Story: " "The important thing for us is to get them back safe and sound, but we can't enter into some basis of bargaining," Blair said. "What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable.
"What you can't do is end up negotiating over hostages; end up saying there's some quid pro quo or tit for tat; that's not acceptable," he said. "
Ah, there is the spine of the British I've been looking for. Blair is right, you do not negotiate with evil.
As for further measures, it is definitely time for military action. The kidnapping happened 6 days ago, and all we have had is weak diplomatic standoffs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Blair can be strong sometimes (Big emphasis on the sometimes).
There are people you can negotiate and reason with and there are people that no amount of infinite reason will persuade them.
In the latter case, it comes down to whether the negotiator has strong enough backbone to take a stance. Unfortunately, we have a lot of whimps that are afraid and not willing to stand up to evil. They cow down to evil thinking it will be good but in the long run evil will come back and haunt them like they've never imagined.
This is why we don't negotiate w/ terrorists because when we do, they will gain the upper hand and will cause more havoc later.
What scares me is that someone will either ask Jimmy Carter for advice on how to handle the Iranians, or worse yet, Carter and the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson will team up and inject themselves into this contratemps i.e. flying over there on some "peace junket" and then insisting that the Brits "do more" to make peace with Iran.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to see a photo of Carter kissing the Ayatollah on the turban.
They should follow our example from 1812. To a large degree that war was fought over this same subject.
It seems that Iran is testing the world, and the world--including America--is failing.
Liberals think conservatives are war-mongerers for wanting to jump to military action with Iran, but let's review Iran's resume:
1. Iran wants nuclear power.
2. Iran has ignored/denied/mocked and is ignoring/denying/mocking U.N. mandates/resolutions/sanctions.
3. Iran's president is a holocaust denier.
In reality, we're already at war with Iran. Why?
4. Iran's president says "death to America," calls for the "destruction of America," etc. That seems pretty close to a declaration of war.
5. Iran is aiding the insurgence in Iraq, whether it be with weaponry and/or manpower. We're already fighting Iran.
6. Iran sympathizes with the Iraqi insurgents. Remember Bush's quote somewhere along the lines of "if you're not for us, you are against us... If you harbor terrorists, you are our enemy."
7. Now, Iran takes British sailors hostage for next-to-no reason. Even if they were in Iranian waters, there's no justification for keeping them this long. Then, they promise to let the female soldier go, then they don't.
8. They did something similar a few years ago.
Iran is testing the waters, and it looks as though they can get away with quite a bit right now. The morale in America is so weak--the toughness seems so weak--and the rest of the world has really seemed to turn wishy-washy, that if things don't change, Iran is going to try to do something a lot bigger next time, in all likelihood.
I don't want to take military action against Iran. I don't want our soldiers to die. I don't want Iranian civilians--who might not even agree with their leaders--to innocently become victims of a war. But...are we talking about "want to" or "need to and have to." That's the determination that has to be made. If you can avoid it (doubtfully), avoid it. But, not at ALL costs, like some seem to think.
"if you're not for us, you are against us"
That has to be one of the most horrible, war-provoking quotes i've heard. Overall though, Bush isn't doing a bad job, just visit kp's blog to see quotes and people often dont match up.
That quote from Bush must be understood in the context. He was speaking in the aftermath of 9-11, and his point was, if you are not for us in bringing the terrorists to justice, then you are basically on their side and against us.
I don't see why that is such a problem. I know the John Kerry types like to "process" and have "nuance," but in reality you can just call that doublemindedness. And the Bible says a doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.
even in the context it discourages neutrality, the taking up of others offences is a most dangerous and deadly idea.
Ironically, I believe Jesus said something identical to--or close to--"if you are not for me, you are against me." Anyways...
I think it should be realized that in this war between good v. evil, terrorists and insane dictators v. democratic, sovereign nations, no true neutrality is really possible. If you are "neutral," you are--in some ways, at least--playing into the tactics of the terrorists. There aren't many more than two reasons to be neutral in this epic conflict. Those two reasons I'm referring to are:
1.) Fear.
2.) Desire for oil.
Now, this is no time to be scared, and no time to be putting financial matters at the top of the priority list.
This, of course, does not mean people have to agree with the astuteness of the Iraq War, for instance, the execution of it, or the plans for the future. It does not mean they have to directly be involved, either. However, if anyone--whether it be France, Iran, or Jibuti--were to say that they were now rooting for the terrorists, I think everyone would agree they would be now "against us"--even if we didn't then go to war with them.
As I said before, I do not see true neutrality as a viable option in this confrontation. The stark contrast between the two combatants is too extreme, and to defeat this determined enemy, we too must be determined.
Under, neutrality towards evil is nothing but tacit consent of that evil.
Kingdom Advancer, the verses that you were looking for are Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23.
Palm Boy, as a man named Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.”
Under the Mercy, does that mean that we should not have interfered with England’s fight with Nazi Germany? Or what about Korea? Should we have let the entire country fall under communist control?
KA:
Though I don't see the irony in it, yes Christ said who is not with me is against me, however, what you must realize is that this is a command to the individual, not the government. As an individual, yes, we should fight evil all over the world and create orginizations for that purpose, etc.
But what again is the purpose of government, but for the security of certian rights of the people who set that government up, not others.
Governments, not people, should be neurtral. Just consider, there would have been no world wars without alliances between countries, it would have been simply two petty countries beating each other up (like goes on constantly in the east).
Just on a side note, we (America) get our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Vnezuela.
Daniel:
Yes, I believe our country should have stayed out of both of those wars, if individuals would like to help they may, but a government unless expressly stated and accepted by all should not be Christian.
Christian morals should not be forced upon those who do not wish to accept them, most American's today are not Christians, what right do we then have to use their government for our Christian ends?
Daniel, that is very true.
Under, I am sensing a drastic disconnect. While it is appropriate for the individual to fight evil, it is not appropriate for the government, which is merely a representation of her people, to fight evil?
The security of US citizens is exactly what we are fighting for. Every terrorist killed over there is one more we do not have to deal with over here.
World War I was related to alliances, but not directly.
World War II on the other hand, Allances had little or to no effect. You cannot honestly believe Hitler would have stayed his genocide in his own, or that the Japanese empire would have stopped its advance.
And even though the UK, France, and the United States were allied, it was not until the US was attacked that we entered the war.
No, alliances of freedom are what won the war, not extended it.
So, you believe it is better to have a bunch of little genocides and racial cleansing brushfires persistantly around the world, rather then one that can be defeated?
Yes, we do import our oil and natural gas from those sources. Your point?
Government is for the poeple who are being governed. If a group of Christians would like to go off and create their own Christian country with a christian government, that is fine. However, most Americans are not Christians, and a suprising many were not during the formation of the government. So again I ask, what right have we to use their government for Christian ends around the world?
You hold that our government is a representation of her people, but what are the polls concerning the war in Iraq? Most are against it.
Concerning the "bunch of little genocides and racial cleansing brushfires", if you take a look at the history of the east all the way back to the time of Christ, you will have trouble finding a space when there was not some war or other going on.
Did world war one work, obviously not as there was world war two, did that one work, it ended and we got into the cold war, What about Vietnam, did that stop communism? And now you're woried about China.
My point concerning the oil is in responce to Ka's statement that "There aren't many more than two reasons to be neutral in this epic conflict." One was oil.
Under the Mercy.
What do you think the Pilgrims were doing? Trying to set up a Christian government. Our government was, for the most part, founded on Christian values. You are right; the large majority of Americans today aren’t Christians, which is reflected in the direction this country is heading. What right do we have to use our government for Christian ends? What Christian ends are we using it for? Is killing people who are trying to kill us ‘Christian’?
The polls are against the war in Iraq? Hahaha! If you ask the right group of people you can get any response you want. Those polls are NOT unbiased. If I went into a room full of six-year-olds and conducted a poll as whether candy is better than vegetables, guess what answer I’d get.
There always has been war and always will be, what’s your point?
WWI didn’t work because of the Treaty of Versailles. WWII accomplished its goal of removing the threats of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Communist Russia was coming anyway, it was just a matter of time. We lost Vietnam purely because we didn’t, like today, have the will to win and were trying to follow a bunch of rules. Rules in war are ludicrous, make war ugly and people won’t want to engage in it.
And if we hade aided the Chinese Republic like the Russians aided Mao, maybe we’d have a China that was sympathetic to us or even a close ally instead of a communist regime that hates us with their guts.
Daniel:
It wasn't the pilgrims who set our government (they actually started out communist, lol) it was the federalists, with some "help" from the anti-federalists. Founded on Christian values, yes, but the founding fathers were VERY clear that the government was NOT to endorse any one religion.
I am not against our government killing people who are trying to kill them, just our government killing people who are killing OTHER people.
So you think the polls are rigged, ...interesting.
My point concerning war? There will always be "bad guys" we will never be able to kill them all off, how about we evangalize them instead.
Communist Russia was comming anyway? Then 1. why did we help them, and 2. why not just let communist russia and faciest germany beat each other to shreads.
Make war ugly? It is. Making it worse is not going to make things better.
We should have aided the Chinese? We did (WWII), just like we aided Stalin, Saddam Hussain, Osama bin Laden and others, it dosen't exactly have a history of helping us.
Under the Mercy
Re Pilgrims. Yes I know, I was just stating one of their purposes for starting the colony. You see, they were postmillennialists and were trying to advance the kingdom of God.
And yet some religions are illegal or restricted by the government that is not endorsing any religion.
Iraq (i.e. Saddam Husein) was harboring and funding Al Qaeda. Unless you believe that Bush planned 9/11, they were people who were trying to kill us. We went in and removed an evil dictator, freed a bunch of people and mad our nation safer in the process. To me at least that looks like a win/win situation. Now we are in there trying to keep peace in a religion full of people who not only hate us but hate each other as well.
Do you actually think that the liberal media would actually publish anything that would even hint at being pro-Bush?
Yes, there will always be evil people, and by all means try to evangelize them. I am 100% behind that, but there will be times, like these, where we must kill.
1. & 2. As an old proverb goes, ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Look into history and you will see that if the U.S. had not sent TONES of supplies and financing, Russia would have fallen to the German armies and it would have been the U.S. and England vs. Japan and a much stronger Germany, free of the Russian front.
If war is made as ugly as possible most people won’t want to engage in it. No one wanting to fight because of the terrible consequences equals fewer wars.
After WWII the government of China was grateful to us for driving the Japs out of their land. You have to look a little farther back and you will see that before WWII broke out, the communist Chinese under Mao was fighting the Chinese government under Chang Kai-Chek. When WWII began, they temporarily put aside their differences to fight Japan (remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend). When the war was over, they resumed fighting each other. A bunch of nations (including the U.S. and I believe Russia) agreed not to lend money or give weapons to the warring factions. Russia violated the treaty and gave their full support to Mao. Chang Kai-Chek begged us for help but we refused. So in 1949, the last of his army retreated to Taiwan, which is one of our allies in the region.
By the way, my tone isn’t harsh at all is it? If so I'm sorry I don’t mean for it to be.
I'm sorry for not commenting. I haven't been on in a while.
"Just on a side note, we (America) get our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Vnezuela." -- Under_the_Mercy
My point was not where WE get our oil, but where other countries who want to stay "neutral" get THEIR oil.
"Though I don't see the irony in it..." --Under_the_Mercy
The irony is found in your own words: "That has to be one of the most HORRIBLE, war-provoking quotes I've ever heard." (Emphasis mine) I guess you meant "horrible" in the context of Bush saying it.
As for the rest of your comments:
I'm a bit confused. I was debating neutrality in this war. Then, you seem to have turned the debate to war itself. Let me put it this way:
Freeing the Iraqi people was only one reason we went into Iraq. And, now, setting up a stable government and military/police force is in OUR best interest, as well as the Iraqis.
Although I would agree with you that we can't be the peace-cop around the world all the time, and although I do have isolationist tendencies, the United States does have somewhat of a responsibility as a superpower. Although we have to carefully pick our spots, it's pretty cold-hearted to say we should do nothing when another government is abusing its own or someone else's citizens.
As well, WE can no longer be "neutral" in this war. The war is against America, affectionately called the "Great Satan" by our enemies. Unless you plan to build a border fence on the whole Canadian AND Mexican borders; to put all our soldiers currently in the Middle East on the borders to defend them; and then put the whole navy near the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, I don't see how else we can be "neutral." But wait... even with that scenario, we'd have to worry about nuclear weapons and the like.
As for other countries being neutral:
This is a global, dirty, undercover war by the radical Islamo-fascist jihadist anti-Semite anti-America anti-Christian anti-democracy anti-freedom terrorists. That's why we "kill those killing others." Because they are all our enemies, just the same, even if they decide to blow up their individual bodies in some place other than America or an American embassy.
As for war not being good:
Well, OF COURSE it doesn't ELIMINATE evil FOREVER. Only Armageddon will do that. What? You expected WWI to keep us from needing to get into the Gulf War? Wars preserve freedom, protect innocence, punish evil, etc.. The fact that evil rises again does not show that war is good for "absolutely nuthin'--say it again, ya'll."
As for evangelizing them:
That's great. I'm all for that. But are you going to do evangelize them all (and be successful with THEM ALL) before or after they hijack another plane and crash into a building, full of people who also need to be evangelized, and who are likely more open to the gospel than these brainwashed, psychotic, suicidal, blood-thirsty, even demonic terrorists? When there are millions of people in every country and culture in the world who also need to be evangelized, are you going to risk them getting killed by terrorists while you are trying to evangelize all the terrorists?
The intelligent approach requires both military violence and evangelistic efforts.
As for alliances:
This is too theoretical. It assumes the premise that if ALL governments didn't form alliances. But, what happens if all good countries isolate themselves from each other while evil countries create super-alliances?
As for polls about Iraq, etc.:
The will of the people is to protect this country, to fight the terrorists, to do what it takes. The will of the people--and their elected officials--was to go into Iraq. But, the design of the separation of powers, of the democratic republic, has fortunately made it so that the impatient nature of the people does not control the war now.
We CANNOT pull out now.
Also, the polls may not be rigged in the way that Daniel says they are. But they are indeed rigged in the way they are worded.
Forgive me if I was not clear, but I do not see where you get the idea that I am against the iraqi war. In fact, I happen to believe we should finish what we started, then get the heck out of there.
The pilgrims started out communist and had absolutely no effect on our government. The formation of our govenment came AFTER the revolution.
Please tell me which religion is illegal in the U.S.
Russia: You know, only one person in history has ever conquered Russia, Genghis Khan. Its pretty hard to couquer a huge nation in only three months, even Napolian was totally whipped. If we hadn't sent them a bunch of supplies the two greatest evils in the world would have beat each other to a pulp, and Germany wouldn't have attacked us.
One last thing, you don't become stronger in war by taking territory, you become weaker.
Not at all, it is difficult at times to word things correctly espically when trying to emphisize something, please also forgive any of my short commings.
KA:
You say wars preserve freedom, but if you look at all the wars in the history of mankind, you will find that most of them did more ending of freedom than preserveing it, wars are almost never good vs. bad, they are about people gratifying their thirst for power. Even looking at WWII we find a shocking example in Winston Churchill's remark to FDR "Were I to become Prime Minister of Britian we could control the world."
Alliances: What happens? just look at switzerland, smack dab in the middle of both world wars and never invaded.
Irony: I was not meaning to be sarcastic, please forgive my lack of literary skill.
Again, haven't been on in a while, so I hope you'll get to read this.
I can't comment on "most wars," because the dictators, tyrants, psychotic maniacs, conquerors, and the like throw off the percentages. War is not some generic, singular beast. The goodness or badness of "war" is dependent upon particular situations and perspective. (The difference between a "just" war and an "unjust" war.) Of course an evil dictator will have a high probability of using war for evil purposes, but will a upstanding, free democracy have as high a probability? No.
If wars do not preserve freedom, but rather take it away, then logically, there wouldn't be any freedom left in the world.
Just look at America's past:
1. Did the Revolutionary War preserve (Americans') freedom--in fact, attain it--or take it away? Obviously, the former.
2. Did the Civil War preserve--attain-- (African-Americans') freedom--or take it away? Obviously, the former.
3. Did the World Wars protect the free world against those opposed to freedom--or not? Obviously, the former.
4. Did the first Gulf War defend the freedom of the people of Kuwait, or end it? Obviously, the former.
5. Did the War in Afghanistan establish the freedom of Afghanis, or eliminate it? At least theoretically--ignoring the tragedies and side-effects of war--it did the former.
6. And, the War in Iraq was--for all intentions--to free the Iraqi people and maintain the freedom and peace of mind for Americans, even if it is not going as planned.
As for neutrality, you use one example. I have another:
Pearl Harbor
And another:
9/11
We were not warring with either of these aggressors at the time they attacked us. We were invaded. We were attacked. Thousands lost their freedom--their lives--as a result.
Under the Mercy
I was just saying that we aren’t in there to keep them from killing each other, just to keep them from killing us. Unfortunately, it looks like that war will continue until either we give up and go home, or we go ahead and bomb Iran. So it looks like we’ll be here a while. And why does it still sound like I’m trying to convince you this war is right when I know that you know that it’s right? I guess I’m trying to say that we’re in there to save our own skin, not to play referee.
Illegal religions? There are many pagan religions that require human sacrifice, are they legal? No. Are animal sacrifices legal? (I don’t know either way on this second one.)
The Soviet Union probably would not have totally collapsed in the first year, but without our help look at what would have happened. They would probably have lost Moscow rather early. Now with their population centers captured and their industry in ruins, how much of a real fight could Russia put up? And for that matter, why would Germany need to pursue them any farther than the farthest strategic objectives (the oil fields)?
Who’s taking territory?
KA
For the polls, I was saying that if you know a certain group of people generally vote a certain way (which happens to be the opinion that you’re looking for), then you’ll conduct you’re poll among them in order to get the opinion that you want. Get my drift?
KA:
Revolutionary war: study it, (both sides). Chances are they would have let us go on their own, just like canada, australia, etc.
Civil War: Again, that war was not over freeing blacks, it was over states rights, both sides were blacks.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -Abe
World Wars: What country (or people) gained freedom because of these wars? Basically there were no changes before and after.
Concerning Pearl harbor, I would suggest an in depth study of it, again, both sides. You don't just randomally attack the greatest super power in the world while in the middle of a war.
Actually, by the international rules of war, they had a right to attack us as we were suppling the enemy.
Daniel:
1st ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They may have lost Moscow, then regained it once the nine months of winter set in, and even if they did hold it, the two biggest bad guys in the world would have been fighting each other, what more could we want?
Territory: Whenever you attack and win, you take territory
Revolutionary War: "Chances are"? So now we're talking about "chances are" would've happened had the war not taken place, rather than what--indeed--the war accomplished.
Civil War: "...that war was not over freeing blacks"? So now, we're talking about what the war "was over," instead of what the war--indeed--accomplished.
World Wars: So, I guess we should have all sat at home, sang kumbaya, and then the Axis forces would have done the same?
I said the World Wars PRESERVED freedom. Surely you can't deny this.
As for Pearl Harbor:
Maybe I should study it more, but I still think most would agree that we were unfairly attacked as we were not yet "in" the war in the official sense.
Besides, debunking that example doesn't solve 9/11, as well as other countries being unfairly besieged, whether it be Israel being painted into a corner, making concessions, while still being victimized by terrorist attacks, or whether it be some country in the past invaded for the sake of conquest.
My summary is this: Although wars can accomplish good--yet unintended--things, and although wars with good intentions can accomplish bad things, and although wars can accomplish things that could've been accomplished diplomatically, wars for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way, by the right country(-ies), to the right extent, against the right enemy, (though every single one of these elements don't necessarily have to be in place) are not only good (do not only produce good)--are not only necessary--but in the long run, as in the case with the War on Terror, are ultimately unavoidable.
Daniel:
I know what you are saying. What I was saying is that the way polls are worded can also be a type of rigging. For instance, compare these two examples:
1.) Do you want:
a.) The troops to come home as soon as possible.
b.) The troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
2.) Do you want:
a.) The troops to come home on a definite timetable.
b.) The troops to stay in Iraq until the job is finished.
Most people would vote "a" on the first one, and "b" on the second. So, what happens? The liberal media uses the former to support its anti-war agenda.
KA
Ok, I get you now. Yes, they use both methods.
Under the Mercy
And yet no sacrifices. This subject can get very loooong so I’ll let you have the last say on this subject.
The Red Army would be in ruins. Why would Germany care about them any more? They would set up a defensive line and forget about them. I do agree that if Germany and Russia had to slug it out would have been advantageous for us, but from what I have read, without our help Russia would have been steamrolled and we would probably be typing in German right now, if in fact we had the freedom to have this discussion. Sprechen Sie Deutch?
We haven’t taken any territory.
As to Pear Harbor, Japan was annexing large parts of China and massacring large numbers of civilians. We told them to stop; they said no, we slapped an oil embargo on them, which hurt them severely (Japan was almost completely dependent on foreign oil). They waited until they were in a position to annex most of the Pacific and then took out the majority of our Pacific Fleet. Hope this clears things up a little.
Ka:
Revoutionary & Civil War:
Your argument is that good things sometimes come out of bad motives, yes, but that does not give us the right in any way to do bad things expecting a good result.
As to what it accomplished in the way of blacks, virtually nothing, the averadge black was much worse off after the war then before, study it. both sides. Oh, and it also acomplished the death of 970,000 people.
Wars "for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way, by the right country(-ies), to the right extent, against the right enemy" virtually never happen.
Daniel:
They would have set up a defensive line and froze to death, Napolian also tried it and it just dosen't work. 5% of the world just can't take over and hold 55%. The winners right the history books, read the other side.
If you look to history, people are always massacuring other people, man is decadant. Power corrups.
In relation to pearl harbor you are exactly right. If we had wanted to, we could have stayed out of that war. It would have been just another of the endless series of wars.
Just one interesting fact, the japanese failed their main objective: to destroy our aircraft carriers. We in reality suffered little loss, Churchill was right when he described us as a caldraun that once lighted, could produce an infinate amount of heat.
"Your argument is that good things sometimes come out of bad motives, yes, but that does not give us the right in any way to do bad things expecting a good result."
No, it does not. However, though war is "bad" in one sense of the word, I do not believe that all decisions to declare war are "bad."
Your argument first was that good things DON'T come out of wars. The opposite of that was the point I was making.
"As to what it accomplished in the way of blacks, virtually nothing, the averadge black was much worse off after the war then before, study it. both sides. Oh, and it also acomplished the death of 970,000 people."
How about blacks' situation now? Yes, the Civil War was terrible and it is a dark blot on our country's page of history. We should've been able to resolve slavery as William Wilberforce did in England--peacefully. However, again my point was this: wars CAN preserve and attain freedom, and cause progress.
"Wars "for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way, by the right country(-ies), to the right extent, against the right enemy" virtually never happen."
Granted. However, with the intelligence our government had, the case could be made that the War in Iraq met most of that criteria. And, as I said, in this imperfect world we live in, I think only most of that criteria has to be met.
But, here's what I want to know: will you concede that if a war matches most or all of the above criteria, it can be a necessary and unavoidable thing?
Under the Mercy
The German’s would simply have built a defensive line that the Russians, without any of their major industry, population centers and oil wells, could not have pierced. Russia would have become a nation hardly worth noticing and not much of a threat. Germany would have invaded Asia Minor from the north, taking the British in Egypt from the rear and captured the oil wells in Saudi Arabia. From there they would have invaded India and met up with the Japanese forces. Now you have left England, Australia and the western hemisphere. England stands alone against the might of Germany. The second Battle of Britain would not have gone so well. Japan annexes Australia and now you have America vs. an unopposed Germany and Japan.
Man is corrupt, yes, I personally like the words ‘totally depraved.’
It may interest you to know that FDR and Churchill were either first or second cousins and were working together to get us into the war (if you are a conspiracy theorist like I am).
KA:
Concerning the civil war, the integration of the blacks would have happened even without the war, the war was over the interpritation of the constitution, again, federalist vs. anti-federalist.
Wars CAN preserve freedom, but most of the time they dont. Only about 20 of the 220 countries in the world today permit a decent amount of freedom.
In answer to your question, yes. What I am saying is that 99% of the wars countries get into do NOT meet the criteria.
Daniel:
Let me explain to you what I am getting at. Get a map in front of you and find Germany, color it red, now do the same for Japan, Italy, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungray, and Romania. Next find the British Empire (Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, etc.) Russia, France, China, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia, color all these green.
Now sit back and look at your map, does it seem probably that the axis powers could have won even WITHOUT America joining the war?
FDR:
Yes I happened to know that, I've read quite a few conspirisory theory books, a few for example claiming that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were engineered by our government. Their interesting, thought provoking, and a few make some really good points, but I have to remind myself to be careful again, to listen to BOTH sides, and multiple times.
Under the Mercy
I was just looking back I all I can say is that we (mainly me) have gotten waaay off topic.
Anyway, in answer to your question, yes I do. You have to look at the various nations’ economies’ and military strength. All this to say that I believe that WWII would have been lost without out involvement, and wars are sometimes necessary.
I agree.
Scratch the "mainly me" part, but yes, it does tend to happen. However, in essence, the topic of neturality has kept it's central place, though discussed through the lens of WWII etc.
No offence intended, but did you actually fill the map in? I will post a picture on my blog.
Under the Mercy
Not physically, but I enjoy that whole era of history and maps as well, so I was able to get a pretty good picture of what you were talking about. You have to remember to take into account the economies and military strength of the various nations involved. Germany and Japan were extremely strong militarily in the beginning of the war. Stalin had just finished killing off great numbers of his own people and had left huge holes in his army. France and England had neglected their armies and had fallen far behind the Axis technologically. As for the Poles and the Italians, I would consider them liabilities rather than assets.
I checked out your map and found an error. Remember that we were talking about no U.S. in the war. Right there you lose a lot of population, industrial production, and money. But you are right in one thing, if land mass would have determined the war, the Axis would have stood no chance.
Post a Comment