Bush Covering for an Invasion of Iraq?

I believe this website is connected to the Matt Maupin MIA situation.  Though not directly related.

His Mom & Dad live in Clermont County, Ohio about 2 counties east of me…the other side of Cincinnati, Ohio.

No time now will check it out later.

The same applies for non-VPs.

@Zooey72:

What happened that made Germany so strategic, the cold war. And you know that. It was also in our best intrest to have Germany rebuild its military to help with the Warsaw pact/Nato arms race

You think that was the reason why the US entered the war? AFAIK only Churchill was “wise” enough to look into the future and see this upcoming conflict. The US gov’t did not, thus it can not be the reason for invasion. (Remember that is what we are talking about)

You also know that democracy failed in Germany because of the stab in the back mentality of the German people.

I know, but you know that your point of the last post was "If the US had wanted democracy after WWI, you would have ‘gone in’ ". My answer was: there was no need for you to go in. I don’t argue what you wrote in this post, but this here does not really relate to your earier post.

3rd point. Have we destroyed Iraq the way we did Germany? Think before you knee jerk reaction of “yes” …

Think and remember this should not be a flame war, before you warn me of a knee jerk reaction, especially when you are not long enough a member here on the board to know that i often enough disapproved of this comparison. Germany was bleeded out by the war, Iraq was not. The German population suffered from a year long war, Iraq did not (they suffered from a year long trade-ban, but that is not the same than having bombs fall on your regularly).

Mien kamph… if you are going to study Nazi Germany you should read the autobiography of the man who ran it all. Some of the refrences I used was to show what a dumb a** Stalin was for thinking he could trust Hitler when the book clearly states that he was going to attack.

Like the “dumb” jews who stayed?
Anyway … the book was written in prison, before 1933. If you want to study the regime, then yes, it is interesting to compare what happened to what was proposed in the book. But, it is more important to study what really happened.

@F_alk:

Ohmmm……

what is ESL ? … and is it a compliment or insult to be compared to americans in that way ;)?

English as a Second Language
and your choice.

in circles?

[blackest sarcasm]
Well, probably, you don’t mind the sporadic terror attacks targeted against the US then either
[\blackest sarcasm]

Well, F_alk, you do bring up an interesting theory. :D

I don’t see a need to threaten shooting someone. That’s not my point. My point is not to threaten them, but simply to make it known that they person holding the gun to your head is not going to come out of the situation in one piece either. If that’s not a deterrent to attack, I don’t know what is. Think of it as “self-defense.”

In your last part, if you’re referring to Iraq, then that’s a different situation. That so-called “unarmed” person is not really unarmed. He’s simply hiding his weapon underneath his jacket. In that case, you can try to “talk” to him (which we did with Saddam) but if he won’t listen, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere, and show him who’s boss.

On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.

I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).

Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.

[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]