|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2005 : 00:15:36
|
Well maybe -- there have been a lot of blunders since the Christ was shitting his diaper and spitting up Mary's milk, but Iraq is a doozy by any scale of comparison.
quote:
Nowhere to run
After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush, asks Brian Whitaker
Tuesday November 29, 2005
There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".
To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.
He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers.
Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer.
Well, I suspect that Prof. van Creveld's works will soon disappear from the required reading list for aspiring, military officers.
It has been said that if you fail to heed history, you will surely be doomed to repeat it. With the Iraq obscenity, Bush is not only repeating history, but making it.
How the hell is he going to get us out of his folly? I don't know -- cutting and running is as repugnent to me as to anyone, but currently I see no other option. If we stay the present course, we will go from failure to a disaster from which we will not soon recover. Come to think of it, we'll be a long time recovering from the mere failure...
"Stupidity got us into this; why won't it get us out?" -- Will Rogers
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2005 : 00:37:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years
I think some fortituous errors made in delusional arrogance starting 60-some-odd years ago might be the only reason a lot of us are here at all (and very possibly the reason the rest of us aren't wearing swastikas now) so I think the professor might have a propensity for exaggeration. I certainly hope things aren't that grim.
I'm watching Nightline right now, and Ahmed Chalabi might be coming back onto the scene... no doubt he's a capable guy, and no doubt he'd be a Bush Administration darling and a big-time Capitalism advocate, but his history is so controversial (as is the way the Iraqi people see him) I don't know that he'd be a step in the right direction. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/01/2005 00:58:20 |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 01:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years
I think some fortituous errors made in delusional arrogance starting 60-some-odd years ago might be the only reason a lot of us are here at all (and very possibly the reason the rest of us aren't wearing swastikas now) so I think the professor might have a propensity for exaggeration. I certainly hope things aren't that grim.
Are you serious? Are you comparing the Iraq invasion to joining in a world war in progress where two military powers were on quests to take over country after country? [shakes head in utter disbelief] |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 02:40:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
... Are you serious? ...
Sixty-some odd years ago might mean the late 1930's, if my rithmetic' is right. We might well be thankful that Hitler was as egocentric and arrogant as he was- lest had he let his very capable generals make the calls and run the war, Germany might have polished-off the British, Hitler could have then done what he did best- blew alot of smoke- and eventually they could have trampled the Russians. Reading of the extent to which the Germans were technologically ahead of their time in the 30's is creepy. I have no doubt that given better leadership and timing WW2 would have at best been far bloodier, and at worst our military would right now be goose-stepping around with staight-arm salutes to atrocious teutonic marches. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 03:18:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
eventually they could have trampled the Russians.
Not without a Soviet implosion.
The Soviets did a lot of stupid things (removal of all competent leaders, did not allow retreats until the fall of Kiev etc.) and was still able to beat the Germans.
(With some help from weather and US supplies.)quote:
Reading of the extent to which the Germans were technologically ahead of their time in the 30's is creepy.
Soviet equipment was often better than the German. It was easier to manufacture and more suitable for the conditions.
The German forces had the advantage in leadership, training and experience. Their equipment might have been more technologically advanced, but that does not always make it better. quote:
...he [Hitler] let his very capable generals make the calls and run the war
This is not correct. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 04:14:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...he [Hitler] let his very capable generals make the calls and run the war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not correct.
You are not reading him in context...
What he is saying is that if Hitler had let his generals have full strategic control over the war, Germany would have been the winner.
While this is speculation, it isn't an unreasonable one. Germany had some very astute and extremely capable military leaders. Hitler made decisions that detracted from their ability to carry out their war.
And ronny is also not reading the professor's meaning in context. When he says this is the most foolish war of the last 2000 years, he means within the context of planning and the realistic probability of actually being successful. It was foolish to begin this war because the people in charge had/have no comprehension of the culture of the people they are invading, no comprehension of the force required to pacify the area they are invading, and so on and so on.
The war in Iraq could have been won, completely, a year ago if the US was willing to send 500,000+ troops and respond to all hostile acts against US troops with overwhelming force. Instead we let a significant portion of the loyalist troops escape, failed to secure the borders of the country thus letting thousands of foreign gorilla fighters in, we won't shoot at enemy troops when they are shooting at us from inside mosques, and so on and so on...
Calling this a foolish war is being to kind, imo.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 04:20:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You are not reading him in context...
Oops, I see that now. Thanks, Dude! Sorry about that, ronnywhite. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 04:56:50 [Permalink]
|
A WW-II timeline.
While there are certain parallels -- both are/were comtrol freaks who seem to be devoid of conscience, and both claim(ed) to have the ear of God -- Bush can't really be compared to Hitler, at least at the moment. His ambitions are as yet too small, although at least part of the reasons for the Iraq invasion are said to be the Iraqi oil reserves -- a lebensraum of sorts, if you will.
Unlike Bush, Hitler had everything to lose from the very beginning. The Treaty of Versailles clearly forbad him from rearming Germany, but rearm he did and invaded the Rhineland, and therein lies the mistake that led to the war. The Allies could have enforced the treaty and stopped him dead in his tracks right there, with scarcly a shot fired. He might have gone on to some other, nefarious scheme to increase Germany's power and real estate, along with the personal grandure so important to meglomaniacs, but that point has long been moot.
Bush, on the other hand, had nothing to lose when he took advantage of an all-too-real, terrorist attack on the homeland. A few rather Hiltleresque lies, and off we went to Iraq. And rather than going up against the military might of allied nations, he set himself upon a heavily-sanctioned nation run by a barbaric, tin-pot dictator whom everybody hated, anyway. How could he possibly lose?
We are seenig how he can lose. He is losing the confidence of his population, something that never happened to Hitler. Germany had only recently lost WW-I, and was bankrupt finanually and spiritually. Any strong leader showing promise relieve their conditions and to bring their country back into some prominance was beyond welcome.
In Iraq, our troops are met with a determined, underground resistance not unlike what the Germans faced in France -- 'Fritz' feared and hated the Maquis beyond anything short of the Russian Front and for good reason. This resistance has the support of much if not most, if not all of the the Iraqi population. Thus, like the Viet Cong, and the Maquis, they can hold out for as long as it takes.
There is also the political climate in Iraq to consider. There are factions holding genuine hatreds for other factions. I'm hearing fears that a civil war will break out if we leave. But I have thought for some time that the civil war began the day Saddam went into hiding.
I think that van Creveld is right.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 06:49:40 [Permalink]
|
I guess I didn't fully get the professor's drift... thanks Dude.
But the impaired effort of the Germans against Russia was largely due to Hitler's military and logistical idiocy, such as failing to understand the hardships of a Russian winter... and by failing to defeat the British before initiating further expansionism, he forced a desperate "come as you are" situation with Germany's production capabilities strained and advanced R&D programs under development cut back to a snails pace. His generals knew better, but the psychotic megalomaniac wouldn't hear of it.
Their best jet-powered aircraft... unleashed only when the war was essentially lost... were still superior to anything in the sky. Thanks to Hitler, there had been insufficient time and resources to adequately develope, mass-produce enough, and learn to exploit their capabilities to make a difference. Likewise for their missile programs, like the V2.
You know the "National Aerospace Plane" (ramjet-powered atmospheric-skip vehicle) that's come-and-gone in the news a few times in recent decades? They fund it, cancel it, partially fund it, start a new war and cancel it again (etc. etc.)? I read in Aviation and Aerospace Technology years back of a nazi scientist that had the theory behind it worked-out and planned in the 30's... seems even then they foresaw nuclear weapon development and the need to deliver one to us (hence, it was dubbed the "Amerika" bomber as New York City was the intended destination.) Part of the reason they never got that far was the above, the other part that the crazy bastard had run-off most of their nuclear scientists early on with his obsession to wipe out the Jews (what a wacko.)
I'll stick by my thought that in some ways, we were lucky the guy was such a lunatic. If he'd been less screwed-up, more calculated, and clever enough to play his cards right and listen to his advisors, almost certainly the Brits and most likely the Russians would have been dead meat and we might have been in big trouble, too. Stalin was so shocked when Hitler broke their anti-aggression pact that he disappeared for a week just to get his head together. Before that, Chamberlain must have been on an acid trip.
Denying and downplaying every capability of the nazis (or anybody else- particularly enemies) just because one dislikes them is stupid. I'd leave that game to the politicans. Sounds to me like maybe that's been the source of half our Middle East woes during the last few years, come to think of it. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 08:26:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Stalin was so shocked when Hitler broke their anti-aggression pact that he disappeared for a week just to get his head together.
Maybe he was busy reading a story about a goat?quote:
Their best jet-powered aircraft...
There were many interesting inventions and developments made in Germany, but none that could offset the Soviet (and also the US) production capability.
The big and ultimately decisive deficiencies of the third reich was lack of resources, manpower and production capability.
Most of the Soviet military production was immediately moved east, far from the reach of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe (which also lacked a good strategic bomber).
It took a while for the Soviets to get their act together, but once they did the Germans were fighting a losing battle.
The reason the nazis lost can be explained by these lines:
"Now and then a shell flew over.
For every shell Krupp fired
General Motors sent back four."
-- Lois Simpson, "A Bower of Roses"quote:
Denying and downplaying every capability of the nazis (or anybody else- particularly enemies) just because one dislikes them is stupid.
True, and the same goes for the Soviets.
The Soviet T-34 tank was superior to all german tanks on the battlefield until Tigers and Panthers tanks(based on the T-34) were available. Even then it was cheaper, more reliable and of course further developed.
"Very worrying"
-- Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
"We had nothing comparable"
-- Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world"
-- Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank adversely affected the morale of the German infantry"
-- General G. Blumentritt.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 08:50:19 [Permalink]
|
I feel the blunders by the Native Americans in their meetings with the Spanish were worse, considering they led to the total destruction of the civilizations. Which probably wont be said about the Iraq war.
The Germans were far more dangerous then you give them credit for, they could have easily won the war, but made many mistakes.
The supergun was luckily destroyed just before completion, this weapon could have put thousands of shells a day into London. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 10:48:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Denying and downplaying every capability of the nazis (or anybody else- particularly enemies) just because one dislikes them is stupid. I'd leave that game to the politicans. Sounds to me like maybe that's been the source of half our Middle East woes during the last few years, come to think of it.
I think history bears out the outright stupidity of the party politic when it gets hands on in scientific endeavors.
Hitler required that any prototype be ready for production within 6 months or the enitre team was broken up and sent to the front.
That's why the first German jet flight was in 1939 but the craft that came out of it wasn't ready until it was too late.
The configuration of the Stealth Fighter for the US was pitched to the Soviet government. The government said the thing would never fly and believed it so strongly, they allowed the scientists to publish their work for international comment. The US copied it and gave it to Lockheed Skunkworks. Whimsically, they kept the top page in the original Russian.
The capabilities were there, it's just sometimes the politicians interfered with their work. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 11:10:00 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, your comment about Ronny's post is as if he's comparing Bush to Hitler. I read it as comparing Saddam to Hitler because of the comments that we might have been wearing swastikas and jack boots has the US not joined in the war.
I can see that you were comparing blunders to blunders. In that case I have Ronny wrong and my above post makes no sense. Or you have Ronny wrong and whether or not you do, I have to say Hitler's blunders probably do top Bush's.
I await Ronny's clarification before responding to his response. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/01/2005 11:15:29 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 11:16:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
... Are you serious? ...
Sixty-some odd years ago might mean the late 1930's, if my rithmetic' is right. We might well be thankful that Hitler was as egocentric and arrogant as he was- lest had he let his very capable generals make the calls and run the war, Germany might have polished-off the British, Hitler could have then done what he did best- blew alot of smoke- and eventually they could have trampled the Russians. Reading of the extent to which the Germans were technologically ahead of their time in the 30's is creepy. I have no doubt that given better leadership and timing WW2 would have at best been far bloodier, and at worst our military would right now be goose-stepping around with staight-arm salutes to atrocious teutonic marches.
OK, now I get it. I totally mis-read your post. Sorry. That's why I was so shocked. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 12:54:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Filthy, your comment about Ronny's post is as if he's comparing Bush to Hitler. I read it as comparing Saddam to Hitler because of the comments that we might have been wearing swastikas and jack boots has the US not joined in the war.
I can see that you were comparing blunders to blunders. In that case I have Ronny wrong and my above post makes no sense. Or you have Ronny wrong and whether or not you do, I have to say Hitler's blunders probably do top Bush's.
I await Ronny's clarification before responding to his response.
Actually, I do not equate Bush with Hitler. Those comments have been made ever since Bush took office by the more rabid of the left wing, but apart noting a few parallels, I haven't indulged in them. Hitler actually had a little talent -- maybe I shouldn't have said that..... 
Saddam as well, cannot be compared to Hitler. Saddam was/is a cheap if murderous thug with little imagination beyond his own, personal flat rock. He could think no farther than Iran, and the war in Kuwait put paid to any ambitions beyond his personal survival and well being. The best he could come up afterward with was cheering on the Palistinian bombers in Israel. Pathetic, as despots go.
I find Hitler fascinating -- my father served in Europe, in WW-II, is perhaps why, and I remember the victory celebretions (I also had an uncle at Bataan). Looking at history, every so often a truly incredable madman comes along, and Hitler was one of these. His rise to power from being a virtual street tramp in Austria shows a determination and ambition that exceeds anything in shown in modern times.
Bush, Saddam, et al, just ain't in the class when it comes to despotism, whatever their wishful dreams. As has been stated, we need to be damned glad that he was indeed too insane not to grab beyond his reach.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 13:29:06 [Permalink]
|
Equating Bush to Hitler is normal, everything negative gets equated to Nazis/Hitler because they are the gold standard of bad. It doesnt mean that whatever is being equated is supposed to be exactly like Hitler/Nazis in every way, just one particular thing usually.
That said Bush is like Hitler IMO. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
