Uh... Hmm. Let me point out the obvious to you (greer): there is no comparison between those two historical scenarios. NONE.
Hitler had amassed what amounted to the second or third largest - and probably most technologically advanced - military force in the world to that point. Hussein's military wasn't even on the map in 1991, relative to the rest of the world's major military powers. Put another way, Hussein was never a military threat to the free world at large, Germany very definitely was. Their navy and air forces gave them great reach (think across oceans, not local deserts), and their infantry and artillery were a match for anyone.
By the time the clouds of war gathered here, Hitler had already begun invading and annexing other sovereign European territories, and had major strategic allies in Japan and Italy, even though they are not large countries. Hussein didn't have any powerful strategic allies by the 1990s, and attempted to take only Kuwait. While this is never a good thing, taking over Kuwait is not analagous in geo-political terms to taking over France or Britain or all of North Africa, for that matter. I
In short, comparing Hussein's actions over the last 15 years with Hitler's actions going into World War II, is to ignore all of the relevant data and context of the situations. If there were a real Hitler today with the same kind of conventional forces at his disposal, "the left" in this country would have no qualms about going to war.
The way we started the second Iraq war was a mistake; get over it. Also: taking the time to spell-check your posts might be to your advantage in the future. Just a suggestion.
Uh... Hmm. Let me point out the obvious to you (greer): there is no comparison between those two historical scenarios. NONE.
Hitler had amassed what amounted to the second or third largest - and probably most technologically advanced - military force in the world to that point. Hussein's military wasn't even on the map in 1991, relative to the rest of the world's major military powers. Put another way, Hussein was never a military threat to the free world at large, Germany very definitely was. Their navy and air forces gave them great reach (think across oceans, not local deserts), and their infantry and artillery were a match for anyone.
By the time the clouds of war gathered here, Hitler had already begun invading and annexing other sovereign European territories, and had major strategic allies in Japan and Italy, even though they are not large countries. Hussein didn't have any powerful strategic allies by the 1990s, and attempted to take only Kuwait. While this is never a good thing, taking over Kuwait is not analagous in geo-political terms to taking over France or Britain or all of North Africa, for that matter. I
In short, comparing Hussein's actions over the last 15 years with Hitler's actions going into World War II, is to ignore all of the relevant data and context of the situations. If there were a real Hitler today with the same kind of conventional forces at his disposal, "the left" in this country would have no qualms about going to war.
The way we started the second Iraq war was a mistake; get over it. Also: taking the time to spell-check your posts might be to your advantage in the future. Just a suggestion.
That's not totally accurate. Hitler was allowed to get to the point he did. I can see you making this argument for Gulf War II, but not Gulf War I. In 1991, the world firmly believed in Saddam's military capability. My understanding is that our government was willing to accept 10,000 US casualties to liberate Kuwait. I believe at that time that Saddam had the fourth largest Army in the world. It's true that he was overestimated..but he was overestimated by everyone.
Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world in '91. One of the reasons he was so arrogant about taking on the whole world.
It was overrated. Note that all the countries commited this error of appreciation. Anyway at this time, Iraq invaded Kowait, threatening the world oil market : a strategic issue for almost all countries of the world. That's why the coalition was so large.
Let me put it another way... even if Hussein HAD been at the command of the fourth largest army in the world (which we now know wasn't true at all)... he still would not have possesed a global military threat to other free societies. Germany in the 1930s and 1940s did pose such a threat as evidenced by their U-boats sinking allied ships halfway across the world, and their ground and air forces occupying (though they did not ultimately hold onto) large amounts of territory in northern Europe, northern Africa and central Europe.
Germany (along with Japan) was a genuine threat to many free societies, and they made no bones about that.
Iraq has been a threat to Iran and Kuwait... and peripherally to Israel (via Scuds), but that's about it. Even then there was never any threat of the Iraqi military taking over another well-defended country like Syria or Saudi Arabia. Being able to lob missiles or send a sortie of planes somewhere within 500 miles of your base is not the same thing as being able to take and hold large swaths of foreign territory for extended periods of time. And as we saw, Iraq couldn't even do that with tiny Kuwait.
I reiterate (to the sarcastic and serious alike), there is no comparison and to make one is to dishonor what allied forces accomplished on D-Day.
Let me put it another way... even if Hussein HAD been at the command of the fourth largest army in the world (which we now know wasn't true at all)... he still would not have possesed a global military threat to other free societies. Germany in the 1930s and 1940s did pose such a threat as evidenced by their U-boats sinking allied ships halfway across the world, and their ground and air forces occupying (though they did not ultimately hold onto) large amounts of territory in northern Europe, northern Africa and central Europe.
Germany (along with Japan) was a genuine threat to many free societies, and they made no bones about that.
Iraq has been a threat to Iran and Kuwait... and peripherally to Israel (via Scuds), but that's about it. Even then there was never any threat of the Iraqi military taking over another well-defended country like Syria or Saudi Arabia. Being able to lob missiles or send a sortie of planes somewhere within 500 miles of your base is not the same thing as being able to take and hold large swaths of foreign territory for extended periods of time. And as we saw, Iraq couldn't even do that with tiny Kuwait.
I reiterate (to the sarcastic and serious alike), there is no comparison and to make one is to dishonor what allied forces accomplished on D-Day.
I agree with you Moogs. For those who disagree they can see the Spielberg movie "saving private Ryan". I heard an interview of a german soldier discribing this day : it corroborate it. Death all around the beach, but US soldiers still moving on.
It can sound strange, but it was not mandatory that the allied troops winned WW2. Germany was about to achieve the V3, and to defeat by the bomb UK. The D Day should have been a disaster if the Fortitude hoax did not worked so well.
For the record Fortitude is perhaps one of the greatest hoax of the war history. british and US made a false army with latex tanks, with false radio traffic. This army was diriged by Patton, who made visit in this camp in a regular way. This army was supposed to invade Calais, a logical choice if you consider that this coast are only 30 miles away from england.
When the Allies landed in Normandy at Oklaoma beach, several army divisions stayed in Calais, weating for a second landing. They even wait some weeks after D Day, letting allies to make a victorious breach among germans lines of defense.
If the germans divisions did not stayed at Calais, the germans will have won.
Note also, that Fortitude needed the sacrifice of many people leaving in Calais who where bombed just for persuade german of an imminent landing.
Even with the help of this hoax, if the soldiers did not demonstrate such bravery, the enterprise will have been a failure. Luckily they did it and contribute to do the world we know today.
The Turkish army now may be the biggest - certainly they can call on 1M plus troops. But they are still a joke....
They're a joke given the technological superiority of todays modern armies, and the training they've undergone since the first Gulf War.
In hindsight, yes, you can laugh about it, but what, at the time, made you laugh about their military? They were supplied by the Russians. None of the technological advances the US had had ever been tested in battle. We had no idea of the effectiveness of their technology or what type of tactics they would use.
it would never happen or be verry henddered by the hatefull left.
Back in WWII people were upset that we didn't get hitler before he invaded europe, and now people are mad because we stopped sodam husain.
Heh.
Yeah, dumbass liberals like FDR could've never mounted something like D-Day, nor could a hateful hater like that liberal bastard have managed to be a successful preznit during a war like WW2.
I have read some texts about Roosevelt coming from people working for him. He was a great mind of his time, undoubtely. His vision of the world and his evolution was astounding.
Anyway, Bush is a big fan of Roosevelt IMO : he choose his desk in the white house.
So the opposition between liberal and conservatives is irrelevant here.
I have read some texts about Roosevelt coming from people working for him. He was a great mind of his time, undoubtely. His vision of the world and his evolution was astounding.
Anyway, Bush is a big fan of Roosevelt IMO : he choose his desk in the white house.
So the opposition between liberal and conservatives is irrelevant here.
Yeah, dumbass liberals like FDR could've never mounted something like D-Day, nor could a hateful hater like that liberal bastard have managed to be a successful preznit during a war like WW2.
What a joke a_greer. As midwinter pointed out, FDR was only one of this country's most liberal Presidents-- EVER.
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
Back in WWII people were upset that we didn't get hitler before he invaded europe, and now people are mad because we stopped sodam husain.
Maybe because there is a difference between those two and some people still can see it?
Hitler had amassed what amounted to the second or third largest - and probably most technologically advanced - military force in the world to that point. Hussein's military wasn't even on the map in 1991, relative to the rest of the world's major military powers. Put another way, Hussein was never a military threat to the free world at large, Germany very definitely was. Their navy and air forces gave them great reach (think across oceans, not local deserts), and their infantry and artillery were a match for anyone.
By the time the clouds of war gathered here, Hitler had already begun invading and annexing other sovereign European territories, and had major strategic allies in Japan and Italy, even though they are not large countries. Hussein didn't have any powerful strategic allies by the 1990s, and attempted to take only Kuwait. While this is never a good thing, taking over Kuwait is not analagous in geo-political terms to taking over France or Britain or all of North Africa, for that matter. I
In short, comparing Hussein's actions over the last 15 years with Hitler's actions going into World War II, is to ignore all of the relevant data and context of the situations. If there were a real Hitler today with the same kind of conventional forces at his disposal, "the left" in this country would have no qualms about going to war.
The way we started the second Iraq war was a mistake; get over it. Also: taking the time to spell-check your posts might be to your advantage in the future. Just a suggestion.
Originally posted by a_greer
it would never happen or be verry henddered by the hatefull left.
Back in WWII people were upset that we didn't get hitler before he invaded europe, and now people are mad because we stopped sodam husain.
Hahahahah what a lot of shite.... Never knew D Day was an all US operation
Originally posted by Common Man
The left would be concerned that it would make us look bad in the eyes of "the international community"
Thanks for giving me a good laugh
keep 'em comming
Originally posted by a_greer
it would never happen or be verry henddered by the hatefull left.
Back in WWII people were upset that we didn't get hitler before he invaded europe, and now people are mad because we stopped sodam husain.
This is a joke right?
I mean the spelling is the kicker . . . . gotta hand it to you greer, you're a natural satirist!
Originally posted by Moogs
Uh... Hmm. Let me point out the obvious to you (greer): there is no comparison between those two historical scenarios. NONE.
Hitler had amassed what amounted to the second or third largest - and probably most technologically advanced - military force in the world to that point. Hussein's military wasn't even on the map in 1991, relative to the rest of the world's major military powers. Put another way, Hussein was never a military threat to the free world at large, Germany very definitely was. Their navy and air forces gave them great reach (think across oceans, not local deserts), and their infantry and artillery were a match for anyone.
By the time the clouds of war gathered here, Hitler had already begun invading and annexing other sovereign European territories, and had major strategic allies in Japan and Italy, even though they are not large countries. Hussein didn't have any powerful strategic allies by the 1990s, and attempted to take only Kuwait. While this is never a good thing, taking over Kuwait is not analagous in geo-political terms to taking over France or Britain or all of North Africa, for that matter. I
In short, comparing Hussein's actions over the last 15 years with Hitler's actions going into World War II, is to ignore all of the relevant data and context of the situations. If there were a real Hitler today with the same kind of conventional forces at his disposal, "the left" in this country would have no qualms about going to war.
The way we started the second Iraq war was a mistake; get over it. Also: taking the time to spell-check your posts might be to your advantage in the future. Just a suggestion.
That's not totally accurate. Hitler was allowed to get to the point he did. I can see you making this argument for Gulf War II, but not Gulf War I. In 1991, the world firmly believed in Saddam's military capability. My understanding is that our government was willing to accept 10,000 US casualties to liberate Kuwait. I believe at that time that Saddam had the fourth largest Army in the world. It's true that he was overestimated..but he was overestimated by everyone.
Originally posted by Moogs
Hussein's military wasn't even on the map in 1991, relative to the rest of the world's major military powers.
Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world in '91. One of the reasons he was so arrogant about taking on the whole world.
Originally posted by X X
Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world in '91. One of the reasons he was so arrogant about taking on the whole world.
It was overrated. Note that all the countries commited this error of appreciation. Anyway at this time, Iraq invaded Kowait, threatening the world oil market : a strategic issue for almost all countries of the world. That's why the coalition was so large.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It was overrated. Note that all the countries commited this error of appreciation.
We know that now. At the time they didn't. You don't want to go to war underestimating your enemy.
Germany (along with Japan) was a genuine threat to many free societies, and they made no bones about that.
Iraq has been a threat to Iran and Kuwait... and peripherally to Israel (via Scuds), but that's about it. Even then there was never any threat of the Iraqi military taking over another well-defended country like Syria or Saudi Arabia. Being able to lob missiles or send a sortie of planes somewhere within 500 miles of your base is not the same thing as being able to take and hold large swaths of foreign territory for extended periods of time. And as we saw, Iraq couldn't even do that with tiny Kuwait.
I reiterate (to the sarcastic and serious alike), there is no comparison and to make one is to dishonor what allied forces accomplished on D-Day.
Originally posted by Moogs
Let me put it another way...
That's fine. I was just making the point that Iraq's military wasn't something (at the time) to laugh about.
Originally posted by Moogs
Let me put it another way... even if Hussein HAD been at the command of the fourth largest army in the world (which we now know wasn't true at all)... he still would not have possesed a global military threat to other free societies. Germany in the 1930s and 1940s did pose such a threat as evidenced by their U-boats sinking allied ships halfway across the world, and their ground and air forces occupying (though they did not ultimately hold onto) large amounts of territory in northern Europe, northern Africa and central Europe.
Germany (along with Japan) was a genuine threat to many free societies, and they made no bones about that.
Iraq has been a threat to Iran and Kuwait... and peripherally to Israel (via Scuds), but that's about it. Even then there was never any threat of the Iraqi military taking over another well-defended country like Syria or Saudi Arabia. Being able to lob missiles or send a sortie of planes somewhere within 500 miles of your base is not the same thing as being able to take and hold large swaths of foreign territory for extended periods of time. And as we saw, Iraq couldn't even do that with tiny Kuwait.
I reiterate (to the sarcastic and serious alike), there is no comparison and to make one is to dishonor what allied forces accomplished on D-Day.
I agree with you Moogs. For those who disagree they can see the Spielberg movie "saving private Ryan". I heard an interview of a german soldier discribing this day : it corroborate it. Death all around the beach, but US soldiers still moving on.
It can sound strange, but it was not mandatory that the allied troops winned WW2. Germany was about to achieve the V3, and to defeat by the bomb UK. The D Day should have been a disaster if the Fortitude hoax did not worked so well.
For the record Fortitude is perhaps one of the greatest hoax of the war history. british and US made a false army with latex tanks, with false radio traffic. This army was diriged by Patton, who made visit in this camp in a regular way. This army was supposed to invade Calais, a logical choice if you consider that this coast are only 30 miles away from england.
When the Allies landed in Normandy at Oklaoma beach, several army divisions stayed in Calais, weating for a second landing. They even wait some weeks after D Day, letting allies to make a victorious breach among germans lines of defense.
If the germans divisions did not stayed at Calais, the germans will have won.
Note also, that Fortitude needed the sacrifice of many people leaving in Calais who where bombed just for persuade german of an imminent landing.
Even with the help of this hoax, if the soldiers did not demonstrate such bravery, the enterprise will have been a failure. Luckily they did it and contribute to do the world we know today.
Kudos for them.
Originally posted by segovius
Yes it was -numbers don't equal capacity.
The Turkish army now may be the biggest - certainly they can call on 1M plus troops. But they are still a joke....
They're a joke given the technological superiority of todays modern armies, and the training they've undergone since the first Gulf War.
In hindsight, yes, you can laugh about it, but what, at the time, made you laugh about their military? They were supplied by the Russians. None of the technological advances the US had had ever been tested in battle. We had no idea of the effectiveness of their technology or what type of tactics they would use.
Originally posted by a_greer
it would never happen or be verry henddered by the hatefull left.
Back in WWII people were upset that we didn't get hitler before he invaded europe, and now people are mad because we stopped sodam husain.
Heh.
Yeah, dumbass liberals like FDR could've never mounted something like D-Day, nor could a hateful hater like that liberal bastard have managed to be a successful preznit during a war like WW2.
Anyway, Bush is a big fan of Roosevelt IMO : he choose his desk in the white house.
So the opposition between liberal and conservatives is irrelevant here.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have read some texts about Roosevelt coming from people working for him. He was a great mind of his time, undoubtely. His vision of the world and his evolution was astounding.
Anyway, Bush is a big fan of Roosevelt IMO : he choose his desk in the white house.
So the opposition between liberal and conservatives is irrelevant here.
I was being very, very sarcastic.
Originally posted by midwinter
Heh.
Yeah, dumbass liberals like FDR could've never mounted something like D-Day, nor could a hateful hater like that liberal bastard have managed to be a successful preznit during a war like WW2.
What a joke a_greer. As midwinter pointed out, FDR was only one of this country's most liberal Presidents-- EVER.