The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Iran and the Nuclear Age
Let's face it. Contrary to Winston's hopes(?) or expectations(?), the U.S. isn't going to launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran's acquisition/development of nuclear Weapons. Neither is Israel. And neither are the two, together. Iran is going to have nuclear weapons within the next few years. Even a threatened oil price war from the Saudis will not deter them.
Let's accept that as a given.
What will Iran's leaders do once they have nuclear weapons and missiles with sufficient range to reach Tel-Aviv and Riyadh (besides swagger and threaten)? Here is one piece that raises the spectre of a second holocaust [h/t to Eric]. Whether that actually happens will depend on two things:
1. The attitude of Iran's leaders toward self-destruction. If they really believe that there is a higher purpose for their actions, then they will launch the missiles with nuclear warheads at numerous Israeli (and perhaps other Middle Eastern non-Shiite) targets. So what if they and their people "suffer" massive retaliation? They will have carried out their tasks in pursuit of these higher goals.
2. If their leaders do not have that attitude toward self-destruction/self-sacrifice then it must be made abundantly clear to them that they will be annihilated if they launch such an attack, no matter what they threaten. In this instance, we must remain resolute that no appeasement out of fear is possible.
After discussing this with my friend, Eric, it has become clear to me (for now — I'm always willing to update my priors) that either way, Israel should be working furiously to develop the best possible anti-missile system, and the U.S. should be helping them do so.
Posted by EclectEcon on January 25, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran and the Nuclear Age:
The Mullahs are totally focused on their 12th Century view of life after death which the fools call Paradise, but they are quite prepared to destroy Iran and all Iranians to achieve their strange and to the rest of the World ruthless gaols
-which is the total destruction of the State of Israel. Israeli Media focus on Iran on a twenty four hour daily basis. As reported in "Honest Reporting"
of great concern today is an attack on Tel Aviv a City of 1.9 million which would be totally devestating. I believe Israel is capable of launching a "first strike" to insure it's survival
which in fact they did against the Iraq Nuclear Facilities in Bagdad, which were eliminated as a threat to Israel. Meanwhile the US has despatched the Assault Task Force led by the USS Stennis
a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which contains massive fire power and munitions. Iran has never been on the receiving end of high technology weapons. Their capabilities to defend are highly overrated in my opinion, especially when the Mullahs do not care if their entire population goes on to Paradise, But of course, Iranians love Americans - like hell they do - who thought that up? MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-25 4:14:36 AM
Of course, if Israel DOES develop an anti-missile system, it will be vilified by the same people that consider SUVs immoral because the occupants have an unfair advantage in collisions with smaller vehicles.
The same judges who convict homeowners of assault while freeing injured burglars will be highly critical.
And proponents of gun registries will become even more shrill than they are today.
Meanwhile, pseudo-scientific proponents of the "precautionary principle" will remain strangely silent.
Israel labours under an impossible double standard.
Posted by: Halfwise | 2007-01-25 5:58:15 AM
A few observations.
The reason the US is upset with Bush in Iraq is because he’s perceived to not be winning the War. They don't perceive Iraq as simply one of several battle fronts in the larger War on Islamofascism. To be seen to be clearly winning will take a couple of decades. But we live in a world of instant gratification and we perceive winning in a different time horizon than Islamofascists. They don’t even care about the now. Their leaders live in a utopian, tribal past; 14 centuries old. The young male terrorists live in a fantasy island future with 72 virgins. We need to better understand the psychology that we’re fighting.
We need to understand that there is the possibility that Israel will not exist. We’re in denial about that possibility.
So far in Afghanistan and Iraq we’ve been using soft power. We have other options.
These cultures would simply fail but they have been propped up by false economies (oil and poppies) that do not produce enough jobs for the young population. In the Gaza strip for example the average age is 15. Young unemployed males with high testosterone are dangerous. Young Muslim males have the added dimension of a cause to die for.
Military action by itself will not solve these problems in the ME. For example the West needs to help Afghanistan to replace its poppy trade with a more viable agricultural society. That will take irrigation. It will be very expensive. We spend 1% of GDP on the military now and less than that on foreign aid. We probably need to spend about 5% combined and the rest of the Western world needs to join in. The cost of not doing this is even higher.
By kicking the ball down the road we are creating a climate of crisis. Our utopians prefer to worry about climate change 100 years away when this problem exists today. Meanwhile we are living in a world where WMDs are privatized and available as just in time inventory. Our environment is certainly threatened but WMDs will get us before CO2 will.
Considerable progress has been made in the ME despite the lack of reporting on success by the MSM. Iran is wedged in by Iraq and Afghanistan and these countries might stabilize eventually. We are dealing from a strategic advantage compared to where we were pre 9/11.
The issue now is can we demonstrate our resolve to win or will the West revert to being what bin Laden called us .. the weak horse?
Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-01-25 6:05:51 AM
I still say a couple of well placed well timed cruise missiles in the halls of government in both Tehran and Damascus would send a pretty strong message. No troops at risk and No long-term involvement and with very little collateral damage. Risk to profit ratio, excellent. Best solution? Who knows? Maybe the new leaders would be moderate and set a different course for their Country.
As two teenage girls in Western dress in downtown Tehran said on a CBC show months back, when asked, what do you think about the USA invading Iran. Their answer, do you think they could just come, get rid of the Mullahs, then leave. Two things shocked me about this, one that it was on CBC and that it came from two teenaged girls in downtown Tehran.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2007-01-25 6:20:23 AM
I would speculate that the ELTA Dovision of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI Elta) either have such a system or are well along in design and manufacture of an Anti-Missile System (AMS). State of Israel will appoint Major General Gaby Ashkenazi as CofS
IDF Army. He was a member of the Commandos who freed the hostages at Entebbe. The present representative
of Lockheed Martin Israel was one of the C-130 Pilots during the famed event. General Ashkenazie comes from the famous Golani Brigade which many years ago was commanded by Col Ben Dunkleman DSO
(Canadian Army) from Toronto - the Dunkleman's owned "Tip Top Tailors" a lot of Canadians supported the creation and fostered the State of Israel. MacLeod
Posted by: jackMacLeod | 2007-01-25 7:59:40 AM
I suggest the main goal should be to throw out the mullahs. I think that if a free election would be held today in Iran, an overwhelming number of Iranians would vote for regime change.
I think that there is enough intelligent strategists in US to design a plan to achieve that goal.
If need be, we should accept a minimum use of bombing. As one comment said, we should make an effort to thoroughly understand their motivation.
Maybe we could achieve the support of quite a few arab countries for a regime change.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-25 9:16:46 AM
I like Halfwise' comment. So true
I am for preemptive nuclear to get rid of the disease in Tehran.
First we must kill of Ruth. Until we are Ruthless we cannot do anything but watch our chances of success as an on-going free culture vaporize ... first slowly then all of a sudden.
Ruth is the name of all those who Halfwise mentioned.
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-25 9:28:34 AM
I don't accept your "given".
Bush will NOT allow the Iranians to have nuclear weapons.
Also, there are different factions in Iran - some more suicidal than others, most just interested in power, their money and creature comforts.
They are interested in holding power, not anihilation or self sacrifice.
Posted by: hmmmm | 2007-01-25 9:31:16 AM
Organizations representing "Canadian Muslims and Arabs" have just announced that they will not support and will work against PM Harper and his Conservative Government because of his support for Israel. This means that the Liberals whom they will support are in a very critical position with a "Leader" who holds dual Citizenship, and who must in order to defeat the Conservatives make accomodations and deals with people who have no traditional Canadian Values and are in fact members of the forces of evil
alligned against the West, which includes the Muslim State of Iran among many others. This does not surprise me, eventually the presence of ultimately Muslims and Arabs in Canada is going to require steps to alliviate the threat. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-25 9:43:09 AM
I am not sure if the reasons this writer gives for the alignment around the world of the left and the Islamists is correct or not, but I have found his analysis to be quite perceptive in the past.
"That the left makes common cause with the Islamists is one of the bizarre facts of modern geopolitics. The only thing Marxists like Messrs. Chavez, Ortega, and Correa have in common today with the likes of Mr. Ahmadinejad is a hatred of America. That is the foundation on which the Marxist-Islamist scheme is formed and the motivation behind any actions it carries out."
"Both Marxism and Mohammedanism (a previously common and now very un-PC term for Islam) are ideologies of war and hate, dividing the world into bourgeois exploiters vs. exploited proletariat, the Dar al Islam (the world of believers) vs. the Dar al Harb (literally the Land of War, the world of infidels)."
Full article here:
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-25 10:01:19 AM
Iran's leaders (and other islamists) illustrate very well the danger of religious fundamentalism.
To call these guys marxists is simply not correct, although they do not hesitate to create a coalition of the willing with anyone opposing their main enemy, the liberal democracies of the west.
"Religion is the opium of the masses" (Marx)
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (Muhammed)
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2007-01-25 10:54:33 AM
Why do we have to accept the radical and shocking idea that the mullahs will get the Bomb but reject the idea that it can be prevented with a preemptive strike?
Missile shields are good but can be beaten by combinations of saturation strikes, decoys, multiple warheads, anti-satellite missiles etc.
America could survive by taking out most of the re-entry vehicles, Israel could not if one or two got by.
Iran is now making exercise launches a casual affair and missile threats are best taken out in the launch stage or better yet destroyed at their launch sites.
Will Iran's next exercise be an exercise, or the next one, or the next one, or the real thing?
It is quite important to notice that China, who has contributed a great deal to Iran's missile and nuclear program, has been blinding U.S. spy satellites with lasers and last week shot a satellite drone with an anti-satellite missile.
Satellites are the primary component of an anti-missile shield which eliminates missiles in the launch phase.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-25 10:55:50 AM
I dissagree, in that Isreal cannot and will not allow Iran to gain Nuclear capibillity. Much like the previous nuclear weapons program in the area, Isreal will send in planes/missles/troops and destroy the target. It must for its own survival, keep the balance of power in the area. The Saudi's, and the other various interest groups in the area all realize that as much as they all posture about "death to Isreal", they realize that it would mean thier own doom as well.
However, the unfortunate "perfect storm" seems to be developing, where the US is eroding from pacifism from within and become more Pre-WW centrist minded, hence possibly withdrawing its support with a newly Democrat minded US. Even the Israel population itself, is becoming more split than ever before. The weakness of the two major players in the area could result in Iran getting a reprieve from an Israeli strike for the time being. I just hope they can take the program out before it is too late.
Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-01-25 11:38:48 AM
I don't expect or hope to see Iran being bombed because I believe bombing can not solve the problem there. I just wished the free world could come together and give the iranian freedom movement a hand to topple the mullahs before reaching to the point of solving this problem through bomb and war.
But I think world patience is also running out
Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-25 12:13:43 PM
EE: You are wrong about Iran's nuclear future being a given. It will not happen, because if it does, Egypt, Saudi Arabia among others will be next. Israel or/and the U.S. will not let it happen...even the Dems are not that [email protected]
If they do, say good-bye.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-01-25 12:21:38 PM
The Mullahs and other Ilamists have never and will never embrace "Marxism" - Karl Marx was a Jew and the International Communist Parties and the Iranian
Communist Party in particular are outlawed in Iran
-Revolutionary Guards murdered most if not all Communists. Iran is a totally ruthless insular society which is a major threat to the Western World in particular. But if the State of Israel feels
threatened with extincton. They will fight. The use of Nuclear Munitions is not necessary. Meanwhile what is the role of the USNavy's Stennis Task Force, now in the Pacific on the way to the Middle East. Stennis is a Pacific Fleet Carrier
not one you might see in Halifax NS such as the US CV 67 John F. Kennedy which used to come to Halifax yearly up until two years ago. I really do not see how the callow youth of Iran can overthrow the Mullahs, nor would they. Cutting off financial
resources appears to be the most effective long range weapon of choice for the Western World. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-01-25 1:24:29 PM
Why do you care whether israel makes anti-missile system and that the US help them? Why do you care about the jews? So many lives have been lost because of jews...
Semites in general suck. Arab or Jew, they're not real people.
Posted by: Aryan | 2007-01-25 2:07:11 PM
It takes one to know one.
Untermensch , like you I mean.
It is clear that when you were made, Maryann, something important was left out.
Why do you feel so inferior that you have to come here and pull you pants down in front of everyone?
No, don't answer that, I already know.
Really, it's all about the oil. Didn't you get the memo?
Of course not. Why would we keep such as you in the loop?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-25 2:18:05 PM
Nice going Speller - well said. Faced with real tough Israeli Soldiers Aryans, (a) shit in their pants and (b) run away. Long established grocer and later major developer in Halifax NS immigrated to Canada with the first post World War II group of Jews most of whom had been in the Death Camps - he had escaped and joined Partisans in Poland whom the Germans feared more than any other because most were Jews who had escaped the Warsaw Uprising. No German survied encounters with them. These are the people
who created Israel and their offspring will fight to protect their heritage. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-25 2:46:38 PM
It's a good question, Aryan. We know why Speller cares and why he can't provide an impartial answer. However, for MacLeod to suggest the Wehrmacht, the greatest fighting force in the history of mankind, would somehow cower in the face of Jewish partisans is simply delusional propaganda.
Why care about the age-old semitic internecine rivalry?
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write:
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-25 4:26:04 PM
What you didn't tell the folks here, DJ, is that because of American laws, the aid cannot be provided in actual $Billions but this money is spent on American produced goods which are then given to the foreign(Israeli) government as aid.
The particular goods that the U.S. government gives Israel, and yes it is $3 Billion a year and sometimes more, is MILITARY AID which brings us around to the original topic.
If it wasn't for Muslim warmongers and people here like you and Maryann always rooting for them, the U.S. wouldn't have to give these BILLIONS in military aid every year.
It is supporters of the enemy that have kept Israel from having the security they need by actually being allowed to win the wars Muslim murderers start.(last year's battle with Hizb'allah for example)
I suppose if Israel is going to need a missile shield because folks like you, DJ, Maryann, and EE think Iran shouldn't be bombed it's going to cost more Billions than usual.
By the way, the U.S. has 30k troops in South Korea and an Armistice(ceasefire because the Korean War never ended) with the NorKs, and exactly who is trying to wipe Spain off the map?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-25 4:51:37 PM
It seems that with the removal of S. Hussein in Iraq (30% Sunni minority) there is going to be an inevitable rise in Shia Power in the middle east with a corresponding decrease in Sunni Power/Influence. The latter is particularly going to affect Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE (all dominant Sunni) and the traditional allies of the West for decades.
Probably nobody can tell yet where this power struggle is going but it is probably to early to think about a strike on Iran. Pakistan & India have "the bomb" and they are considered by the Shia as Sunni/Hindu bombs. The Shia are just as determined to have their own "Shia" Bomb. Worst case scenario - what happens if they get it. They have the political numbers and the oil wealth do do it - either openly or via the back door.
The evolving Shia power shift that is happening and that is bound to continue happening within Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq is probably not something that can be controlled/roadmapped by the US or even by a collection of Western countries acting together. Shia are the huge majority of the population in these countries and they also have the oil wealth to set their own road map - either openly or clandestinely.
I'm not at all sure Bush et al or the Democrats can be trusted to make the right move on this one. They seem totally opposed to try to open any kind of talks with the seemingly more open minded in Iraq/Iran Shia such as Sustani to head off a nuclear strike.
The US may be painting itself into a corner by insisting that Iran stop their nuclear programs as a pre-condition to anything even resembling talks. From what little I've been reading so far- this just isn't likely to happen. The only option the US seems to be entertaining is a strike. In the short term, it will solve a huge problem but the US has been shown to be virtually incapable of predicting outcomes once force has been used much less having contingency plans in place for the fallout.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-01-25 5:19:55 PM
The U.S. has contingency plans to win any war if it's survival is at stake.
If there is a third option other than a strike or letting Iran become a nuclear power then tell me about it.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-25 5:38:02 PM
What Speller omitted is that the US gives Egypt, land of the Muslim Brotherhood, over 2 billion annually under similar auspices.
1. The US is the bigest supporter of Israel's enemies.
2. Israel's GDP per capita makes it quite capable (or is Speller suggesting Israel is not capable of standing up for itself)of supporting it's own defence budget.
3. Speller is compelled to this position because of his religious beliefs and must characterise those who say why bother with either side of this ancient semitic rivalry as cheerleaders for the Arab semites.
4. The US does not give aid because of the threat, but because of self-interest (i.e. support of the domestic arms industry) so it's just sex not love.
Israel lost to Hizb'allah?
If Israel wants a missile shield or to nuke Iran that's up to them but why should the West get involved?
South Korea is more than capable of it's own defence. It should acquire nukes like Israel, if it feels threatened.
Mass migration, encouraged by Spanish elites' desire for cheap labour, from Africa and a collapsing birth rate will render Spain a black nation. Islam is a threat to the West because Islam is in the West. Expell them from European homelands and peace will prevail.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-25 5:54:58 PM
"the US gives Egypt, land of the Muslim Brotherhood, over 2 billion annually under similar auspices"
Not so. Much (I think at least 40%) of the US foreign help to Egypt is for internal security, to keep the Mubarak government alive. In other words, that money too goes to Israel's security.
"The US is the bigest supporter of Israel's enemies"
Just the opposite, see above. The US help goes to regimes, which oppress their opponents, like the Shah in Iran.
"Israel's GDP per capita makes it quite capable of supporting it's own defence budget"
Right - but why would they do so, if they can convince the Americans to pay for it?
"The US does not give aid because of the threat, but because of self-interest (i.e. support of the domestic arms industry)"
That's plain nonsense. The US gives the aid, because the US Zionists have successfully convinced Americans (at least their leaders), that they have a "common cause", a "common security interest" and they are "allies". In reality, the "common cause" is Israel's cause, the "common security interest" is backing Israel in the robbing spree, and this makes them "allies".
"Israel lost to Hizb'allah?"
Yes. In earlier armed confrontations the ratio of casualties was 1 to 100 in favour of Israel (in the confrontations against stonethrowing youth the proportion of Arab loss is much higher). Now in Lebanon this was 1 to 10; what is worse, the proportion of civilian victims among the Lebanese was higher, than that of the Israeli (i.e. Hezbollah caused a greater military loss to Israel, than Israel to Hezbollah, in proportion of the overall casualties).
"If Israel wants a missile shield or to nuke Iran that's up to them but why should the West get involved?"
Because the voice of Zionists in the US is much stronger, than that of Arabs.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-25 6:59:48 PM
It's time to stop the hysteric whining and get over it.
In the coming years not only Iran but many other states will aquire the ability to inflict heavy loss to their enemies (and, of course, to disable the spying network in the sky). The arrogance and aggression of the US, decades long in the ME and overall in the last few years has taugth every nation, that if they don't want to have to love Americans, they have to think how to defend themselves. Only idiots believe, that an absolute military supremacy can be held on the long term. Yes, the US will remain the strongest country, but what does that help, if a smaller, weaker one has the capability to kill several million Amerikans? Is that worth of conducting and winnign a war?
All this is not bad. History has shown, that the capability to destroy each other mutually was the primary deterrance of armed conflicts.
As to Iran: again too much hysteria. The rhetoric is turned up, but the truth is, that Iran has no interest on an armed confrontation. It is ridiculous to believe, that all (or even most) the leaders are crazy and fanatics. Just like the US administration knew how to create a frenzy to invade Iraq, the Mullahs know well how to play with the emotions of their people.
And the consequence for Israel? Not much, except that the bullying will end, and Israel will be forced to *seriously* negotiate (which has not happened since the peace with Egypt and Jordan), this time with the Palestinians and Syria. They will have to return some of the stolen land, compensate the people for land and property, and accept an emancipated, independent Palestina. It will take a while, but it will happen.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-25 7:14:29 PM
So self-defence is now ruthless?
Posted by: Halfwise | 2007-01-25 7:23:21 PM
92 percent of Egyptians see Israel as an enemy nation, over 50 percent view Denmark, US in same light. Only 2 percent call Israel friendly nation despite longstanding peace
Published: 11.01.06, 14:3
If Arab-semites were more influential in the US than non-Arab-semites then why would the West support that position anymore than they support the current position in an internecine semitic war?
Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-25 7:26:33 PM
Is wanting to keep the pillage "self-defence"?
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-25 7:27:26 PM
Cato and DJ,
A pox on both your houses. You are both wrong!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-25 8:05:03 PM
It is humorous to watch you committing suicide by pen.
You become more irrelevant with each post.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-25 9:33:21 PM
I'm afraid you are overestimating the importance of your appretiation.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-25 9:50:24 PM
Should Iran understand and expect the counterstrike will include Iran, Mecca and Medina?
Posted by: pete e | 2007-01-25 9:51:41 PM
John Quincy Adams:
"She (America) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-25 10:09:35 PM
"What Speller omitted is that the US gives Egypt, land of the Muslim Brotherhood, over 2 billion annually under similar auspices.">DJ
pl. aus·pi·ces (ôsp-sz)
An augur of ancient Rome, especially one who interpreted omens derived from the observation of birds.
The reason the U.S. gives $2 Billion a year to Israel's 'enemy' Egypt is because the late Anwar Sadat was the first Arab leader to sign a Peace Accord with Israel. That peace still holds.
It is not insignificant in the Arab world that a major Arab power such as Egypt recognizes Israels right to exist.
1. The US is the bigest supporter of Israel's enemies.>DJ
The U.S. is the biggest encourager of Anwar Sadat's legacy, to wit, the Peace Accord with Israel and recognition of Israel's right to exist.
2. Israel's GDP per capita makes it quite capable (or is Speller suggesting Israel is not capable of standing up for itself)of supporting it's own defence budget.>DJ
Yes, DJ is correct that Israel is capable of supporting it's own defense budget. However, any nation other than Israel would, if it was the sole supporter of it's defense budget, lay waste to it's enemies under the conditions that Israel constantly endures, but because America has given a surety of Israel's existence and is contributing to it's security, America has an moderating influence on how Israel treats it's neighbour's constant acts of aggression.
3. Speller is compelled to this position because of his religious beliefs and must characterise those who say why bother with either side of this ancient semitic rivalry as cheerleaders for the Arab semites.>DJ
Yes I am compelled to support Israel because of my Christian faith.
However, DJ's statement, though it amounts to an ad hominem argument, does not negate the fact that Israel has a right to it's land, nationhood, race, religion, immigration policies, and last but not least , especially compared to the barbarians it has for regional neighbours, Israel's restrained and civilized lifestyle and contributions it makes to the whole of mankind.
4. The US does not give aid because of the threat, but because of self-interest (i.e. support of the domestic arms industry) so it's just sex not love.>DJ
The U.S. gives aid to Israel for many reasons.
I agree that U.S.self interest is a runaway first priority.
That said, if it's good for the U.S. it's relationship with Israel isn't parasitic on the part of Israel and the $3 Billion/year is just a prudent investment on the U.S.A.s part.(you'd almost think DJ was a U.S. taxpayer the way he goes on about this)
I'm surprised, DJ, that you have evolved to this level of understanding.
What's best for the U.S. is usually best for Canada as long as we aren't on opposite sides of a trade negotiation.
Israel lost to Hizb'allah?>DJ
Yes, Israel lost the battle with Hisb'allah last year. Israel failed to achieve their war aims because the United States and France intervened not on Hizb'allah's behalf, but for Lebanon, which was once a French colony.
If Israel wants a missile shield or to nuke Iran that's up to them but why should the West get involved?>DJ
This has been discussed many times with you , DJ.
You do know why.
The question is, "Why do you pretend not to know?"
South Korea is more than capable of it's own defence. It should acquire nukes like Israel, if it feels threatened.>DJ
The NorKs have 10,000 heavy artillery pieces aimed and ready to obliterate Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
The Korean war NEVER ended. There is only an Armistice in place.
The U.S. is honouring it's side of the Armistice by leaving 30,000 troops as a tripwire to keep the NorKs from taking South Korea by human wave.
If a major action takes place, American troops will die and the Korean war will be back on at full tilt. If the NorKs use nukes on anyone, they will themselves be the recipients of 'American Sunshine'.
Mass migration, encouraged by Spanish elites' desire for cheap labour, from Africa and a collapsing birth rate will render Spain a black nation. Islam is a threat to the West because Islam is in the West. Expel them from European homelands and peace will prevail.>DJ
I agree, DJ. But expelling them just postpones the inevitable. We have to deal with Islam now, globally, not leave the job unfinished the way my father's generation did with the Communists.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-25 11:07:03 PM
"not leave the job unfinished the way my father's generation did with the Communists"
What kind of "job" did your father's generation have with the communists?
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-25 11:28:21 PM
"1.It is not insignificant in the Arab world that a major Arab power such as Egypt recognizes Israels right to exist.
2.The U.S. is the biggest encourager of Anwar Sadat's legacy, to wit, the Peace Accord with Israel and recognition of Israel's right to exist.
3. America has given a surety of Israel's existence and is contributing to it's security...etc.etc.etc."
How does Joe Taxpayer in the US benefit from America's largesse to Israel. It's Israel that benefits from all of the above. And as Adams so eloquently pronounced, bu enlisting under banners not her own she is unable to extrcate herself. Cheerlead for Israel all you want, but it's not the West's fight.
It amounts only to the fact, ad hominem is only your interpretation, that you are compelled to support Israel, regardless, because of religious conviction. It is only the truth.
"The question is, "Why do you pretend not to know?"
Israel maintains nuclear armed subs fully capable of second strike capibility and with enough destructive power to annihilate the entire ME.
"If the NorKs use nukes on anyone, they will themselves be the recipients of 'American Sunshine'."
The south Koreans are more than able, like the Japanese, to provide their own "sunshine".
Look at the demographics Speller. Iran's rapidly declining birthrate is the prime example. Islam's window of opportunity is now, this generation, after that the threat diminishes. Keep Islam out of the West for one generation, and it's all over.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-26 12:39:30 AM
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-26 12:59:12 AM
The German Army "described as the greatest fighting force of all time" was thoroughly decimated and defeated by the Soviet Red Army and the Armies of the Western Allies including Canada. Real German Army Veterans in Germany and Canada will agree about their fear of the Partisans. The Partisans of Yugoslavia under Communist Tito destroyed an entire
German Army, many as prisoners forced to march until they dropped dead. The greatest fighting army of World War II was the Mighty Red Army. The Russians still Call World War II, "The Great Patriotic War" The fighting quality of the Israel
Defence Force IDF is an established historic fact
Posted by: jack macleod | 2007-01-26 4:17:08 AM
You both made comments stating/implying Islamism is not Marxism. I am presuming this is in response to my post yesterday. If so, I would like to simply point out I did not state they are the same.
In fact, they are quite different. Yet there is an alliance forming around the world beween the very different Islamists and Marxists. Why? I merely posted a link to someone who attempted an explanation.
If your comments were in response to something other than my post, my apologies in advance for my presumptions.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-26 6:23:00 AM
How does Joe Taxpayer in the US benefit from America's largesse to Israel. It's Israel that benefits from all of the above. And as Adams so eloquently pronounced, bu enlisting under banners not her own she is unable to extrcate herself. Cheerlead for Israel all you want, but it's not the West's fight.>DJ
Joe Taxpayer benefits by being employed in the U.S. military industrial complex.
Arms are the #1 industry in the world and the U.S. is the worlds #1 Arms Merchant.
It amounts only to the fact, ad hominem is only your interpretation, that you are compelled to support Israel, regardless, because of religious conviction. It is only the truth.>DJ
It is also irrelevant to the debate. You, DJ, hate Jews and are compelled by your blinding hatred to carp and jeer from the sidelines as Israel remains the Wests only solid Ally in the oil rich Middle East.
"The question is, "Why do you pretend not to know?"
Israel maintains nuclear armed subs fully capable of second strike capibility and with enough destructive power to annihilate the entire ME.>DJ
That is hardly a deterrent to the Muslim true believers, especially the Iranian Shia who believe they can hasten the return of the 'Hidden Imam' through instigating a nuclear holocaust. The Iranians don't want nuclear weapons for defense, they want them to bring the Mahdi. They are true believers just as I am.
Israel's second strike capability is known as the 'Sampson Option'. Yes, Sampson killed those who killed him but being alive beats being dead.
"If the NorKs use nukes on anyone, they will themselves be the recipients of 'American Sunshine'."
The south Koreans are more than able, like the Japanese, to provide their own "sunshine".>DJ
South Korea, is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and unlike some other signatories, Iran for instance, they will act honourably. It is who they are.
Look at the demographics Speller. Iran's rapidly declining birthrate is the prime example. Islam's window of opportunity is now, this generation, after that the threat diminishes. Keep Islam out of the West for one generation, and it's all over.>DJ | 26-Jan-07 12:39:30 AM
Birthrates can turn around.
Who knows what the future holds?
All I can say for sure is that with our own declining Western birthrates we are currently winning the race to the bottom.
What is the optimum population for any nation or the world for that matter? All that really matters is that those who are alive today can live in peace, peace being the absence of threat.
The Iranian threat must be eliminated.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-26 7:11:23 AM
Brent who are these Marxists? The People's Republic of China are not Marxists, nor are the North Koreans
whose brand of "Communism" is in fact Facism. I can appreciate your point but Islam appears to be driven by fundemental Muslin versions of Islam. The politics of the PRC and North Korea providing munitions and technology to Iran for instance is simply put, based on anti Americanism and it's allies like the State of Isreal. Our professional links with Israel goes back many decades. If you get a moment read Dr. David Bercuson's Book "The Secret Army" - the story of the creation of the IDF and IAF - which I contributed to. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-26 7:21:44 AM
This is the job my father's generation failed to finish with the Communists.
"After Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945, Patton realized that our Soviet "allies" — who had begun the war as co-aggressors with National Socialist Germany — were in fact our enemy, and he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe.
In a conversation with then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson that took place in Austria shortly after the Nazi surrender, Patton complained that the "point system" being used to de-mobilize Third Army troops was destroying the Third Army, and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for God’s sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people [the Soviets]. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson — who would become Secretary of War a few months later — what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the [Red Army] where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."
Patton knew that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and that if Europe were to be freed from totalitarian despotism, the West would have to act before the Soviets consolidated their position. "Oh George," came the condescending reply from Patterson, "you … have lost sight of the big picture."
That "big picture," as leftist historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explained in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs, "was to commit the United States to postwar international structures before [victory] … could return the nation to its old habits." In order to keep our nation entangled in the growing network of international bodies, a credible foreign menace was needed, and the Soviets were perfectly cast in the part. "It is to Joseph Stalin that Americans owe the 40-year suppression of the isolationist impulse," wrote Schlesinger with approval.
Had Patton been permitted to drive the Soviets from Europe, millions of people would have been spared decades of abject oppression, and the criminal elite that continues to dominate most of eastern and central Europe might never have come to power. Patton understood, and warned his superiors, that if the Soviets were allowed to consolidate their grip, "we have failed the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"
It suffices to say that had Patton gotten his way instead of being killed in a car 'accident' we wouldn't be facing threats such as China, Iran, the Taliban, al-Qa'eda, Northe Korea, et al today.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-26 8:15:30 AM
If and or buts, candies or nuts, if,if,if...Jesus Christ, Mohammed and the 3rd Army could not have driven the Soviet Red Army out of Europe in 1945.
The Communist threat was well known in the 1930s. Evidence of the gulags and genocide in the Ukraine was bountiful yet ignored by the West. If the West was ever serious about stopping the Soviet threat, it was the Wehrmacht that could do the job in 1941.
"Patton's views on African Americans seem mild and even generous compared to remarks he made about Jews, Arabs, and other ethnic groups he encountered throughout his military career (much less his legendary hatred of the Russians). Like many Americans of his era, he generally considered those who were not of Northern European ancestry to be dirty and uncivilized. However, his statements regarding history show that this did not amount to lack of respect for the military accomplishments of other races. He expressed his feelings about Jews with his writings:
We entered a synagogue which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. Either these Displaced Persons never had any sense of decency or else they lost it all during their period of internment by the Germans... My personal opinion is that no people could have sunk to the level of degradation these have reached in the short space of four years.
—George S. Patton, "After the Holocaust: Rebuilding Jewish Lives in Post War Germany"
Though many of his attitudes were common (if not universal) in his time, as with all of his controversial opinions, he was often exceptionally blunt in his expression of them. He once wrote:
The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.
The one thing that I could not say, and cannot yet say publicly, is that my chief interest in establishing order in Germany was to prevent Germany from going communist. I am afraid that our foolish and utterly stupid policy in regard to Germany will certainly cause them to join the Russians and thereby insure a communistic state throughout Western Europe. We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages and all of Europe with communism."
—George S. Patton
Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-26 9:37:02 AM
Yes, DJ, like you, Major General George S. Patton was an anti-semite. And, like you, there he was wrong.
Patton saw people who had spent years in German concentration camps, in utterly depraved conditions, who came from Asia where they lived in primitive conditions, most of the civilized European Jews having been exterminated, and concluded that all Jews were like that, when in fact most Asians were like that not just the Jews.
None of them had ever seen indoor plumbing before being scooped up by those oh so brave elite Wehrmacht soldaten.
"Patton rejoined: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious
action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system.
They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make
no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land
coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up
their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the
liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"
"And Patton's aide, General Hobart Gay, noted in his own journal for May 14: "Everything they (the Russians) did
impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty."
"Nevertheless, Patton knew that the Americans could whip the Reds then -- but perhaps not later. On May 18
he noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of
ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of
the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the
sooner we do it the better."
Having immediately recognized the Soviet danger and urged a course of action which would have freed all of eastern
Europe from the communist yoke with the expenditure of far less American blood than was spilled in Korea and Vietnam
and would have obviated both those later wars not to mention World War III---"
Of course at that time and for a number of years later only the United States had the atom bomb.
At that time Japan had been defeated, so there was the entire Pacific fleet with it's submarines and aircraft carriers, plus all the other Armies in Europe, plus the Pacific Armies, plus the 8th Air Force, plus Ford had a factory in Cleveland 7 miles long that produced a B-25 Tactical Bomber every 23 minutes which taxied out of the finish end of the factory, onto a runway where it's new crew would fly it to the battle front.
The Red Army was always needed to help get the crops in at harvest, even before the war and afterward, so after conducting Scorched Earth Warfare with the Germans the USSR was getting ALL of their grain from Canada, the U.S. and Australia.
The Soviets wouldn't have lasted until Christmas.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-26 10:38:18 AM
Yes indeed Econ, there is a ' threatened oil price war with Iran ' as instigated by Cheney. Just as the Russians were brought down by oil prices in the 80`s so too does Iran face the same fate .Unfortunately for Iran , it costs them much more than the Saudis , to produce their oil , due to older technology , so they need $70 oil [ as does Venezuela ]. They are not able to buy this tschnology [ U,S., Canada and Japan ] and as such are being indirectly embargoed , as we speak.
Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-26 11:13:45 AM
if Patton realized the Soviet threat really first in the beginning of 1945, then he was very thick.
The threat of Judeo-communism became visible already in 1919 ("red terror" in Hungary), and that combined with Stalinism from 1936 in the Spanish civil war.
Patterson was right: Patton did not see the bigger picture.
1. In the first half of 1945, the US desperately needed the Soviets against Japan. Estimates of caualties expectable in the invasion of Japan were in the range of 800,000 to over a million. Who wanted to sacrify so many young Americans, except some military idiots? It was only in July, that the administration and the military leadership could count on the U-bomb, AND even so the Soviet entering into the war against Japan was an important factor in the Emperor's decision to capitulate.
2. The perception could not be ignored: the Soviets were ALLIED until then - how on earth would you explain the population, that you now turn against an allied, whom you propped up in the past years, and without whom the English would have lost the war? Patton could think only in military terms.
3. The time was on the Soviet side: they were weakened, but
- they took millions of prisoners, whom they used as slave labourers, like the Germans did with the prisoners taken in Russia,
- they dismantled factories, most machinery in the occupied areas, took weapons, material, knowledge, etc. Soon they were much stronger than ever before.
This means, that it would not have been enough to *contain* them, they would have to be *invaded*, a ridiculous idea.
Back to the original point: the "generation of your father" did not *leave* the job unfinished, they *did not commence* it at all.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-26 11:38:43 AM
"The threat of Judeo-communism became visible already in 1919 ("red terror" in Hungary), and that combined with Stalinism from 1936 in the Spanish civil war."
What distinguishes Judeo-communism from, say, Slavic-Communism or Sino-Communism?
Is there a Judeo-Capitalism?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-26 3:21:20 PM
"As to Iran: again too much hysteria. The rhetoric is turned up, but the truth is, that Iran has no interest on an armed confrontation. "
You've been attending their meetings again, haven't you?
"It is ridiculous to believe, that all (or even most) the leaders are crazy and fanatics. Just like the US administration knew how to create a frenzy to invade Iraq, the Mullahs know well how to play with the emotions of their people."
Yes, it's ridiculous to believe that any nation that knows full well how to play with the emotions of their people would ever seek to attack another country. *cough* U.S. *cough*
"The US help goes to regimes, which oppress their opponents, like the Shah in Iran."
You forgot South Korea, Germany, and Japan. Horrible despotic regimes propped up by the Americans.
What I want to know is just how long our we Canadians going to continue propping up the Americans regime which obviously oppresses so many? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-26 3:35:26 PM
The job being to liberate Europe, yes they did leave it unfinished.
The United Kingdom and British Commonwealth declared war over the invasion of Poland.
The thing was, when Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Red Army invaded it from the east.
When Germany was defeated, the USSR got to keep Poland and install a Communist puppet government.
That is leaving the job unfinished.
"The Winter War (Finnish: Talvisota, Swedish: Vinterkriget, Russian: Зимняя война, also known as the Soviet-Finnish War or the Russo-Finnish War) broke out when the Soviet Union attacked Finland on November 30, 1939, three months after the start of World War II. Because the attack was judged completely illegal, the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on December 14. Soviet leader Josef Stalin had expected to conquer the whole country by the end of 1939, but Finnish resistance frustrated the Soviet forces, who outnumbered the Finns 4:1 in men, 100:1 in tanks and 30:1 in aircraft. Finland held out until March 1940, when a peace treaty was signed ceding about 10% of Finland's territory and 20% of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union."
Little Finland basically won that one.
Germany almost alone was able to defeat the USSR.
Many Soviets looked upon the Germans as liberators, until the Germans started to slaughter everybody, and the Germans even formed a Russian division that fought against the Red Army.
As I said, The USSR was entirely dependent on The U.S., Canada, and Australia for food.
"if Patton realized the Soviet threat really first in the beginning of 1945, then he was very thick.">Cato
Western soldiers are by and large, traditionally apolitical. Then as now the MSM whitewashed what the Communists were about. Few people knew then what we know now.
This is what the people of that time thought>
"In his masterwork about Stalin's imposed famine on Ukraine, "Harvest of Sorrow," Robert Conquest has written:
As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union."
Walter Duranty is typical of contemporary western journalists. He won a Pulitzer Prise for his writing which whitewashed Stalin's USSR and the people of the west largely believed his lies.
"The threat of Judeo-communism became visible already in 1919 ("red terror" in Hungary), and that combined with Stalinism from 1936 in the Spanish civil war.">Cato
Many citizens of western nations went to Spain, formed the International Brigade and fought on the Communist 'Republican' side. The Spanish Nationalists were socialists too, but as the name says, they were Spaniards first and socialists second.
International Communism is a greater threat than national socialism. Both are bad.
"Patterson was right: Patton did not see the bigger picture.">Cato
Roosevelt's and Truman's regimes were both riddled with Communists in the state department.
Democrats are soft on communism and Roosevelt's chief advisor at Yalta(and later Truman's advisor and architect of the UN), Alger Hiss, was an actual NKVD/KGB SPY for the Soviet Union.
It is not surprising that Patton didn't see eye-to-eye with these men and have the same picture.
George S. Patton was the wealthiest General in the U.S. Army.
"1. In the first half of 1945, the US desperately needed the Soviets against Japan. Estimates of caualties expectable in the invasion of Japan were in the range of 800,000 to over a million. Who wanted to sacrify so many young Americans, except some military idiots? It was only in July, that the administration and the military leadership could count on the U-bomb, AND even so the Soviet entering into the war against Japan was an important factor in the Emperor's decision to capitulate.">Cato
The Soviets never fired a shot at Japan in the Great Pacific War and only seized northern Japanese islands AFTER Japan had already surrendered to the United States.
"2. The perception could not be ignored: the Soviets were ALLIED until then - how on earth would you explain the population, that you now turn against an allied, whom you propped up in the past years, and without whom the English would have lost the war? Patton could think only in military terms.">Cato
After living through WWII, The sneek attack at Pearl Harbor, seeing the advent of the jet plane, the Atomic Bomb, the death camps in Poland, coupled with the shock of the 1939 German-Soviet Non-Agression Pact and then Germany fighting the Soviets in 1941, the 'population' by that time were pretty unflapable.
While some referred to the Soviets as Allies some did not.
Patton was one who didn't and he got into trouble for it.
The Soviets never were our Ally, they didn't tell us that on the Eastern front they and the Germans were engaging in a technological race with tank design and we were totally outclassed by the more heavily armoured and up-gunned German Panzer IV Js, IV Ks, IV Ls, Panzer Vs(Panther series), and Panzer VIs(Tiger series).
They came as quite a shock to our tankers and the Panthers and Tigers had a 6:1 kill ratio against our most Sherman Tank equipped forces because our guns couldn't penetrate their armour and these German Panzers had guns that had twice the range of our tanks and easily penetrated the Sherman's armor.
(British nickname for the Sherman was 'The Zippo' because they lighted first time, every time)
The Brits came up with a retrofit of the 21 pound anti-tank gun on the Sherman hull, called it the Firefly, but only produced 600 of them.
The retrofit had the gun mounted sideways in the turret so every Firefly needed a LEFT handed loader.
No the Soviets weren't our Ally, they just happened to be fighting the same enemy because Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa.
"3. The time was on the Soviet side: they were weakened, but">Cato
The Soviets didn't have time because they fought a Scorched Earth War against the Germans, in the 70 years the Soviet Union existed they had crop failure EVERY YEAR, WE were the ones who were feeding THEM, and an Army moves on it's stomach.
The Finns defeated the Red Army in the Winter War of 1939-1940 simply by locating and destroying their field kitchens.
Winter was approaching, if we had engaged them the Red Army would have collapsed quickly.
NO, time was NOT on their side.
Don't forget the U.S. was the sole possessor of the atomic bomb.
"- they took millions of prisoners, whom they used as slave labourers, like the Germans did with the prisoners taken in Russia,">Cato
Yes, but slaves aren't much good if you can't feed them. They won't fight for you and if you can't feed them they are simply a burden.
"- they dismantled factories, most machinery in the occupied areas, took weapons, material, knowledge, etc. Soon they were much stronger than ever before.">Cato
It takes time to use new knowledge and technology when it didn't derive from your own nation. No, the history books say that they were NOT strong soon. Why didn't the Red Army push all the way to the English Channel if they were so strong? It isn't as if they didn't want to.
In any event they couldn't feed these factory workers, scientists, etc. if we didn't give them the food now could they?
"This means, that it would not have been enough to *contain* them, they would have to be *invaded*, a ridiculous idea.">Cato
Invasion wasn't a ridiculous idea.
Little Germany(population 66 million) would have defeated the Soviets(population 220 million) in 1941 if Hitler hadn't micromanaged the war.
Hitler had no strategic reserves and a strained logistical system, problems the Americans certainly didn't have.
If Germany almost conquered the USSR by themselves, the Soviets only surviving because we gave then planes, trucks, and above all FOOD, the U.S. and other western Armies could have easily done it.
The Soviet Navy was virtually non-existent(which was why they were no help against Japan) and they had NO capability to strike the United Kingdom let alone the North American agricultural and industrial base.
Churchill was definitely for invading the Soviet Union, it was the soft on Communist American Democratic party which was against it.
The U.S. could have used Japan as a base(like it used the UK to invade Europe) to strike from the east in addition to it's western European jump-off position.
(Germany didn't do this because the really had no Navy other than a couple of battleships, E-Boats, some pocket battleships, and a lot of U-Boats.(not much use for amphibius invasion which is why the didn't invade the UK)
"Back to the original point: the "generation of your father" did not *leave* the job unfinished, they *did not commence* it at all.">Cato 26-Jan-07 11:38:43 AM
The job was the liberation of Europe, the USSR was one of the original invaders of Poland, my father's generation did not liberate Europe, only part of it. They did NOT finish the job.
Poland wasn't free until 1990.
My apologies for the book.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-26 3:49:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.