ceiling fan LOL!
tisk tisk tisk
Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake
by Simon 128 Replies latest social current
-
-
Crazy151drinker
I would have to say that our last MAJOR successfull occupation was Germany after WWII. Even after they surrendered there were alot of SS groups and the like who tried to fight the occupation. Give it time.
Or would could adapt the Extremist Islamic philosophy. I figure if they want all of us to die then we should return the favor.
-
SixofNine
Crazy. No.
Also, the Germany comparison is bogus on several levels:
From: Dan Rogers [mailto:[email protected]]
To: h-german@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: Misuse of the American Occupation of GermanyDate: Tuesday, November 04, 2003Historians of Germany may be interested in the continuing misuse for current political purposes of the American occupation experience in Germany after World War II.
On the ABC News program "This Week" on Sunday, November 2, there was the following exchange between U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and columnist George Will:
George Will: You've stressed that in Iraq we've made much faster progress than we made in post-war Germany in establishing police, army, currency, central bank. That's all true. One difference is that in 1945, in May, when Hitler died, fascism died. It was no longer a fighting faith. If Saddam dies, there will still be the fighting faith of militant Islam. So might it make zero difference at all?
Donald Rumsfeld: Oh, I wouldn't say a zero difference. First of all, the Nazi faith did linger. And there were people in Germany who kept trying to kill the allies, as we were called then, as opposed to the coalition.
Will: Did they have casualties -- inflict casualties comparable to this?
Rumsfeld: Not comparable, but there were casualties, to be sure. There were mayors who were cooperating with the allies that were killed. There were Nazis who escaped and went to South America and other countries. It took years to track them down. Hitler, fortunately, killed himself.[end of quotation -- source: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20031102-secdef0836.html]The logic of Rumsfeld's analysis is as unmistakable as his history is bad: Germany was a success despite fierce diehard resistance; therefore Iraq will be an American victory too. The problem is, there was no German resistance after surrender.
The flaws in Rumsfeld's and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's analogy to occupied Germany were pointed out by Daniel Benjamin in _Slate_ as far back as August 29, 2003 (see "Condi's Phony History," http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/, in which Benjamin points out, among other things, that there were no post-surrender American combat casualties in Germany or Japan). There was indeed a famous murder of a cooperating mayor (in Aachen), but it occurred many weeks before the German surrender. And if anyone can think of a serious problem posed by Nazis in South America other than the trouble it took to locate, capture, and extradite them, I'd like to hear about it.
The other difficulty with the Rumsfeld and Rice analogy is that the German government, military, and people recognized and accepted defeat. Thus the war was over: one side quit. The war in Iraq is not over, and will not be over, until one side quits.
The U.S. may yet prevail and Iraq may turn out to be no Vietnam. But it is certainly no Germany.
Dan Rogers University of South Alabama
....and notice the force difference:
On V-E Day, Eisenhower had sixty-one U.S. divisions, 1,622,000 men, in Germany, and a total force in Europe numbering 3,077,000. 1 When the shooting ended, the divisions in the field became the occupation troops, charged with maintaining law and order and establishing the Allied military presence in the defeated nation. This was the army-type occupation. A counterpart of the military government carpet, its object was to control the population and stifle resistance by putting troops into every nook and cranny.
-
Realist
Six,
thank you very much for posting this!
also germany is a western country with western tradition, education, culture and lifestyle.
the arabs have a different way of life with strong family ties and clan memberships between them. their religion is radical and they hate the west. plus the education of most arabs is poor. you cannot expect them to bounce back like germany did in the 50ties.
-
blacksheep
patio: what I posted was from a hard copy of the Wall Street Journal of April 5, 04. Not sure if it's online.
-
blacksheep
"This is what we've been warning about. We told the Americans Saddam Hussein was only five percent of the problem. The other 95 percent just wasn't visible to them," a Gulf Arab diplomat said. "It's a very dangerous situation. It's painful."
Ah, the SKY IS FALLING, the SKY IS FALLING. One of the most clear cut differentiators between leaders and non-leaders is that leaders take action and responsiblity. Non-leaders whine, moan, and most importantly offer NO solution. They sit back and criticize and wring their hands. But they have no solutions, certainly not reasonable ones. "There will be a great wailing and knashing of teeth..."
-
blacksheep
The logic of Rumsfeld's analysis is as unmistakable as his history is bad: Germany was a success despite fierce diehard resistance; therefore Iraq will be an American victory too. The problem is, there was no German resistance after surrender. (Quote from post about Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq to post-Hitler Germany)
Yeah, the author is righti. Post Hitler Germany was a western nation. They understood war, and they understood when they had lost. They were/are not a nation who has routinely been vulnerable to terrorism, totalitarian dictatorships, deprivation of basic human rights. They did not HATE their European counterparts and the United States, threaten to destroy their entire way of life, or murder innocent civilians in retaliation.
Big, big difference.
-
blacksheep
yes thats because clinton has reduced the state deficit. what is not normal however is the budget deficit of the last 2 or 3 years. they were the worst in history.
Again, I'll draw your attention to the fact that the national debt is NOT the only data point. Suggesting that because we have national debt, it's the "worst fiscal situation" in American history is quite misleading. Unemployment is at near record lows, inflation is the lowest it has been in the past 20-30 years, the market is making major strides, and jobs are being created at record pace. But still, people are trying to find some bad news, even though all indicators state otherwise.
-
Realist
blacksheep,
again, the term fiscal situation applies only to the state budget and deficit...thus the NYTimes statement is accurate. however, this does not mean it is the worst over all situation in the US history! you are absolutely right about that.