|
|
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a very smart move on our part), its pretty much a slam dunk: Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the European war would have become a straight fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had). Without US support it's likely that Britain would have been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany, though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and with his troops tied up in the east. You're all talking German. Did the populations of Eastern European countries all speak Russian between 1945 and 1989? So why would the populations of any European country (other than those that have always spoken German) have adopted German had they remained under German control? By 1944 the US production of munitions pretty well matched that of all the other parties to the war combined including Germany. Leave out Germany and we were marching up on doubling that of all the other allies combined. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and arrogant) There was more to it than ego - he was gagging for the oil. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message In article , Arny Krueger wrote: Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest aircraft carrier in the world, and stood behind it. A brilliant idea. That suggests money flowed from the US to the UK. Whilst this was true in the short term, the US made a *very* large profit out of anything supplied to the UK, when the final sums were done. The US also waited until well after the Battle of Britain before joining in. Makes sense to be on the winning side, I suppose. But were very sadly missing at the times of true peril. Like when there was a very real danger of the UK being invaded. The US had a serious problem with pacifism at the time. Have you read this: http://www.amazon.com/Torpedo-Juncti.../dp/0440210275 ?? |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that 'digital' has done him no real favours - especially when it comes to music. That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues. Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over the means for doing so. Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their iPods? The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to listen to. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the hardware for playing it back. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where the very best results were required. Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past a few playings. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any crap into some semblance of respectability? Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've always known. Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no idea about anything much. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message If Arny has experience of the *professional audio* world it shouldn't be to hard to list it. Keith if you weren't suffering from memory loss, you'd know better. I have no idea what 'professional' work you have done. (Unpaid, volunteer work doesn't count.) Its the quality of work that makes it professional, not the size of the cash renumeration. Ah, I see - you haven't been paid for *any* recording work then? |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Keith G" wrote in message
... "Arny Krueger" wrote Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and arrogant) There was more to it than ego - he was gagging for the oil. And "living space" for the "master race". David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that 'digital' has done him no real favours - especially when it comes to music. That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues. Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over the means for doing so. Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their iPods? Joe Oridinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium product. The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to listen to. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the hardware for playing it back. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where the very best results were required. Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past a few playings. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of them could care less about vinyl. Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any crap into some semblance of respectability? Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've always known. Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no idea about anything much. Well Keithe, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak proof. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message If Arny has experience of the *professional audio* world it shouldn't be to hard to list it. Keith if you weren't suffering from memory loss, you'd know better. I have no idea what 'professional' work you have done. (Unpaid, volunteer work doesn't count.) Its the quality of work that makes it professional, not the size of the cash renumeration. Ah, I see - you haven't been paid for *any* recording work then? I generally pay my property taxes with recording money. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a very smart move on our part), its pretty much a slam dunk: Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the European war would have become a straight fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had). History shows that Stalin had pretty well kicked Hitler's butt before D-Day. Stalin probably wouldn't have been able to roll across the border into Berlin as easily as he did without us applying unbearable pressure to Hitler's Western front. Without US support it's likely that Britain would have been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany, though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and with his troops tied up in the east. Kery words being "Troops being tied up in the east". You're all talking German. Did the populations of Eastern European countries all speak Russian between 1945 and 1989? Hitler and Stalin were 2 vastly different people. So why would the populations of any European country (other than those that have always spoken German) have adopted German had they remained under German control? Stalin was not nearly as much into the master race thing as Hitler was. By 1944 the US production of munitions pretty well matched that of all the other parties to the war combined including Germany. Leave out Germany and we were marching up on doubling that of all the other allies combined. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. The rules of engagement were completly different abnd very restrained. History shows that we still ended up bombing Vietnam into the stone age even though we never dropped nukes. That was probably an unintended consequence. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message In article , Arny Krueger wrote: Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest aircraft carrier in the world, and stood behind it. A brilliant idea. That suggests money flowed from the US to the UK. Whilst this was true in the short term, the US made a *very* large profit out of anything supplied to the UK, when the final sums were done. The US also waited until well after the Battle of Britain before joining in. Makes sense to be on the winning side, I suppose. But were very sadly missing at the times of true peril. Like when there was a very real danger of the UK being invaded. The US had a serious problem with pacifism at the time. Have you read this: http://www.amazon.com/Torpedo-Juncti.../dp/0440210275 I know the probable contents by other means. It seems arguable that this was covered up to appease the pacifists. It was a scandal that we let it go as far and long as we did. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that 'digital' has done him no real favours - especially when it comes to music. That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues. Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over the means for doing so. Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their iPods? Joe Oridinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium product. Kids own iPods in the UK. The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to listen to. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire Every 'hifi buff' gets a zing from using their kit to some extent - especially if it's kit they have built/fettled. The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the hardware for playing it back. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire Not 'shacked up'? Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where the very best results were required. Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past a few playings. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of them could care less about vinyl. Not all vinylphiles are audiophiles. Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any crap into some semblance of respectability? Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've always known. Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no idea about anything much. Well Keithe, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak proof. I don't think so - got any examples? |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a very smart move on our part), its pretty much a slam dunk: Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the European war would have become a straight fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had). History shows that Stalin had pretty well kicked Hitler's butt before D-Day. Indeed, which is why I argue that in a straight war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet union the Soviet Union would have won. Stalin probably wouldn't have been able to roll across the border into Berlin as easily as he did without us applying unbearable pressure to Hitler's Western front. Which is why I suggested that without Hitler having to fight on two fronts at the same time the war would have lasted longer and been even more bloody. Without US support it's likely that Britain would have been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany, though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and with his troops tied up in the east. Kery words being "Troops being tied up in the east". You're all talking German. Did the populations of Eastern European countries all speak Russian between 1945 and 1989? Hitler and Stalin were 2 vastly different people. True, so? So why would the populations of any European country (other than those that have always spoken German) have adopted German had they remained under German control? Stalin was not nearly as much into the master race thing as Hitler was. Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway speak German during the war? was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three. Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their language on unwilling subject people? What we actually had, both in the German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it, was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with a measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of using nuclear weapons. And the nuclear option was out of the question because of the reaction there would have been both from the US people and internationally. The Vietnam war did plenty of damage to America's international reputation as it was. The US could not afford the far more serious damage that using nukes against a country that was no threat to the US would have caused. The rules of engagement were completly different abnd very restrained. Very restrained? oh please! History shows that we still ended up bombing Vietnam into the stone age even though we never dropped nukes. And that's your idea of "very restrained" is it? That was probably an unintended consequence. Maybe, or maybe it was a war aim of the US government. The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in
message Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway speak German during the war? Irrelevant because the occupation governments were not Hitler's final solution. was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three. That's your answer. Cites? Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their language on unwilling subject people? Check out the Phillipines. http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/reso...y-profile.html "English is generally used for educational, governmental and commercial purposes and is widely understood since it is the medium of instruction in schools. The Philippines are the third largest group of English speaking people in the world, after the United States and the United Kingdom." What we actually had, both in the German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it, was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with a measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow. Agreed - but this was not Hitler's final solution. Mein Kampf describes total social re-engineering of the world. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? As it has been said: "Amateurs worry about strategy and professionals worry about logistics". Logistics in war is of course about the delivery of munitions and food, etc.. Remember Napolean's march to and from Russia? Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of using nuclear weapons. Yup, that's why there was almost a mutiny among US soldiers particularly pilots, over overly-restrictive and even idiotic "Rules of engagment". They were handed down at times, directly from the desk of the President - namely Lyndon Johnson. He was said to be in total control of detailed targeting much of the time that he was in office. From the Korean war we knew that if we beat up North Vietnam too badly we'd have a jillion chinese on our front steps down in Saigon. The same amount of bombs could have been delivered with far worse effects. This was proven later, from time to time during the Nixon years. I believe Henry Kissinger was the micro-manager in charge. But even under Nixon we mostly pulled our punches and held back our most agressive moves. China was still a threat. The troops were very constrained by top leadership both on the ground and in the air. It was very frustrating for the soldiers but it may have saved many of their lives. The U.S. has never enaged in anything like total war since WW2. Not using nukes serves our own purposes, because within a week, fallout from anyplace falls on us. We knew this because of the effects of Russia's nuclear tests on the US. Widespread use of nukes backfires pretty quickly and doesn't go away soon. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that 'digital' has done him no real favours - especially when it comes to music. That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues. Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over the means for doing so. Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their iPods? Joe Ordinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium product. Kids own iPods in the UK. Ditto in the US. However, the really cool kids play their music on their phones and tablets. The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to listen to. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire Every 'hifi buff' gets a zing from using their kit to some extent - especially if it's kit they have built/fettled. Irrelevant answer. Read the letters in response to this article: http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the hardware for playing it back. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire Not 'shacked up'? Typo, my apolgies. Whacked out. Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where the very best results were required. Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past a few playings. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of them could care less about vinyl. Not all vinylphiles are audiophiles. Irreelvant. Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any crap into some semblance of respectability? Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've always known. Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no idea about anything much. Well Keith, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak proof. I don't think so - got any examples? A number are already mentioned in this post. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that 'digital' has done him no real favours - especially when it comes to music. That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues. Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over the means for doing so. Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their iPods? Joe Ordinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium product. Kids own iPods in the UK. Ditto in the US. However, the really cool kids play their music on their phones and tablets. Ditto in the UK but less so atm - from what I can gather. The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to listen to. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire Every 'hifi buff' gets a zing from using their kit to some extent - especially if it's kit they have built/fettled. Irrelevant answer. Read the letters in response to this article: http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the hardware for playing it back. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire Not 'shacked up'? Typo, my apolgies. Whacked out. Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where the very best results were required. Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past a few playings. Not true for all 'audiophiles'.... Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of them could care less about vinyl. Not all vinylphiles are audiophiles. Irreelvant. Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any crap into some semblance of respectability? Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've always known. Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no idea about anything much. Well Keith, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak proof. I don't think so - got any examples? A number are already mentioned in this post. Irrelevant. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a very smart move on our part), its pretty much a slam dunk: Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the European war would have become a straight fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had). History shows that Stalin had pretty well kicked Hitler's butt before D-Day. Indeed, which is why I argue that in a straight war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet union the Soviet Union would have won. Stalin probably wouldn't have been able to roll across the border into Berlin as easily as he did without us applying unbearable pressure to Hitler's Western front. Which is why I suggested that without Hitler having to fight on two fronts at the same time the war would have lasted longer and been even more bloody. Without US support it's likely that Britain would have been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany, though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and with his troops tied up in the east. Kery words being "Troops being tied up in the east". You're all talking German. Did the populations of Eastern European countries all speak Russian between 1945 and 1989? Hitler and Stalin were 2 vastly different people. True, so? So why would the populations of any European country (other than those that have always spoken German) have adopted German had they remained under German control? Stalin was not nearly as much into the master race thing as Hitler was. Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway speak German during the war? was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three. Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their language on unwilling subject people? What we actually had, both in the German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it, was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with a measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of using nuclear weapons. And the nuclear option was out of the question because of the reaction there would have been both from the US people and internationally. The Vietnam war did plenty of damage to America's international reputation as it was. The US could not afford the far more serious damage that using nukes against a country that was no threat to the US would have caused. The rules of engagement were completly different abnd very restrained. Very restrained? oh please! History shows that we still ended up bombing Vietnam into the stone age even though we never dropped nukes. And that's your idea of "very restrained" is it? That was probably an unintended consequence. Maybe, or maybe it was a war aim of the US government. The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Country Joe And The Fish ended the Vietnam War.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Y0ekr-3So&feature=fvst :-) |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in
message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. Yes, isn't it? Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George". Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back. Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute monarchy had ended with the English Civil war. David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:48:47 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message m... "David Looser" wrote in message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. Yes, isn't it? Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George". Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back. Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute monarchy had ended with the English Civil war. David. And of course he has no right to claim "we" anyway. His state was not one of the thirteen colonies that broke away. d |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
On 24/02/2011 22:48, David Looser wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. Yes, isn't it? Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George". Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back. Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute monarchy had ended with the English Civil war. ITYM the Glorious Revolution. -- Eiron. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway speak German during the war? Irrelevant because the occupation governments were not Hitler's final solution. In the context of the Nazi regime the words "final solution" have a particular meaning, which I guess is not what you mean here. If you mean that the way occupied countries would have been administered after the war in a different way from the way that they actually were run during it, then all I can say is that I can see no reason to believe that to be the case. was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three. That's your answer. Cites? You want me to offer "Cites" to prove the non-existance of something? Streuth! Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their language on unwilling subject people? Check out the Phillipines. Yes, and India, large parts of Africa etc. not to mention Wales and Ireland. But that all takes a good deal of time. The English spent centuries trying to impose the English language on the Welsh, and never entirely succeded. What we actually had, both in the German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it, was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with a measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow. Agreed - but this was not Hitler's final solution. Mein Kampf describes total social re-engineering of the world. But doesn't describe everyone having to speak German. In any case Hitler made up policy on the hoof. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? As it has been said: "Amateurs worry about strategy and professionals worry about logistics". Logistics in war is of course about the delivery of munitions and food, etc.. Remember Napolean's march to and from Russia? Not personally, no. I hadn't been born then ;-) Actually, of course, professionals worry about both. Good logistics with poor strategy is just as disastrous as good strategy with poor logistics. Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of using nuclear weapons. Yup, that's why there was almost a mutiny among US soldiers particularly pilots, over overly-restrictive and even idiotic "Rules of engagment". I've noticed this face-saving myth seems popular in certain sections of American society, that the US only lost the war in Vietnam because it was fighting "with one hand tied behind it's back". Actually history does not support that view. Look at the vast amounts of ordinance used, the carpet bombing of large areas not only of Vietnam, but also Cambodia and Laos, the indiscriminate use of highly toxic chemicals such as Napalm and Agent Orange. What we actually see is a military, frustrated at being unable to defeat a supposedly inferior enemy, resorting to almost any tactic to try and "win". It's understandable that some US troops, trained to regard the Vietnamese as barely human, resented having any rules imposed on them at all. But it's also understandable that politicians, all too well aware of the devastating effect news of each new massacre was having on both domestic and international public opinion, wished to keep such massacres to a minimum. Since it was public opinion that eventually forced the US government to throw in the towel it's arguable that had those rules of engagement not been in place the US would have been forced to concede defeat sooner. Not using nukes serves our own purposes, because within a week, fallout from anyplace falls on us. And within a day the far more important fallout of international opinion would have made a little matter of radioactive fallout seem insignificant. Whether the US likes it or not (and it frequently gives the impression that it doesn't) it is, actually, just one nation amongst many on this planet, and does have to co-exist with the others. You claim to be a Christian, yet I haven't spotted a hint of regret on your part at the considerable death, destruction and suffering that the US inflicted on Vietnam. And before you accuse me again of "UK chauvinism" I'd mention that I am every bit as critical of much of British policy in acquiring and administering the "British Empire", as I am of US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era. David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
In article , Arny
Krueger wrote: "David Looser" wrote in message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. Governments and media tend to fall for their own PR and beliefs. Back then it was the 'Domino Theory'. More recently it was 'WMD'. The USA aren't the only ones to do this. When it comes to getting the public on board any old ******** will do... at least for a limited time until reality makes itself clear though the fog of PR and wishful thinking. You have 'The Big Country' and we have 'The Big Society'. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Eiron" wrote in message
... On 24/02/2011 22:48, David Looser wrote: Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute monarchy had ended with the English Civil war. ITYM the Glorious Revolution. No, I mean the civil war. It was that conflict which destroyed the concept of "the divine right of Kings" which underpinned absolute monarchy, and transferred some powers from the monarch to parliament. Though I grant that the events of 1688 confirmed and furthered that shift and institutionalised the relationship between the monarch and parliament. David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway speak German during the war? Irrelevant because the occupation governments were not Hitler's final solution. In the context of the Nazi regime the words "final solution" have a particular meaning, which I guess is not what you mean here. Right. If you mean that the way occupied countries would have been administered after the war in a different way from the way that they actually were run during it, then all I can say is that I can see no reason to believe that to be the case. You need to study the relevant documents, e.g. Mein Kampf. The occupation efforts during the war were very constrained for pretty obvious reasons. was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three. That's your answer. Cites? You want me to offer "Cites" to prove the non-existance of something? Streuth! Then your authority is just you. I can live with that. Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their language on unwilling subject people? Check out the Phillipines. Yes, and India, large parts of Africa etc. not to mention Wales and Ireland. But that all takes a good deal of time. The English spent centuries trying to impose the English language on the Welsh, and never entirely succeded. The US spent very little time and effort trying to bring the Phillipinos on board, and had great sucess. The target population and their history have a lot to do with it. Following up on the Spanish did not give us a tough act to follow. What we actually had, both in the German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it, was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with a measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow. Agreed - but this was not Hitler's final solution. Mein Kampf describes total social re-engineering of the world. But doesn't describe everyone having to speak German. Right, but that is clearly implied. In any case Hitler made up policy on the hoof. During the war, yes. We'll never know for sure what he would have done had he won the war. But the goal of establishing the "Thousand Year Reich" suggests something well-organized and pervasive. You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors in winning wars? As it has been said: "Amateurs worry about strategy and professionals worry about logistics". Logistics in war is of course about the delivery of munitions and food, etc.. Remember Napolean's march to and from Russia? Actually, of course, professionals worry about both. Good logistics with poor strategy is just as disastrous as good strategy with poor logistics. A well-planned Strategy is one of the first casualties of the fog of war. Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of using nuclear weapons. Yup, that's why there was almost a mutiny among US soldiers particularly pilots, over overly-restrictive and even idiotic "Rules of engagment". I've noticed this face-saving myth seems popular in certain sections of American society, that the US only lost the war in Vietnam because it was fighting "with one hand tied behind it's back". Two hands. We had to deal with the mess the French left behind. Actually history does not support that view. Look at the vast amounts of ordinance used, the carpet bombing of large areas not only of Vietnam, but also Cambodia and Laos, the indiscriminate use of highly toxic chemicals such as Napalm and Agent Orange. You can swim in Agent Orange and Napalm, as long as you don't light the Napalm. I wouldn't want to drink them but compared to nerve gas and blister agents they are pretty benign for tools of war. We came out of the Vietnam war with vast stocks of ordinance, some of which we worked off in Kuwait. We never ever gave Vietnam our all. What we actually see is a military, frustrated at being unable to defeat a supposedly inferior enemy, resorting to almost any tactic to try and "win". No, we did not use *any tactic*. It's understandable that some US troops, trained to regard the Vietnamese as barely human, resented having any rules imposed on them at all. You're speculating wildly. But it's also understandable that politicians, all too well aware of the devastating effect news of each new massacre was having on both domestic and international public opinion, wished to keep such massacres to a minimum. The fact is that massacres are not effective. Since it was public opinion that eventually forced the US government to throw in the towel it's arguable that had those rules of engagement not been in place the US would have been forced to concede defeat sooner. Thanks for admitting that due to poltical considerations we never were able to give the war our worst. Not using nukes serves our own purposes, because within a week, fallout from anyplace falls on us. And within a day the far more important fallout of international opinion would have made a little matter of radioactive fallout seem insignificant. Whether the US likes it or not (and it frequently gives the impression that it doesn't) it is, actually, just one nation amongst many on this planet, and does have to co-exist with the others. World opinion does not kill. Sticks and stones and all that. Fall out does kill. Worrying what happens tomorrow is not as compelling as worrying about what happens for the rest of your life, particularly when that means that you're dead in a month. You claim to be a Christian, yet I haven't spotted a hint of regret on your part at the considerable death, destruction and suffering that the US inflicted on Vietnam. It happened against my will. I sacrificed to not be a direct part of it. It clearly would have happened even if I burnt myself to death on the steps of the White House. And before you accuse me again of "UK chauvinism" I'd mention that I am every bit as critical of much of British policy in acquiring and administering the "British Empire", as I am of US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era. I'm not faulting that. I'm faulting the false idea that the US wasn't a deciding factor in WW2. Note: "a deciding factor", not "the deciding factor". We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening, but Europe had to go its own way. We worked hard to pick up the pieces when it was all done, and give them back to the Europeans. The Europeans did learn and did better. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Eiron" wrote in message ... On 24/02/2011 22:48, David Looser wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. Yes, isn't it? Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George". Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back. Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute monarchy had ended with the English Civil war. ITYM the Glorious Revolution. Why do your posts come out in such tiny lettering? What are the font settings - are they less than 11 pt. in 'Compose'? |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway speak German during the war? Irrelevant because the occupation governments were not Hitler's final solution. was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three. That's your answer. Cites? Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their language on unwilling subject people? That's odd: I thought that once Adolf Hitler was mentioned in a thread it ended? |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
On 25/02/2011 16:27, Keith G wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message ... On 24/02/2011 22:48, David Looser wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped. Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant named George by exactly that means. Yes, isn't it? Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George". Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back. Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute monarchy had ended with the English Civil war. ITYM the Glorious Revolution. Why do your posts come out in such tiny lettering? What are the font settings - are they less than 11 pt. in 'Compose'? No idea. As far as I can tell, my posts are in plain text. -- Eiron. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: And before you accuse me again of "UK chauvinism" I'd mention that I am every bit as critical of much of British policy in acquiring and administering the "British Empire", as I am of US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era. I'm not faulting that. I'm faulting the false idea that the US wasn't a deciding factor in WW2. Note: "a deciding factor", not "the deciding factor". We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening, but Europe had to go its own way. We worked hard to pick up the pieces when it was all done, and give them back to the Europeans. The Europeans did learn and did better. Sadly, the US seemed to learn little from WW2. Hence it sticking its nose into many many other countries business. And always out of only self interest. Just the same as in WW2. -- *You are stuck with your debt if you can't budge it* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Arny Krueger wrote: And before you accuse me again of "UK chauvinism" I'd mention that I am every bit as critical of much of British policy in acquiring and administering the "British Empire", as I am of US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era. I'm not faulting that. I'm faulting the false idea that the US wasn't a deciding factor in WW2. Note: "a deciding factor", not "the deciding factor". We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening, but Europe had to go its own way. We worked hard to pick up the pieces when it was all done, and give them back to the Europeans. The Europeans did learn and did better. Sadly, the US seemed to learn little from WW2. Hence it sticking its nose into many many other countries business. Sadly, so true of the UK also! What is it with Brit Prime Ministers that they have to go running round the world's hotspots yapping like we still do have an Empire behind us? I'd like to see a leader that could sort this country's ills out first! And always out of only self interest. Just the same as in WW2. Yep, prompted by the U-boat activities off their Eastern Seaboard and in-house Fifth Column activities, someone in the US smelled the coffee and realised it would be better to conduct an ultimately inevitable war on *our* front lawn rather than their own! |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Eiron" wrote in message ... On 25/02/2011 16:27, Keith G wrote: Why do your posts come out in such tiny lettering? What are the font settings - are they less than 11 pt. in 'Compose'? No idea. As far as I can tell, my posts are in plain text. But at what size? Does anybody else get your posts in tiny text I wonder? |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:18:04 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote: "Eiron" wrote in message ... On 25/02/2011 16:27, Keith G wrote: Why do your posts come out in such tiny lettering? What are the font settings - are they less than 11 pt. in 'Compose'? No idea. As far as I can tell, my posts are in plain text. But at what size? Does anybody else get your posts in tiny text I wonder? My newsreader sets its own text size and font. Or rather I have chosen them in a settings menu. As far as it is concerned every post is just plain ascii text with no extra parameters attached. Simpler is usually better. d |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message But doesn't describe everyone having to speak German. Right, but that is clearly implied. In any case Hitler made up policy on the hoof. During the war, yes. We'll never know for sure what he would have done had he won the war. But the goal of establishing the "Thousand Year Reich" suggests something well-organized and pervasive. As you say we'll never know. I've noticed this face-saving myth seems popular in certain sections of American society, that the US only lost the war in Vietnam because it was fighting "with one hand tied behind it's back". Two hands. We had to deal with the mess the French left behind. No you didn't! The US could (and should) have stayed well out of it. There was absolutely no reason for the US to go charging in when the French had very sensibly decided to withdraw. The phrase "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" comes to mind, it sums up the US decision to take over the colonial role of the French extremely well. In the end, of course, it was the poor old Vietnamese who had to sort out the mess when the Americans finally left. We came out of the Vietnam war with vast stocks of ordinance, some of which we worked off in Kuwait. We never ever gave Vietnam our all. Not in terms of US industrial production, no. But, with the exception of nuclear weapons, there was no war-fighting tactic or technology left untried. What we actually see is a military, frustrated at being unable to defeat a supposedly inferior enemy, resorting to almost any tactic to try and "win". No, we did not use *any tactic*. Near enough. It's understandable that some US troops, trained to regard the Vietnamese as barely human, resented having any rules imposed on them at all. You're speculating wildly. Am I? I don't think so. But it's also understandable that politicians, all too well aware of the devastating effect news of each new massacre was having on both domestic and international public opinion, wished to keep such massacres to a minimum. The fact is that massacres are not effective. True, which is why rules of engagement are instituted to try and stop them happening. But with the sort of conflict that the Vietnam war was, they happen. Since it was public opinion that eventually forced the US government to throw in the towel it's arguable that had those rules of engagement not been in place the US would have been forced to concede defeat sooner. Thanks for admitting that due to poltical considerations we never were able to give the war our worst. I don't know what you mean by "your worst". The US tried it's damndest to win that war, and failed. It didn't lose because it wasn't trying, it lost because it had the wrong troops and the wrong strategy. Not having rules of engagement would not have made a difference to the final outcome. Not using nukes serves our own purposes, because within a week, fallout from anyplace falls on us. And within a day the far more important fallout of international opinion would have made a little matter of radioactive fallout seem insignificant. Whether the US likes it or not (and it frequently gives the impression that it doesn't) it is, actually, just one nation amongst many on this planet, and does have to co-exist with the others. World opinion does not kill. If it resulted in military action being taken by another power? Sticks and stones and all that. Fall out does kill. Worrying what happens tomorrow is not as compelling as worrying about what happens for the rest of your life, particularly when that means that you're dead in a month. You claim to be a Christian, yet I haven't spotted a hint of regret on your part at the considerable death, destruction and suffering that the US inflicted on Vietnam. It happened against my will. I sacrificed to not be a direct part of it. It clearly would have happened even if I burnt myself to death on the steps of the White House. I'm not asking you to burn yourself to death. I was just hoping that you'd agree that the Vietnam war was as much the result of stupidity and arrogance as Hitler's invasion of Russia was. And before you accuse me again of "UK chauvinism" I'd mention that I am every bit as critical of much of British policy in acquiring and administering the "British Empire", as I am of US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era. I'm not faulting that. I'm faulting the false idea that the US wasn't a deciding factor in WW2. Note: "a deciding factor", not "the deciding factor". We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening, but Europe had to go its own way. We worked hard to pick up the pieces when it was all done, and give them back to the Europeans. The Europeans did learn and did better. When did I say that the US wasn't a deciding factor? Clearly the US was *the* deciding factor in the Pacific war, in Europe it was *a* deciding factor. All I challenged was the idea that, without US involvement, "we'd all be speaking German". Leaving aside the quaint idea that the inhabitants of Europe would have all started speaking German simply because Hitler wanted them to, I simply argued that, even without US involvement, the Soviet Union could, and would, (eventually) have defeated Germany. I'm not sure what you mean by "We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening". There were a lot of Nazi sympathisers in the US before the war, proportionately even more than there were in Britain, and the only American efforts to stop WW2 from happening that I know of came from them. And I regard your comment "The Europeans did learn and did better" as patronising. How long did it take the Americans to learn that they should never have gone to war in Vietnam? David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
Keith G said...
But at what size? Does anybody else get your posts in tiny text I wonder? Using Gravity everyone looks the same. I've just fired up Windows Mail and subscribed to the group and while most messages display correctly, Eiron's messages are displayed in a tiny font. Must be the way WM handles different character sets. -- Ken O'Meara http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/ |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message m... Keith G said... But at what size? Does anybody else get your posts in tiny text I wonder? Using Gravity everyone looks the same. I've just fired up Windows Mail and subscribed to the group and while most messages display correctly, Eiron's messages are displayed in a tiny font. Must be the way WM handles different character sets. OK Ken, thanks for that! It tells me I'm not the only one and it's not at my end! |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
In article ,
Keith G wrote: Why do your posts come out in such tiny lettering? What are the font settings - are they less than 11 pt. in 'Compose'? No idea. As far as I can tell, my posts are in plain text. But at what size? Does anybody else get your posts in tiny text I wonder? Posts to usenet don't include font size or indeed font details. -- *One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:23:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Keith G wrote: Why do your posts come out in such tiny lettering? What are the font settings - are they less than 11 pt. in 'Compose'? No idea. As far as I can tell, my posts are in plain text. But at what size? Does anybody else get your posts in tiny text I wonder? Posts to usenet don't include font size or indeed font details. They can, but in a text-only group such as this they should by rights get filtered out by the system. Unfortunately Usenet is no longer run properly and text groups are in effect part binary. d |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in
message No you didn't! The US could (and should) have stayed well out of it. There was absolutely no reason for the US to go charging in when the French had very sensibly decided to withdraw. The phrase "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" comes to mind, it sums up the US decision to take over the colonial role of the French extremely well. In the end, of course, it was the poor old Vietnamese who had to sort out the mess when the Americans finally left. I agree that the US should have handled Vietnam differently. For example, Ho Chi Minh had made overtures to the US, but we were too interested in remaining friends with the French to follow up on them. Note that we handled Egypt differently. We came out of the Vietnam war with vast stocks of ordinance, some of which we worked off in Kuwait. We never ever gave Vietnam our all. Not in terms of US industrial production, no. But, with the exception of nuclear weapons, there was no war-fighting tactic or technology left untried. I'm sure this is an error of omission on your part, but we had both chemical and biological weapons on hand that we never used in Vietnam. What we failed to do is give it our full-court press in terms of volume and strategy. What we actually see is a military, frustrated at being unable to defeat a supposedly inferior enemy, resorting to almost any tactic to try and "win". No, we did not use *any tactic*. Near enough. Not near enough to win! ;-) It's understandable that some US troops, trained to regard the Vietnamese as barely human, resented having any rules imposed on them at all. You're speculating wildly. Am I? I don't think so. I was trained to fight in Vietnam and knew many returnees. There was no such training. But it's also understandable that politicians, all too well aware of the devastating effect news of each new massacre was having on both domestic and international public opinion, wished to keep such massacres to a minimum. The fact is that massacres are not effective. True, which is why rules of engagement are instituted to try and stop them happening. But with the sort of conflict that the Vietnam war was, they happen. And did. But not so many. Since it was public opinion that eventually forced the US government to throw in the towel it's arguable that had those rules of engagement not been in place the US would have been forced to concede defeat sooner. Thanks for admitting that due to poltical considerations we never were able to give the war our worst. I don't know what you mean by "your worst". Now discussed above. The US tried it's damndest to win that war, and failed. Not our damndist. Not even near. It didn't lose because it wasn't trying, it lost because it had the wrong troops and the wrong strategy. The troops were at least adequate. It was the wrong strategy that ruined our effort, but more effective strategies were known to us. Not having rules of engagement would not have made a difference to the final outcome. That makes me believe that you don't understand how limiting rules of engagement can be and in this case, were. Not using nukes serves our own purposes, because within a week, fallout from anyplace falls on us. And within a day the far more important fallout of international opinion would have made a little matter of radioactive fallout seem insignificant. Whether the US likes it or not (and it frequently gives the impression that it doesn't) it is, actually, just one nation amongst many on this planet, and does have to co-exist with the others. World opinion does not kill. If it resulted in military action being taken by another power? Who is going to take the US over against our will? Sticks and stones and all that. Fall out does kill. Worrying what happens tomorrow is not as compelling as worrying about what happens for the rest of your life, particularly when that means that you're dead in a month. You claim to be a Christian, yet I haven't spotted a hint of regret on your part at the considerable death, destruction and suffering that the US inflicted on Vietnam. It happened against my will. I sacrificed to not be a direct part of it. It clearly would have happened even if I burnt myself to death on the steps of the White House. I'm not asking you to burn yourself to death. I was just hoping that you'd agree that the Vietnam war was as much the result of stupidity and arrogance as Hitler's invasion of Russia was. I think that in both cases the option to simply not go there existed, and both parties were foolish to not exercise that option. Its interesting to see that left to their own devices, the Vietnamese have become friendly enough with us. And before you accuse me again of "UK chauvinism" I'd mention that I am every bit as critical of much of British policy in acquiring and administering the "British Empire", as I am of US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era. I'm not faulting that. I'm faulting the false idea that the US wasn't a deciding factor in WW2. Note: "a deciding factor", not "the deciding factor". We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening, but Europe had to go its own way. We worked hard to pick up the pieces when it was all done, and give them back to the Europeans. The Europeans did learn and did better. When did I say that the US wasn't a deciding factor? If you never meant to give that impression then that is a good thing. Clearly the US was *the* deciding factor in the Pacific war, in Europe it was *a* deciding factor. All I challenged was the idea that, without US involvement, "we'd all be speaking German". Whether you'd be actually speaking German or speaking to Germans when ever you wanted to wipe you tooshies, not such a big difference in my book. Leaving aside the quaint idea that the inhabitants of Europe would have all started speaking German simply because Hitler wanted them to, I simply argued that, even without US involvement, the Soviet Union could, and would, (eventually) have defeated Germany. I don't think that the current collected undrstanding of of historians go that far. I'm not sure what you mean by "We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening". (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles "The United States took a more conciliatory view toward the issue of German reparations. Before the end of the war, President Woodrow Wilson, along with other American officials including Edward M. House, put forward his Fourteen Points, which he presented in a speech at the Paris Peace Conference. The United States also wished to continue trading with Germany, so in turn did not want to treat them too harshly for these economic reasons." (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_nations / There were a lot of Nazi sympathisers in the US before the war, proportionately even more than there were in Britain, and the only American efforts to stop WW2 from happening that I know of came from them. And I regard your comment "The Europeans did learn and did better" as patronising. How long did it take the Americans to learn that they should never have gone to war in Vietnam? Many in the US knew that well before the actual war began! Many more knew that in the middle of the war and by the end of the war just about everybody knew that. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message I agree that the US should have handled Vietnam differently. Indeed. The big mistake was to get involved with Vietnam at all. After WW2 the French thought they could just take their former colony back as if nothing had happened. Naturally the Vietnamese disagreed; they hadn't fought to expel the Japanese just to let the French back in and were quite prepared to continue their war of national liberation against any foreign power that thought otherwise. For example, Ho Chi Minh had made overtures to the US, but we were too interested in remaining friends with the French to follow up on them. Or: the US allowed it's cold-war paranoia about "communism" to determine it's foreign policy. Note that we handled Egypt differently. When did the US "handle" Egypt? I'm sure this is an error of omission on your part, but we had both chemical and biological weapons on hand that we never used in Vietnam. Well OK, but these weapons had never been used anywhere by the US, and rarely by any other nation as much because of real doubts about their utility and safety (to one's own troops) as because of ethical concerns. Mind you the use of chemical defoliants sounds a lot like chemical and/or biological warfare. Near enough. Not near enough to win! ;-) It's understandable that some US troops, trained to regard the Vietnamese as barely human, resented having any rules imposed on them at all. You're speculating wildly. Am I? I don't think so. I was trained to fight in Vietnam and knew many returnees. There was no such training. I didn't mean formal army training. But in any war the de-humanising of the enemy is part of the process of psychologically preparing ones troops to kill. Its certainly easier when there are racial and cultural differences, as in Vietnam. But even when these differences do not exist this dehumanising goes on. Look at some of the anti-German propaganda in British newspapers in the early months of WW1. But it's also understandable that politicians, all too well aware of the devastating effect news of each new massacre was having on both domestic and international public opinion, wished to keep such massacres to a minimum. The fact is that massacres are not effective. True, which is why rules of engagement are instituted to try and stop them happening. But with the sort of conflict that the Vietnam war was, they happen. And did. But not so many. Not so many as what? There are many well documented examples of atrocities committed by both sides during the Vietnam war. The US tried it's damndest to win that war, and failed. Not our damndist. Not even near. I find that a bizarre claim. The Vietnam war cost the US dear. All the deaths, the injuries and broken lives. The social disruption, the alienation of a generation, the loss of international repetition not to mention the huge financial cost. And you are telling me that the US paid that price, and then lost the war simply *because it didn't try*? Unbelievable! It didn't lose because it wasn't trying, it lost because it had the wrong troops and the wrong strategy. The troops were at least adequate. Most historians seem to agree that poor moral amongst US conscripts was a major factor in the US defeat. It was the wrong strategy that ruined our effort, And underestimating the enemy (always a mistake). Not having rules of engagement would not have made a difference to the final outcome. That makes me believe that you don't understand how limiting rules of engagement can be and in this case, were. So what were these limiting rules of engagement? World opinion does not kill. If it resulted in military action being taken by another power? Who is going to take the US over against our will? Military action doesn't have to be a take-over. A limited attack on US interests and US personel could still kill plenty. I think that in both cases the option to simply not go there existed, and both parties were foolish to not exercise that option. Its interesting to see that left to their own devices, the Vietnamese have become friendly enough with us. Indeed, demonstrating that the outcome feared by the US when the French withdrew was illusory. Leaving aside the quaint idea that the inhabitants of Europe would have all started speaking German simply because Hitler wanted them to, I simply argued that, even without US involvement, the Soviet Union could, and would, (eventually) have defeated Germany. I don't think that the current collected undrstanding of of historians go that far. I imagine that Russian historians might disagree. There has been an unfortunate tendency in the west to understate the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Hitler. The Soviet forces stopped the German advance at Stalingrad largely on their own, and then pushed the German forces back, again largely on their own. The Soviet union was vast, and could build huge armaments factories out of range of German bombers. Once geared up for total war the Red Army was a formidable fighting force and the Russians badly wanted revenge for the appalling way that German forces had behaved in Russia. Given also that, unlike Hitler, Stalin had the sense to leave strategy to his generals my money's on Stalin beating Hitler, rather than the other way about. Of course this can never be anything more than speculation. The other alternative history is that Hitler kept to his non-aggression pact with Stalin. In that case he could have consolidated a European Empire that ran from the Atlantic coast to Poland. Whether he would have felt it worth having another go at invading Britain or not there would have been little that Britain, without US help, could have done about Hitler's continental empire, especially with Fascist dictators in Italy and Spain as well. My guess is that Britain would have sued for peace and, whilst remaining outside of the German Empire, would have become marginalised on the world stage. I'm not sure what you mean by "We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening". (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles "The United States took a more conciliatory view toward the issue of German reparations. Before the end of the war, President Woodrow Wilson, along with other American officials including Edward M. House, put forward his Fourteen Points, which he presented in a speech at the Paris Peace Conference. The United States also wished to continue trading with Germany, so in turn did not want to treat them too harshly for these economic reasons." (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_nations Are you telling me that Wilson had a 20-year crystal ball and could thus forsee the rise of the Nazi party and Hitler's to the position of German Chancellor? *With hindsight* we can see that the harsh terms imposed on Germany at the treaty of Versailles contributed to the conditions that lead, eventually, to WW2. But to suggest that Wilson's "fouteen points" can be interpreted as "trying to keep WW2 from happening" seems to me to be a considerable misuse of historical hindsight. David. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
"David Looser" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message I agree that the US should have handled Vietnam differently. Indeed. The big mistake was to get involved with Vietnam at all. After WW2 the French thought they could just take their former colony back as if nothing had happened. Naturally the Vietnamese disagreed; they hadn't fought to expel the Japanese just to let the French back in and were quite prepared to continue their war of national liberation against any foreign power that thought otherwise. For example, Ho Chi Minh had made overtures to the US, but we were too interested in remaining friends with the French to follow up on them. Or: the US allowed it's cold-war paranoia about "communism" to determine it's foreign policy. Some of that, too. History says that we overestimated the Russians. Note that we handled Egypt differently. When did the US "handle" Egypt? The Suez crisis. We chose not to support the UK. I'm sure this is an error of omission on your part, but we had both chemical and biological weapons on hand that we never used in Vietnam. Well OK, but these weapons had never been used anywhere by the US, and rarely by any other nation as much because of real doubts about their utility and safety (to one's own troops) as because of ethical concerns. Agreed. Mind you the use of chemical defoliants sounds a lot like chemical and/or biological warfare. That is a really broad brush you're weilding there. The defoliants were mostly 2, 4D which is a household chemical in the US. Near enough. Not near enough to win! ;-) It's understandable that some US troops, trained to regard the Vietnamese as barely human, resented having any rules imposed on them at all. You're speculating wildly. Am I? I don't think so. I was trained to fight in Vietnam and knew many returnees. There was no such training. I didn't mean formal army training. But in any war the de-humanising of the enemy is part of the process of psychologically preparing ones troops to kill. Its certainly easier when there are racial and cultural differences, as in Vietnam. But even when these differences do not exist this dehumanising goes on. Look at some of the anti-German propaganda in British newspapers in the early months of WW1. That's not training. In fact its a training failure. But it's also understandable that politicians, all too well aware of the devastating effect news of each new massacre was having on both domestic and international public opinion, wished to keep such massacres to a minimum. The fact is that massacres are not effective. True, which is why rules of engagement are instituted to try and stop them happening. But with the sort of conflict that the Vietnam war was, they happen. And did. But not so many. Not so many as what? There are many well documented examples of atrocities committed by both sides during the Vietnam war. They were exceptional cases. Everybody makes mistakes. The US tried it's damndest to win that war, and failed. Not our damndist. Not even near. I find that a bizarre claim. You seem to prefer to underestimate the US. The Vietnam war cost the US dear. Not really all that bad. All the deaths, the injuries and broken lives. Vietnam 58,209 deaths Korea 53,686 deaths WW2 405,399 deaths WW1 116,516 deaths The social disruption, the alienation of a generation, the loss of international repetition not to mention the huge financial cost. The Vietnam war had hardly any actual impact on day-to-day life in the US other than TV news. And, the current wars may actually be causing more perceived loss. And you are telling me that the US paid that price, and then lost the war simply *because it didn't try*? Unbelievable! AFAIK, Britiain lost the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 for exactly that reason. Together, they cost Britain one of the most valuable colonies in the history of man. It didn't lose because it wasn't trying, it lost because it had the wrong troops and the wrong strategy. The troops were at least adequate. Most historians seem to agree that poor moral amongst US conscripts was a major factor in the US defeat. No, history says that the poor morale was in Washington DC and among civilians. It was the wrong strategy that ruined our effort, And underestimating the enemy (always a mistake). If you want to talk about paying a price, count their costs! Not having rules of engagement would not have made a difference to the final outcome. That makes me believe that you don't understand how limiting rules of engagement can be and in this case, were. So what were these limiting rules of engagement? That's a long story: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/AirOps/cas-roe.html World opinion does not kill. If it resulted in military action being taken by another power? Who is going to take the US over against our will? Military action doesn't have to be a take-over. A limited attack on US interests and US personel could still kill plenty. Vague. Nothing to respond to. I think that in both cases the option to simply not go there existed, and both parties were foolish to not exercise that option. Its interesting to see that left to their own devices, the Vietnamese have become friendly enough with us. Indeed, demonstrating that the outcome feared by the US when the French withdrew was illusory. I'm not disagreeing with that. It is possible that a perception of that fact is one reason why we stopped our devastation of Vietnam. Leaving aside the quaint idea that the inhabitants of Europe would have all started speaking German simply because Hitler wanted them to, I simply argued that, even without US involvement, the Soviet Union could, and would, (eventually) have defeated Germany. I don't think that the current collected undrstanding of of historians go that far. I imagine that Russian historians might disagree. Probably, but that is just them. ;-) There has been an unfortunate tendency in the west to understate the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Hitler. I don't know about that. The Soviet forces stopped the German advance at Stalingrad largely on their own, and then pushed the German forces back, again largely on their own. The Soviet union was vast, and could build huge armaments factories out of range of German bombers. Once geared up for total war the Red Army was a formidable fighting force and the Russians badly wanted revenge for the appalling way that German forces had behaved in Russia. Given also that, unlike Hitler, Stalin had the sense to leave strategy to his generals my money's on Stalin beating Hitler, rather than the other way about. You seem to forget that Stalin killed or jailed virtually every senior officer before the war started. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/AirOps/cas-roe.html "He eliminated all political enemies, including a revolutionary rival named Leonid Trotsky, *all high commanding officers in his army*, all foreign ministers that had left the country and returned, all religious leaders and priests, and an extra 40 random people every day." I'm not sure what you mean by "We tried hard to keep WW2 from happening". (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles "The United States took a more conciliatory view toward the issue of German reparations. Before the end of the war, President Woodrow Wilson, along with other American officials including Edward M. House, put forward his Fourteen Points, which he presented in a speech at the Paris Peace Conference. The United States also wished to continue trading with Germany, so in turn did not want to treat them too harshly for these economic reasons." (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_nations Are you telling me that Wilson had a 20-year crystal ball and could thus forsee the rise of the Nazi party and Hitler's to the position of German Chancellor? His crystal ball was probably too fuzzy for that level of detail. *With hindsight* we can see that the harsh terms imposed on Germany at the treaty of Versailles contributed to the conditions that lead, eventually, to WW2. But to suggest that Wilson's "fouteen points" can be interpreted as "trying to keep WW2 from happening" seems to me to be a considerable misuse of historical hindsight. You get to have whatever opinon you want. ;-) I don't think that anybody else tried harder to do the right thing than Wilson and the US. Certainly France and Britain were all to eager to do the wrong things. |
1 of 2 'unpostables!
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: "David Looser" wrote in Mind you the use of chemical defoliants sounds a lot like chemical and/or biological warfare. That is a really broad brush you're weilding there. The defoliants were mostly 2, 4D which is a household chemical in the US. That seems a very odd comment. Bleach is a common household product. But is also sometimes used by bank robbers to squirt into the eyes of people and make their robbery easier. Many simple 'everyday' chemicals can also be used for other purposes. e.g. the use of such to make large car-bombs for terrorist activity. As I think has been seen in the USA as well as elsewhere. So I'm not sure why one chemical being "houshold" for some purpose somehow means its use in a conflict for other reasons can be dismissed. The problem I think David was referring to was the deliberate use of 'chemical agents' for (declared) purposes of defoliating lare areas of land. Said chemicals then had all kinds of side-effects and damaging consequences. It would equally seem odd to me to dismiss dropping napalm on civilians because "people use similar gels like vasaline at home". The Vietnam war cost the US dear. Not really all that bad. All the deaths, the injuries and broken lives. Vietnam 58,209 deaths Korea 53,686 deaths WW2 405,399 deaths WW1 116,516 deaths It would be interesting to now compare those figures with the totals for the two WWs. And perhaps with the total deaths in the earlier two. There has been an unfortunate tendency in the west to understate the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Hitler. I don't know about that. Honest answer. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk