Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Morgoth]

...oh and they were allied with USA/GB/France as well. Funny that nobody there realized that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler. And how is it that Russians today still think Stalin is one of the greates figures?

Gimme break. I agree that the USA helped accelerating Germany's defeat, but even without outside pressure people sooner or later would have rejected the Nazis. Even the Wehrmacht soldiers would sooner or later have turned their backs against that madman, just like they did with Kaiser Willy after it's WW1 defeat.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Morgoth

[Gorgon]

While all of this is happening, both sides are working on a nuclear bomb. Germany had to scale down their attempt and could never muster anything close to the Manhattan project. There's another 'what if' for you. What if Germany had been able to allocate those resources.

[Morgoth]

Again, Hitler was mad. So of course he'd have used the A-Bomb. But that doesn't mean his folks would have agreed with that. Perhaps there'd have been a successful assassination attempt before he could have done that. Maybe not.

 

Would the USA have used the A-Bomb twice again if it could revert time back? After all, they deserted Dresden and other major cities, perhaps they would have used the A-Bomb against Germany as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

...oh and they were allied with USA/GB/France as well. Funny that nobody there realized that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler. And how is it that Russians today still think Stalin is one of the greates figures?

Gimme break. I agree that the USA helped accelerating Germany's defeat, but even without outside pressure people sooner or later would have rejected the Nazis. Even the Wehrmacht soldiers would sooner or later have turned their backs against that madman, just like they did with Kaiser Willy after it's WW1 defeat.

I question your assumption that most Russians admire Stalin, and those who do most likely didn't live under his rule. It's not like there are no people who still admire hitler. I don't think you have any evidence that nazi Germany would've been any less stable than the Soviet Union, if it won WW2. In fact all the evidence points to the contrary, as well as Stalin being far more mentally ill than hitler, I'm not even aware of any real evidence that hitler was insane. Edited December 29, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Morgoth]

"It's not like there are no people who still admire hitler"

 

You get arrested for openly admiring Hitler. But that's probably not in every country the case....

 

"I question your assumption that most Russians admire Stalin, and those who do most likely didn't live under his rule."

 

Russians vote Stalin for 3rd greatest Russian figure.

 

"I don't think you have any evidence that nazi Germany would've been any less stable than the Soviet Union, if it won WW2."

 

Hitler actually never intended a World War, he just wanted former German areas (today Poland) back, so he invaded Poland. Britain responded by decalring war, and dragged the rest of the world with it.

So, my assumption is that if Hitler would have won the war, he'd have just rebuild his Third Reich and lead it, without world domination ambitions. That's why I find it hilarious that people think they'd all speak German if Hitler have won. Hitler wanted his deutschen Lebensraum, not the entire world

[Wrath of Dagon]

So why did hitler invade Russia then? They had an alliance with Germany to split Poland. As far as Stalin's popularity, he did come in third, after a liberal reformer, and the article mentions the current government's attempts to rehabilitate him and the credit he gets for winning WW2. Also the greatest doesn't mean the most beloved, only the one who did the most, like Herod the Great. Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great were some other great tyrants. Anyway, that's all besides the point, you still haven't offered any evidence that nazi Germany was any less stable than the Soviet Union.

[Morgoth]

Well, there were assassination attempts. There were resistance groups who collaborated with the Brits and Americans by sharing keys for important codes. Fabric workers started to hijack productions (i.e. disabling handgranates), Officers of former Austria and elsewhere started openly questioning the methods Nazis use and assisted work with the resistance instead then there was a huge starvation everywhere and "rumours" that Jews and other rebellious elements didn't actually get sent into some re-education schools, but were murdered in KZs instead. All in all, people started to look through to the real nature of the Nazis (not that people already knew there was something foul before, but this time they actually started talking and questioning it), and so on. On top of that, hundret thousands soldiers got killed for what? Not for the better good of Nazi Germany, but for a regime of madman that were Alien to the German and Austrian people. The Nazis didn't care about their people, they were mad, they were Alien. It only lastet a few years because of paranoia and fear induced into society, but you can't keep up a stable country for that very long. No 70+ years for certain.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The fact is there was very little internal resistance, and most of it came when Germany was already losing badly. And it's not like hitler didn't have methods to deal with the opposition. Back on topic, the Iraqi Baath party was organized along the lines and in the image of the nazis, and it stayed in power pretty successfully in spite of huge amount of opposition and military losses.

[Walsingham]

"Yeah that all sounds good, in reality it's hard to remember that many times where American intervention left people better off than they were before. Plenty of examples to the contrary."

 

O RLY?

 

Kuwait, Japan, most if not all of Europe, and South Korea are just some examples.

 

Chile, Guatemala, Mexico, and many Central and South American countries are good examples of US interference that has turned very poorly if not made the lives of the people living there far worse than before.

 

I'd say that those countries are perfect examples of what bollocks the 'arms length' ideology is. You can't dabble in countries and expect it to work out. The successful examples Volo gave are ones where the USA went in with both feet, rather than sending five CIA agents, and an arthritic prostitute.

[Gorgon]

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Japan and East Germany turned into economic powerhouses after the war, but I don't think that can be attributed to military intervention.

 

Also, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, yeah, what a true gift from a self sacrificing nation.

[Gorgon]

West.

 

 

West Germany.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, without military intervention it would be East Germany.

 

Edit: I think a quote from Ralph Peters is in order here

Certainly, we Americans are not without our flaws. We have, at times, been mortally foolish. But it is only thanks to us that even a small part of the world may live peacefully and decently today. There has never been a victor more benevolent, nor an ally so generous. Our errors were committed with the best of intentions, and our sacrifices redeemed the grimmest century in the history of mankind.

That was written in 1991. Edited December 30, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Tigranes]

WoD, you continue to implicitly and very completely associate the American citizen with the tendrils of government policy. Are you saying that the good America has done was carried out under your direction, that you had a say in it, that you even know about all of it, and that you are, in fact, responsible for it? Because if so, then the American citizen carries the burden for all the crap the US has done over the years, as well.

 

Someone brings up the Iraq War and inevitably somebody will say, "you can't use that to generalise about the attitude and benevolence of the average American". Which sounds reasonable to me. But then you seem to be happy enough to take the credit for all the good the US has done in the world (of which there is a lot). So which is it? You can't puff up in national pride and quote something that essentially says "We are such nice people, we are the man, and anything that we screw up wasn't on purpose so it's all okay" unless you're also willing to say that the American citizen also needs to take the burden and feel responsible about the more negative impacts of US intervention over the years.

 

I mean, for instance, I stated from the very start that in my opinion, there's been a lot of good done by the Americans since WW2, and if faced with a choice of zero US intervention or the current situation, I'd take the latter. That doesn't mean you can be blind to what doesn't go quite as well - when you're involved in as many things as the US is you're bound to have failures and mishaps. The Ralph Peters quote may be appropriate when faced against an overwhelmingly negative "GO AWAY" view of US hegemony, but I don't see anybody espousing that here. Maybe we're a bit too liberal on these boards, but still.

[Gorgon]

There could be worse dominant superpowers to be had, no doubt, but you have to understand that that position automatically attracts criticism. As well it should.

[Tigranes]

Absolutely, on all accounts. You can never be the perfect hegemon, but that's no reason to pretend the failings don't exist.

[Walsingham]

Tigs is being fair. You can't have it both ways by the same rules.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If there is to be intervention the first rule needs to be is "do no harm." The US has failed to apply this rule over and over again since WW2 since the forming of Israel, and not just the Middle East but in other countries as well.

[Walsingham]

If there is to be intervention the first rule needs to be is "do no harm." The US has failed to apply this rule over and over again since WW2 since the forming of Israel, and not just the Middle East but in other countries as well.

 

You can't change anything without harming SOMEONE.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You can't change anything without harming SOMEONE.

 

True, but you can make sure those who are getting harm deserves it. For example after WW2 it would have been a better punishment for Germany, Italy, and their allies to lose land and form the Jewish state there instead of the Middle East, taking land from the Arabs who have long since claimed that territory for centuries and did nothing in WW2 to deserve the land stolen from them.

[Tigranes]

True, but you can make sure those who are getting harm deserves it.

 

Some would say that such a judgment call should never be the US's to make (though many people are retroactively making that call about Saddam Hussein these days). But then, realistically, if you don't make the judgment call as a hegemon, who will?

 

Killian, maybe, but I imagine that would have resulted in a massive disaster... and wouldn't have lasted long, either. It was going to be a problem wherever you put the Jews.

[Walsingham]

You can't change anything without harming SOMEONE.

 

True, but you can make sure those who are getting harm deserves it. For example after WW2 it would have been a better punishment for Germany, Italy, and their allies to lose land and form the Jewish state there instead of the Middle East, taking land from the Arabs who have long since claimed that territory for centuries and did nothing in WW2 to deserve the land stolen from them.

 

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Treaty of Versailles. The 'just punishment' of the losers of WW1, and the cause in many ways of WW2.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Treaty of Versailles. The 'just punishment' of the losers of WW1, and the cause in many ways of WW2.

 

True enough.

Screwed if we do. Screwed if we don't. And it isn't that fun screwing that the kids like to do nowadays either.

[Walsingham]

No. Screwed if you don't. Potentially screwed if you do. It depends how badly you make the play. For the love of all that's sane and reasonable, man! How do you think the US got so bloody big and powerful? By sitting at home with the lights off?

[Killian Kalthorne]

But is it a good thing that the US is so powerful?