have any of those.
>
>
> They woouldn't use torpedoes. Using a Wallis skip bomb to put several
hundred
> kilos of high explosives 30m below the water line would do a lot more
damage.
> Of course the Germans did not have any Lancasters, which complicates the
> problem immensely.
>
in America knows, no Lancaster bombers were utilised - they were USAAC
aircraft!
--
Brian
Mr_B...@reservoirdogs.com
Actually the Japanese had something that might have at least reached the
intended destination. (Without the need for landings, re-fueling, etc.
somewhere in North America) I don't recall the range nor the size of the
explosives, but they did have a specially built submarine which held 2
collapsible-winged aircraft. The intent was to drop bombs on sites on
the American west coast, but they were never used past the testing phase,
as far as I know.
============================
Mr_Blonde Presents the: "MORON OF THE MONTH" Club:
LNC, Adam Albright, Clough, DemsLackGravitas, Hognoxious
Roedy Green
============================
Ogden Johnson III
>"Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote in message
>> They woouldn't use torpedoes. Using a Wallis skip bomb to put several
>hundred
>> kilos of high explosives 30m below the water line would do a lot more
>damage.
>> Of course the Germans did not have any Lancasters, which complicates the
>> problem immensely.
>Of course, as anyone who's seen the film version of Dambusters released
>in America knows, no Lancaster bombers were utilised - they were USAAC
>aircraft!
For the simple reason that no Lancasters bombers survived the end of
the war. The day after VE day, every Lancaster in the inventory
collapsed into a pile of rubbish. Remember the old saying "on a wing
and a prayer"? The only thing that had held them together in the last
few months *was* prayer. ;->
Howard Berkowitz
E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
Given the payload of a V-1 and the explosives available, I find it very
hard to believe that an above-water direct hit would cause any serious
damage. Given the simplicity of the V-1, making it go underwater to
cause a Wallis-style water-tamped explosion boggles my mind.
If the Germans were to use such craft, there would likely be more
vulnerable, if not as spectacular, targets. Remember that with a suicide
V-1, you are dealing with a primitive yet precision guided weapon.
I'd have to dig out my immediate postwar reference to US air defense,
but there are certainly plausible targets in the southwest and west that
would be in range of Mexico. Similarly, there are coastal targets in
range of a V-1 launched from a submarine deck.
Brian Sharrock
"Ogden Johnson III" <oj3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4pejuv4qu4vm8vag8...@4ax.com...
> "Brian Sharrock" <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote in message
>
> >> They woouldn't use torpedoes. Using a Wallis skip bomb to put several
> >hundred
> >> kilos of high explosives 30m below the water line would do a lot more
> >damage.
> >> Of course the Germans did not have any Lancasters, which complicates
the
> >> problem immensely.
>
> >Of course, as anyone who's seen the film version of Dambusters released
> >in America knows, no Lancaster bombers were utilised - they were USAAC
> >aircraft!
>
> For the simple reason that no Lancasters bombers survived the end of
> the war. The day after VE day, every Lancaster in the inventory
> collapsed into a pile of rubbish. Remember the old saying "on a wing
> and a prayer"? The only thing that had held them together in the last
> few months *was* prayer. ;->
Hmmm? Recognising a 'wind-ip' notwithstanding, me'thinks you've
forgotten the BOAC aircraft (you'd like to get off where?) and the
Shackeltons.
BTW, SqnLdr Guy Gobson's black Labrador was not called 'Rigger'
nor any such nonsense!
--
Brian
Mike Chapman
Lancaster "G for George" has just recently gone on display in the Australian
War Museum, Canberra, after a major rebuild by the RAAF to full working
order. Saw it in November, in loc, while RAAFie artificers were finishing
off an engine rebuild. You can't miss it; it's parked right next to the
Japanese minisub and the 21" torpedo.
--
Mike Chapman.
Gml...@scvnet.com
>
> "Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote in message
> news:1383.486T8...@lr.net...
> > Tom Clancy opined
> >
> > >Hoover Dam is 660 feet thick at its base. A job for a small nuke. The
> Germans
Considerably thinner at the crest. Something like 75 feet. Punch a hole in
even the first hundred feet of dam and you could create quite a mess.
Spillgates are another possiblity. Considerably softer than the dam itself.
Still, the geometry of the canyon, dam and spillgates make it a very tough
target. Something on the order of the Death Star from the point of view of
Luke Skywalker. They'd probably be better off smuggling the bomb in on a
flatbed truck and dropping it over the side from the roadway! I still don't
think it would have worked.
George
mummu...@cts.com
No, they didn't. The claim that we did comes stright from Goebbels:
According to Robertson, Patrick. "The Book of Firsts," Clarkson N. Potter,
Inc., New York, 1974, p. 44.
"The idea that the British 'invented' concentration camps was fostered by
Dr. Goebbels during the 1930s. In 1938 Nazi propaganda picture postcards,
formerly sold as 'genuine Russian concentration camp scenes', were
relabelled for issue as 'genuine British concentration camp scenes in
South Africa'."
AFAIK, it was the Spanish, in Cuba, four years earlier.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861237.html
"After efforts to quell
guerrilla activity had failed, the Spanish military commander, Valeriano
Weyler y Nicolau, instituted the reconcentrado, or
concentration camp, system in 1896; Cuba's rural population was forcibly
confined to centrally located garrison towns, where thousands died from
disease, starvation, and exposure."
>> but I'm not aware of major atrocities.
>Wouldn't starving women and children to death in said camps constitute an
>atrocity?
Oh yes, it would, and there's no shortage of people who
claim we did exactly that, however:
THE GREAT ANGLO-BOER WAR Byron Farwell ISBN 0-393-30659-3, page 400:
"The army treated the inmates as thought they were so many soldiers. The
rations issued were those served out to regular soldiers in garrison"
"In the concentration camps the food was neither good nor plentiful,
and certainly did not make for a balanced diet. Still, no-one died of
starvation."
Malnutrition, not starvation. The camps were well-supplied
with food, as the demonstration before the Ladies Committee
at Bloemfontein shows. The Boer women threw meat on the ground
in front of the Committee as a sign of rebellion.
"Women threw large portions, which had been newly served out, of
good though thin meat, into the wide roadway of the camp. It
would have made very good broth or stew."
ibid, page 412.
"They lived in a way that used to make the brutal soldier's mouth water
when he came into town after trekking. Our food in the Mounted Infantry
was generally good enough, but we never had shelter.... These persecuted
people, however, were living in cool, roomy marquees and were paid for
doing things for themselves. Thus if they wanted an oven to bake their
bread in the men made on and got paid for it."
page 398 The Great Anglo-Boer War Byron Farwell ISBN 0-393-30659-3
Standing Orders to the superintendents of the Transvaal camps-
"There must be no stinting in the distribution of medical comforts
to the sick and convalscent, old and infirm people and young children.
When necessary, stimulants may be freely given under doctor's orders.
There must be an adequate supply of milk, which should be liberally
applied to children and desertving people, as well as the sick and
convalescent."
ibid, page 407.
"Medical stimulants supplied at Bloemfontein camps in Oct 1901
Champagne 32 bottles
Brandy 171 bottles
Port wine 73 bottles
Claret 29 bottles
Stout 19 bottles
Whiskey 19 bottles
"Inspite of all the champagne, brandy, whiskey, and tinned milk,
the children contuned to die. Typhoid killed one in five inmates who
came down with it; pneumonia one in three. Between 1st Sept 1901
and the end of the year, one person out of every ten died."
> because if it does not, I am not sure what is.
Well, maybe you'd care to level that accusation at the Boers. They
stole food off their own women and children:
page 383, THE GREAT ANGLO-BOER WAR, Byron Farwell
"During our wanderings last night [16 May 1901] we stopped at a
farmhouse to make some enquiry, but recieved scant courtesy from the
woman in command. She approached, followed by a long diminishing
file of children, the whole looking like a monstrous sea serpent,
herself in the van forming the formidable head. With tearful fury
she denounced us as thieves, drunkards, and cowards, who having
left our manhood behind us in the big cities and other idolatrous
centres, had come here to rob and ruin helpless Christian women and
children, and to be instrumental in causing their homes to be
burnt down, by drawing, through our uninvited presence, the enemy
to their houses with fire and sword and, when he came, by fleeing
and leaving the distracted household to face him. The painful
part of the reproach was the coarse grains for truth embedded
therein. We admitted defeat and moved on."
"At one farm, the housewife welcomed the men of the Johannesburg
Commando warmly, but they stole her pigs and turkeys anyway, causing
her to break into tears: "If only she had cursed us," said Schikkerling,
"we could have stood it; but she merely wept; and this drew from me
all I had to leave her--a tear of pity."
They also raided the concentration camps to steal food off the
women and children.
"Young Commandant Willem Fouche, operating in Cape Colony,
heard that administrators of the camp at Aliwal North
were traitors from the Orange Free State. On July 17 1901
he led an attack on the camp, killed two Bantu, and carried
off four of the alleged traitors; he also tried there to
drum up some recruits, but out of 689 men in the camp only
five elected to follow him. On Sept 15 1901 the Belfast
camp was raided, apparently only to get supplies, but
the attack was repulsed; one woman and two children were
wounded. In December about 800 Boers captured the
Pietersburgh camp, and J. E. Tucker, the superintendent,
and his staff were made prisoners. After a gay, all
night party with wives, sweethearts, friends, and relations
the burghers released their prisoners unharmed and rode off
into the sunrise."
ibid.
Ogden Johnson III
>> > Tom Clancy opined
>> > >Hoover Dam is 660 feet thick at its base. A job for a small nuke. The
>> Germans
>> > >didnâ?Tt have any of those.
>Considerably thinner at the crest. Something like 75 feet. Punch a hole in
>even the first hundred feet of dam and you could create quite a mess.
Indeed. I was waiting/hoping for a lurking dam/hydro engineer to
chime in on this. AIUI, from TV/Cable documentaries on a lot of past
dam failures, dams are dangerous things because the water behind them
tends to be very aggressive. Any compromise in the structural
integrity of a dam, however seemingly small and inconsequential, can
lead to the eventual catastrophic failure of the dam. An explosive at
the top that produces a crack could eventually result in Lake Meade
disappearing downstream.
>Spillgates are another possiblity. Considerably softer than the dam itself.
>
>Still, the geometry of the canyon, dam and spillgates make it a very tough
>target. Something on the order of the Death Star from the point of view of
>Luke Skywalker. They'd probably be better off smuggling the bomb in on a
>flatbed truck and dropping it over the side from the roadway! I still don't
>think it would have worked.
While details are classified, DHS et al have allowed as how Boulder
[I'm canalized; in Elementary school it was still Boulder Dam, and to
this day I have trouble remembering to call it Hoover dam.] Dam is
receiving special security attention, acknowledging that would be a
key target, symbolic as well as strategic, of terrorists.
Paul J. Adam
III <oj3...@yahoo.com> writes
>"Brian Sharrock" <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>>Of course, as anyone who's seen the film version of Dambusters released
>>in America knows, no Lancaster bombers were utilised - they were USAAC
>>aircraft!
>
>For the simple reason that no Lancasters bombers survived the end of
>the war. The day after VE day, every Lancaster in the inventory
>collapsed into a pile of rubbish. Remember the old saying "on a wing
>and a prayer"? The only thing that had held them together in the last
>few months *was* prayer. ;->
Nice one, Ogden :)
Sorry to be contrarian, but living in Lincolnshire got me quite familair
with the continuing efforts to keep "City of Lincoln" flying, and this
was the late 1970s. (I also lived close enough to Scampton that you
treated low overflights by Vulcans from 617 as routine... we moved south
before the transition to Tonkas) .
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Gml...@scvnet.com
<mummu...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:I7yGb.2300$pt3...@chiapp18.algx.net...
> >>The British invented concentration camps
>
> No, they didn't. The claim that we did comes stright from Goebbels:
In any case, this may have been a step toward more humane treatment. The
previous manner of dealing with inconvenient enemy prisoners was often to
simply kill them and bury them.
Gml...@scvnet.com
Yeah, yeah. Black Canyon Dam (no, I'm not that old, but I've seen the
video) is certainly a target, but then again every prominent structure in
the US is a target as far as the DHS is concerned. The DHS is, after all,
the prime source of terror here in the US.
That dam is not really a good target, since it is _very_ hard and at a
remote location. It is obviously well-watched and cannot be approached by
stealth. Even if it is destroyed, how many Americans think of it as an
icon, as they did the twin towers? To anyone outside the southwest it is
just another dam out west. All the communities downstream are far enough
away that it is most likely that there would be little loss of life from the
flooding.
George <-- Currently at alert level red, green, and gold