[Rhodes22-list] Iraq-my continuing rant!

john Belanger jhnblngr at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 27 14:18:56 EDT 2007


my understanding is that the reason china had a serious problem with japan after ww1 was because the german trade concessions in china were given to japan as a prize for being an ally of the western powers. china would not allow the japanese to have trade priveledges, so refused to honor the agreement signed by the allies, thats why japan decided to invade manchuria after it lost a vote in the league of nations to make china honor its reward. it resigned from the league in protest. 

David Culp <daculp at gmail.com> wrote:  Wally:

You're right-we were dragged kicking and screaming into WW2. but I think it
speaks well of our people that we are generally not war-mongers and tend
toward isolationism, especially in that time period. I don't think the
"greatest generation" in the US allowed the overrunning of Europe. I
believe that it was the Europeans themselves who allowed this by their
acquiescence to Hitler's early demands.

I was referring to the character of our citizens in earlier times. The
"greatest generation" survived a great depression and then went on to the
greatest military victory in history. I wouldn't want to repeat any of
those events nor any other tragic events in our history, but I do admire
those who successfully navigated that part of our history with their vigor
and courage. Also, the generations before them who expanded the country
against all kinds of perils. I wouldn't want to see any people savaged and
displaced as we did the American Indians, but again, I admire those
individuals with the sand to have conquered a new territory against such
odds. I wonder if this sort of spirit and courage is still a part of the
average American's character? I have no doubt about our brave military
members, but what about the average Joe?

Nuking Afghanistan....

Yes, certain remote parts where Bin Laden might have been found should have
been laid to waste with tactical weapons. I don't know if it would have
been effective, but we should always pursue our enemies with that kind of
vigor because if nothing else, it is a warning to other legitimate
governments not to support terrorists. I don't believe that terrorists in
their own right can be very effective against us without the monetary and
security support of a sponsoring state. Iran is more then willing to fill
this role. These middle eastern countries believe we will always take the
easy way out and quit when the going gets tough. So far, we haven't done
much to prove them wrong. As far as the populated cities in Afghanistan go,
I would have used conventional weapons depending on the strategy. I think
we set the precedent with Japan in WW2 not to use nukes unless the argument
can be made as to the number of American lives that can be saved as a
result. I don't think a major invasion of Afghanistan was ever really
planned, so we couldn't use the nuke argument against civilians. We should
have concentrated on Afghanistan to the point where possibly Bin Laden was
killed, the regime was changed and then the populated areas occupied and
secured. This would have had the added benefit of stopping most of the
poppy growing which would also be very advantageous to the world. This
would/should have taken a declaration of war which is a lot harder for the
politicians to run away from and can be legally justified because we were
attacked.

Instead, we have the son trying to vindicate the father using faulty
intelligence and poor planning to invade and conquer a country which was
basically bottled up and where we have no legal right to be in the first
place. Bush 41 is mostly to blame for the Iraq mess IMO. He really has no
excuse having fought in WW2 to have left a dictator in power once that
dictator had crossed his borders and invaded another country. This is what
Hitler did and in Chamberlain-type fashion, 41 let him get away with it.
Instead, we resorted to sanctions which do nothing but make people even
madder at you and more resolute. 41 was more worried about his "coalition"
then the long-term welfare of our nation. The justification was there in
GW1 for pacifying Iraq and we didn't do it.

I am a devout UN-hater and blame the concept of the UN for most of our
problems in the last 60 years. Cases in point:

Korea-Communists still in power to this day after invading a sovereign
country. Have acquired nuclear weapons which regardless of what they say,
they intend to keep. We went in as part of the UN coalition and the job was
not finished because we were/are deathly afraid of the Chinese. No end in
sight.

Viet Nam-Can't really blame the UN for that one. We were deathly afraid of
Red China, so no saturation bombing of the North, no mining of Haiphong
harbor or other military strategies which I believe could have resulted in
victory.

Gulf War 1-Again, part of a UN coalition that just didn't quite get the job
done, though we had the means. Lead to the present conflict.

Gulf War 2-US and Britain acting as the principal agents of the UN in
enforcing a UN resolution. No end in sight.

Numerous failures in other areas in the Middle East and Africa, notably
Palestine.

We must be getting some great intelligence from spying on all the foreign
missions at the UN, otherwise, why in the world would we remain a member of
such an impotent organization?

OK... I don't know how I morphed into dissing the UN in this discussion
either, but now "you sonsabitches know how I feel"-George C. Scott, opening
scene in "Patton".

Seriously... Just remember the words of Napoleon:

"If you want to be victorious in war... always fight it against a
coalition."

David Culp











It seems to me the some people forget that we were dragged kicking and
screaming into both the World Wars, Have Congress declare war and then we
can actually see what happens rather than speculate. The greatest generation
allowed Hitler to over run Europe and set up concentration camps. It wasn't
until the attack on Pearl Harbor that we finally joined in. I am sure this
country would rise up and support a war it it was actually declared to
protect our allies or our National security. I do agree that there is much
wrong with this country however the good old days may depend on perspective.
I don't think many African Americans would want to go back to an even more
racist society. The 30s are not my version of the good times.....I do agree
that the moral compass is out of whack.

Do you really think we should have nuked Afghanistan? I thought we were
trying to free them of the Taliban. Once we level their country do we tell
them they are now "free"? We would have looked pretty silly dropping nukes
and then having Bin laden show up alive in Iran or Pakistan. The 911 group
was from Saudi Arabia....do we nuke them as well?

I do agree we need to do away with PAC money.

Wally

On 6/26/07, David Culp wrote:
>
> Interesting observations... I'd rather talk about sailing but here are
> mine
> for others to contemplate:
>
> I envy Stan in that he and his generation were truly the greatest and
> quite
> frankly, our country is in decline and has been since after Korea. Very
> slowly at first but then accelerating after Viet Nam. I worry about the
> kind of country that my children and grandchildren will be growing up in.
> If the present list of candidates for President in either of the two
> parties
> is any indication, my worries are well-founded. However, one person
> cannot
> save a nation; it takes the body politic to do so.
>
> I listened to a fellow the other day who was advocating legalized
> prostitution in our country-seemed to think that it would alleviate a lot
> of
> problems and generate more tax revenue. It occurred to me that we already
> have legalized prostitution in this country with approximately 525
> "whores"
> legally working on Capitol Hill and literally hundreds of "Johns" legally
> working on K Street in Washington DC. This is what your government and
> ultimately your country have come to-politicians sold out to the highest
> bidder. This cannot be what the original framers of our Constitution and
> our country had in mind and is certainly not worth dying for.... Is
> it? It
> is time to stop all lobbying by any individual, corporation or union in
> our
> government because it renders the will of the average voter to be less
> effective and it is the average voter's children who die on the
> battlefield.
>
> According to the Constitution, wars are declared by Congress. We are not
> in
> a declared war, so therefore I think that it helps to answer the question
> why the American people are not engaged and politicians are abandoning the
> cause. When you go to war, you have to have a culmination of those
> efforts
> in some form or another. Just think if you went to a sports event and
> suddenly the referees called the whole thing off in the third quarter with
> no victor declared. No one would be interested in coming to the event
> again
> and only the most dedicated of players would show up to get in a good
> practice session. This is what has happened in Korea, Viet Nam (our team
> left the field) and probably Iraq. Bush thought he was going to fight a
> short "cable TV" war with great ratings and vindicate his father all at
> the
> same time. Unfortunately, the American people are now tuning out and
> regrettably we have over 3500 dead and thousands wounded. And for what?
> What have we accomplished?
>
> In war you must have closure one way or the other. Germany and Japan are
> both allies today, yet they were mortal enemies 60 years ago. The
> difference is that there was a final score. We won. Our goals were clear
> and our fight was with the peoples of both of those countries. We broke
> both countries militarily and we broke their citizens will to continue the
> fight. We have not done that since. The referees (UN) and the
> politicians
> keep screwing up the matches I suppose.
>
> The only thing in my opinion that can save the Iraq campaign now is for
> Israel to attack Iran. They most certainly would retaliate against
> American
> forces in Iraq who will grant over-flight and other support for the
> bombing
> missions and this would in some ways vindicate the ill advised decision to
> go there in the first place. Why else would two full carrier battle
> groups
> be prowling the Gulf right now? I'm sure the present administration is
> hoping for this very thing. Iran is the true enemy in the Middle East and
> their leadership should be eliminated and the civilian population
> decimated
> to the point where their spirit is broken and they no longer wish to fight
> anyone. This is how we won in Germany and Japan, unless you happen to
> believe that the photos of the bomb-leveled cities of Germany were faked
> or
> the two atomic bombs dropped in Japan only killed Japanese sailors and
> soldiers. The next President who tells me that our fight is not with the
> "people" of a certain country is the next President who should be
> impeached
> immediately, as a war can only be fought between two "peoples".
> Ultimately, we the people either elect the leaders or allow the dictators
> to
> remain who take us to war.
>
> For example: Afghanistan should have been leveled after 9/11 including
> the
> use of tactical nukes in the mountains to get Bin Laden. The government
> (the people) allowed the Taliban to remain who supported Bin Laden, who
> attacked us on our own soil. If you are shaking your head "no" over this
> observation, then my friend, you are not prepared for real war. I would
> say
> that America and Americans overall no longer have the stomach and are not
> prepared for real war which I say again.... Is a struggle between peoples.
> The reality is that Coalition forces are still being attacked and poppy
> production which is Afghanistan's most important export is the highest on
> record. So much for victory there.
>
> Does that mean that I like the idea of war... with women and children or
> other innocents being killed? No, certainly not, not in this country or
> any
> other. But this is the true cost of true war. And when a country's
> citizens tire of paying the true cost of war, they will take a different
> tack just as Japan and Germany did after WW2 and just as we will in Iraq
> though we tend to change course under far less devastating circumstances
> which over time may ultimately be our downfall.
>
> David Culp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While we are choosing the cut of our next mainsail, kids are still dying
> in
> Iraq. Mostly, they are killed from IEDs, enhanced with C4 from Iran
> (semtex
> too), but other sources as well. Sorry too spoil your otherwise pleasant
> day
> but twenty-year-old kids have their asses at risk as we speak, while in
> cyberspace, we mentally masturbate about defending your right to bitch
> about
> why they are there, OR, we debate the cut of our mainsail. Go sailing on
> the 4th of July and forget about all that died to make that holiday
> happen.
> I can't blame you for not having a clue about what is happening in Iraq
> right now, why should you care when there is so much more interesting news
> happening. Did Paris eat a snatch in prison? Inquiring minds want to
> know! I don't know what your plans on the 4th are but I'm taking the
> CoraShen out and flying the flag. Why can't we all get along? The
> Germans
> just wanted a little territory and a few less Jews. No problem there.
> Right? Sorry for spoiling an otherwise great sail but wake up
> folks! Your
> weekend sailing satisfaction is not guaranteed! The war that is nothing
> more than a bumper sticker might just blow-up right in your face. Happy
> 4th! (I'll be gone until the 6th of July so the world is your
> responsibility. Good Luck!
>
> Brad
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list


       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. 


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list