Posts made by CommissarYarric

You forget, taking territory COST men not gives them more supplies… If they conquered Russia and Britain they would have had to put men back and look at what the US could have mustered

Yes they would have to put men their, but not nearly as much as thye did fighting them. They certainly would not have needed two third of their army to suppress Russia. The russians, while patriotic, were not communists, and the partisan resistance would have been minimal IF Hitler did not persecute the slavs. Thats a big if, but somehting he could have changed. Also, i never said occupy Britian, i said beat them. Hitler’s “world order” called for peace with Britian. Many people in britian wanted to end the war and make peace, if the Luftwaffe had been more successful, then they mght have.

you think that if UK was invaded we wouldn’t have declared war which is not true… We and Britain are too close… And in Summer '41 all American Shipping and Aircraft had the right to sink any German vessel west of Iceland… They would have sunk a majority of the shipping and the US Democratic way of defense I think would have come into affect … Plus All are Tank Factories were in the great lakes! long march… And you think that the US is a weakling with no money or spirit!!! gemeneez, like maybe they should get 10 IPC’s in AaA

Um… i was talking about a situation where America WAS at war with Germany, so i know they would have declared war. As ive said, Germany would not invade America, It would just defend, so the location of the factories is irrelevant. At the time, the US had no spirit for the war with Gemrnay, thats why we needed to be attacked to trigger it, IF the war was goign badly, we would have eventually made peace. America was very isolationist back in the 40’s.

Stalin was prepared for a long, bloody fight

Hehehehe…he was far from prepared for ANY fight. He proposed a peace treaty to the Germans in the opening months of the 1941 invasion, after the fall of kiev and minsk, and constantly tried to negotiate throughout 1941. He almost fled Russia, and was so paranoid that hsi staff would betray him he locked himself in his bunker for days, without letting anyone in. He wanted peace, very badly.

Considering the difficulties that the Germans had in approaching Moscow, can you imagine any way it could have been possible to make it to beyond the Urals with losing vast quantities of manpower just to hold the territories from partisan uprising? Most of the German advance was gained by their catching Russia off guard. Yes, had Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad been taken the USSR would have been less able to fight but still that isn’t victory for Germany.

Well, first, if the invasion of MOscow had worked, then alot of those factories would not have made it to the urals, but their is a bigger point. If Germany had taken Moscow, their would have been no government to administer those factories. The soviet Administration would have collapsed, and since Hitler had acheived his objectives of reaching the Urals, he would have made peace with whatever rose up in Siberia. As for Partisians, initally the Ukranians, belorussians, and even the Russians, welcomed Nazi rule. Their was alot of Anti-semitism in Russia, so they were eager to assist the holocaust, and the SOviet government had cuased so much damage and death that any capitalist system was welcome. Only once Hitler started terrorizing the slavs did resistance occur. This is also partly why the govenrment would have collapsed, since the Russian people would not support it.

Likewise, Churchill was no less determined. The German Navy could have no hope of either invading or starving Britian as the British navy was too dominant. Only if the ME262 was available IN LARGE NUMBERS in 1940 could air superiority been maintained such that an invasion would have been possible (but I think still very unlikely to succeed), but this aircraft was never available is sufficient quantities. And then what to do if GB continues the fight from Canada?

First, an invasion of England could have been possible in a couple months after the fall of France (like 6) if the Germans built enough transports. The british navy was hardly dominant, lacking aricraft carriers and anti-air defense, so it could be paralyzed by air power during an invasion. If the ME262 is the jet fighter, which i think it is, those would not ahve been necesary at all. The earlier ME series planes could have paralyzed the RAF, and almost did, but then Hitler decided to swicth to the bombing of London. If Hitler had also coordinated both his intellgence and ariforce more effectively (His intelligence divisions were speareted into six different groups, who did not coordinate at all, leading to some very confusing reports) It could have been possible. As you said, Churchill would nto surrender, but once Churchill is gone, then that would change. Cause enough damage, make him unpopular, then have hm removed by either assisnation, revolt, or invasion.
could say more, but i dont have time. To clarify, i dont think Hitler could have lasted 1000 years, but I do think he could have temporarily defeated the Allies before his government fell apart. I apologize for any spelling mistakes.

But to invade would have cost a huge amount of oil in shipping…

Well, if they had beaten Russia and England, then thye would have had the oil of both the Casucases and the Middle East (they briefly occupied Syria) so oil would no longer be a problem/ however, thye woudl not have to invade the US. Thye would lose, it would be pointless, becuase if Europe was conquered, America could not beat Germany. It would be a stalemate, and we would eventually make peace becuase we are a democracy, and the poeple woudl eventually be fed up with having only Californian wine 8) .

its like yamamoto said, “i fear that i have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” he knew we couldnt be beaten.

yes, but that does not mean it could beat Japan. Their are two types of losing: failing to acheive your objective, and being invaded and forced to make peace. We would never have been invaded, but we may never have been able to invade the japanese empire either. Even after Midway, the Japanese had several opportunities to set us back huge. For example, after the battle of Savo island (guadacanal), in which the task force under Admiral Mikawa perfomred a night raid on the American destoyers and crusiers in the area, destroying several ships and killing 1000 men, the transports (the only ones in the pacific) were completely exposed. If Mikawa had destroyed them, the marines on Henderson’s field would have been stranded, and quickly overwhelmed. That would have completely destoyed any possibility of making an offensive for several months. Other battles, such as midway itself, other battles during the Gudacanal campaign, and even a couple after (Imphal, etc.) could have prevented a Japanese defeat.

and to add to that Marine would they have been able to beat oure production?

They wouldnt have to. Once Britian and Russia were conquered, how would we assemble, supply, and deploy a force large enought to penetrae the continent? With the Atlantic Wall fully manned, and ample Luftwaffe cover, “Fortress Europe” would become a reality. America is valuble only so much as it’s allies survive.
Also, our production gap was not as large as you might think. We outproduced Germany by so much becuase Hitler put a ton of resources into his little “projects”, like the V-2 Rocket, which consumed producion of about 24,000 planes, and an artillery piece that could shoot across the English Channel (bombed en route to Belgium). Fully devoted, The German war machine could produce enough to hold off the Americans. Besides, Germany never lacked tanks or planes so much as they lacked oil or personnel.
You also forget one thing: America is a democracy. We were attacked by Japan, not Germany. The newspapers always showed hatred for the Japanese, not the Germans. If the war was going really badly, and did not have much hope of winning, the people would eventually elect someone to get them out of the war.

Hitler would not be able to set foot in N. America (He was already allied with Argentina. No declaration of war was made by Argentina, kinda like Franco) but as long as America could not defeat Germany, he wouldn’t need to.

So, you are angry at many of your fellow countrymen?

Yes, and for more reasons than French Hating.

For the second point: it is not the rogues fault, it is the occupational forces job.

This is more sematical, i guess, but it is the rouge’s fault becuase they are doing it. They are the ones to blame. We can be critized for having poor security, maybe we should be critized, but is not our “fault”. The ones to blame are the rogues. We can be blamed for not solving the problem, or letting it happen, but not the problem itself.

Trying as hard as i can, i can’t follow this logic. The point probably is that i do not see why only USie companies can work withour a prior infrastructure …. or do they have more experience at that?

Its not that we are working without an infastructure, we are buidling one. no iraq organization has the resources to repair the wells, take over the management and guard the pipelines and such. Hell, we cant even guard the pipelines effectively, but i doubt the Iraqi’s have a stronger security force to guard it. It would be a mess if it werent for our control over it. American companies are using their infasture and resources to build a new one, and thenw e are going to give it over to the Iraqi’s.

The relevance comes from the situation after the war. Only after the war it matters which companies you let in, and only after the war it matters wheter you do your job as occupational force well. It seems that more emphasize is put on the oil and then on the people (as it was done during the war already, with the Brits near Basra).

Well, yes, if you want to talk about in that context, then it is relevant. I thought it was brought up in the section about justifying the war, and in that context it was not relevant. First, though, i disagree that more attention is being payed to the oil than to the people. We are pouring lots of money into development unrelated to Oil, such as education and social services. Only a relatively comparitivelyamount of money if being placed into oil development, when compared to security costs and other combied infastruture totals. Second, paying attention to the oil IS paying attention to the people. Oil is the life blood of the Iraqi economy, their oil industry has to be developed for them to survive. We certainly are not exploiting them for oil, as our oil prices have gone up since the war began, not down, and any profits form oil have not matched the security and reconstruction costs. We cant ignore other aspects in favour of it, and we arent, but paying attention to it is important.

Just burning resources is no good plan (look at eastern germany for example). What you need is a proper plan in advance. You didn’t have that, and it doesn’t seem that you have a lot of plan now.

Yes, but a proper plan needs resources. For example, rbinging back the old Iraqii armies and training large amounts of Iraqi’s to be police costs alot of money, so taking away some of our sources of income would be counterproductive. We are doing those things right now, and we are short of money anyway. If anything, we need to “exploit” the iraqis mroe in order to ensure thier saftey.

We were talking of the infrastructure, especially the one you need to sell oil (that is more taken from the direction the argument evolved).

If you want specifically the oil industry, that is becuase Sadaam destoyed them as we invaded, like he did in the gulf war. Terrorist attacks have further complicated the problem. Like I have said before, though, not a whole ton of money is being put into rebuilding the oil industry, we are putting alot of moeny in rebuilding the education system, water system, electricty system, roads, housing, etc. Alot fo money is going to oil, btu alot is going to other places as well.

Does it matter wether it is intentionally? And for some of those: I think i just read the news that Rumsfeld actually gave an order to emply the torture (an order that was later withdrawn by GWB).
A crime stays a crime regardless of your inentions. You might get “parole” if the purposes were “nice”, but still you commited a crime.

Yes, but it greatly affects who and what you punish. If individuals violate those on their own initaitive, then you punish individuals. If a whole government has a set policy to violate those rights, and does so at every level, then the whole government needs to be punished and removed to ensure the saftey of it’s citizens. Often, the only way to do this is war.
As in your example, that is pending investigation, and if it is revealed that our president authorized such acts, then he should be removed. but we will remove him, as our govenrment calls such acts illegeal. We will do our best to ensure that those crimes dont happen again. Sadaam would have done the opposite.

Those he hurt are not the international tribunal that is required and was brought by you as a reason to go in. And i am not sure that the UN has not expressed that they want him .
Or, with WMD-logic: Of course they said they wanted him. Prove me wrong !

What i was trying to show was that genocide was a crime that should be punished, whether or not the international tribuanl tried him was not really pertinent. However, ill concede the point, since punishment attempts have to be conducted under UN approval. I guess technically, it could be considered “illegal”, but i still stand by my arguement that a war against nations like Rwanda and Indonesia would have been “illegal” too. We are removing a mass murderer who invaded other nations, sponsered terrorism, shot at our planes, and abused the UN’s “oil for food” program. I guess I just think vigilante justice is acceptable in certain circumstances.

Oh, in case you wanted to know, a trial for genocide can be held by either an international tribunal or the nation in which the genocide occurred, accoring to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Even if the war was UN sanctioned, the trial would most likely have been an Iraqi one.

i think 221B had the only intelligent post on this thread so far. i agree with the general idea that it couldnt have happened, but i think all the reasons expressed were not thought through at all, and frankly quite dumb.

Excuse me, but I hardly think you can simply state that everyone else said something stupid, and leave it at that. I hope you intend to justify your claims. However, i will defend my first post to spare you.
Despite the villification fo Nazi Germany in World War 2, they were not the only ones to balme for the holocaust. Many poeple in France and Eastern Europe supported HItler’s anti-semtic policy. In France, while their were relatively few Jews, the population was very supportive of Anti-Jewish legislation, and several rallies were held to further punsih the jewish population. Vichy French soldiers often fought bravely against the Allies, partly becuase of his anti-semetic policies. In eastern europe the problem was even mroe pronounced. Hungary and Romania both sent Jews to concentration camps with little help from Nazi Germany, and Romania did it with no pressure, either. The genocide received immense popular support, and the police were able to round up almost all of the jews becuase the people were willing to say who was jewish or not. The searches were very easy. In the former Russian territories, the Nazi’s recieved a similar recpetion. the mass killings at the Ghettos in Riga, for example, were executed by Latvian militias. The killings at Babi Yur, in Kiev, were assisted by ukranian volunteers during the execution and burial. Furthermore, their was a definate lack of resistance against the genocide amoung most of the populace. This accurately demonstrated by Demark, whcih, as the only country in whcih the popualtion resisted the deportation, was able to save 9/10’s of it’s jews.
Hitler was able to occupy alot of the territories he did by using Anti-semintism to rally support. Once the genocide stopped, however, the needfor Nazi occupation would also stop, and resistance would begin to increase. With so mcuh territory to cover, his forces would have been spread to thin to cope with it all, and it would have fallen apart.

7)Russia, caught totally by surprise with grossly incompotent, but “politically reliable” generals leading it,yet still they couldnt beat these guys either!

Quite fankly, if just one mistake was corrected, Hitler would have won that war in the opening throes. If:
Japan had used the Kwantung Army to attack Siberia
Hitler had decided to seize Leningrad instead of seige it
Hitler had not been forced to invade Yugoslavia by Mussolini, which delayed the campaign
Hitler had equipped his army with winter supplies, allowing them to press the assualt in winter
and a big one: Hitler had accepted the surrender of the Russian forces when they offered after the seizure of Keiv and Minsk.
he would have beaten Russia, and, as such, essentially beaten the allies. over 2/3’s of the german army fought on the eastern front. We could have lost D-day as it happened, if their were 3 times as many men their we would not have stood a chance. Not to mention the fact that we would have lost the African front, and possibly the battle fo the atlantic, if Nazi germany had put all of it’s resources into it. People fail to comprehend how close World War 2 was. If just one more event had gone in Hitler’s favor, it would have been over for the allies. It is quite terrifying to think that Hitler almost suceeded in achieving what he laid out in Mein Kampf.

However, I am of the opinion that it would not have lasted, as I said earlier.

I personally do not. Simply put, their would not be enough Jews to kill. Once the Jews were all dead, he would lose any support for his rule in France, Romania, Ukraine, Hungary, Austria, etc. Eventually, internal resistance throughout his conquered lands, with his military forces streched from the coasts of Normandy to the Nile River to the Ural mountians, would cause his government to collapse. When it collapsed in all the external areas, the heartland would soon follow. Either that, or the new France would conquer it for revenge 8) .

That is (a) hatred and not anger, and (b) expressed over an entire population and not only the parts of the government.
You have said it wasn’t meant like this, but the impression that a large number of USies feels that way remains. Allow us what you allow them.

If you read my posts, though, you will discover that I think hatred of the French is unfounded as well. I do not hate the french, and am angered when people express such hatred. Just ebcuase it is not right, does nto mean it does not exist.

So, excepting from ousting SH from power, another reason was that it would boost US economy?
That is the newest and most inhumane branch of taking economy more important than humanity then.

It is not boosting the US economy at all, in general the war has been damaging to our country, costing us alot of money and resources. This is justy a way to help subsidize the cost. IF thier are emthods to alleviate our sacrifce that do no real harm to the Iraqi’s, then we will do it.

they do get killed though by rogues (and the occasional USie soldier). And the US as occupational force is responsible for that.

So, if we let foreign companies in, that would stop? How is this relevant to the company situation? Also, I would think that would be the fault of the Rogue, not the US.

How many did you ask wether they would?

What do you mean, how could they? no infasture existed to run it after the collapse. We are building one. You cant just give someone and oil well and say help people, it takes time to organize the economy. Also, America is the only instituttion that is garuanteed to sue the oil for reconstruction, since we HAVE to pay for it somehow. It’s either that or tax dollars.

That is no genocide, that is racism. The genocide was 1990ish.

Im aware, that was in reference to the human rights violations, not the genocide. Sorry for the confusion.

Why not?
Because you are making a lot of mistakes that you have been warned of … again?
You were not prepared to the time after the war, and this was known and a main accusation point agains thte US gov’t before the war even started. It is relevant that you fail as occupational force, but still want to “benefit”.

No, it is not relevant to the debate of wether the war is justified or not, since justification is set when the war begins, but failure or success is not. However, in that context it only helps my side, since it shows that we currently dont have the resources to secrue the situation, so we need all the help we can get. As all the “benefits” are goign to reconstructing Iraq, the more we “benefit” the better Iraq is. If we were failing becuase we were not trying, then you would have a point, but we are failing becuase we made mistakes, and we need resources to recitfy them. Punish us even more for our mistakes, and oyu will amke it worse for the Iraqi’s.

Oh sure it would have been unjust, as the winner writes the history, and if the US had lost, they would not have access to writing the history books.

Well, that would depend on where you live. America would never have been conquered by the Axis, as Axis and Allies players we should know this :wink: . So if you lived in America, you would get an American viewpoint, and it would view the war as just. If you lived in Europe or Asia, well then yes, you would veiw the war as unjust.

Why is there a need for rebuilding it?

Becuase the standard of living was abysmall for the Shiites and Kurds under Sadaam, and he deprived them of many services, such as sanitation and electricity. He also destroyed mcuh of Iraq’s agricultural production during the war against the Kurds in the early 1990’s. Also, terrorist attacks further damage the infastructure. Furthermore, UN sanctions hurt the problem alot.
Nice try :wink: .

hubris:
There exist no large companies outside the US.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but that is laughable.

It sounds harsh because it is not what i said. MOST of our ALLIES do not have large companies, nations like poland and Ukraine. The only nations that have companies of similar size to American companies are Britian and Japan, coutnries that we are allowign to help rebuild.

Again, you shall not benefit from an illegal war. I’ll explain later.
The second line i don’t understand. Why would a foreign company lose money?

If the American government has to pay the companies to build their, then that means they would not do it for free, like they do other institutions. That means that thye would not make money in the long run from building such structures.

The US violates about 13 of these every day. Where is the threshold that makes an invasion to bring the human rights to the US legal?

Show me where the American government has a set policy to violate those intentionally.

Well, i don’t see him being brought in front of an international tribunal.
And of course… how comes that US soldiers are excempt from this laws ?

Thats becuase the UN did not want him. Besides, it is more fitting that he should be prosceuted by those he hurt.
need to wirte these with more time.

you need to talk to more displaced USies, i think. I have met a number who HATE the US for meddling in their country. Whether because of actions/inactions by their military, installing gov’ts/regimes that have killed people for nearly anything, economic policies that devestate another nations industries bringing ruin to their populace. Really - do you ever look at the world from a perspective other than that as an American? It might be very eye-opening. I do this as frequently as i look at the news - whether try to see things from an American perspective, from an Iraqi’s, a Chilean’s, or Canadian’s. This is difficult because i often do not understand the cultural millieu that i am looking at, but i do my best.

I try to always look at the world from the perspective of a logical person, nationality be damned. America has done alot of things that are bad, but from a worldwide perspective the good it has done has outweighed the bad in my opinion. I don’t think people should hate the US government, besides a few groups which i would definately understand. I dont quite understand what you are saying here. Just becuase I think America is generally good, does not mean I dont look at the world through multiple perspectives. I just think that most of the hatred towards America is unfounded. Anger over certain policies, sure, but not general hatred for the country.

it does taint the war. the optics are terrible when there is such blatant conflict of interest being exhibited here. Also your comments do not make much sense. The gov’t of America is NOT paying for the war, unless you think that you own Iraq and their oil belongs to your gov’t, as this is what you are using to try to recoup the money you spent on the invasion.

Well, first, the oil has not payed for all the war, not even half. It has been the American government, wtih tax dolars. Well, I guess it is a matter of opinion, but i dont see it being tainted at all. I expected such a policy going in, I guess. No country is a benevolent angel that just rights wrongs all over the place. We had good intentions for the war, but we are going to try to benefit from it. The Iraqi’s are not being hurt by any real extent by allowing only American and allied companies to work their, and America is benefitting from it. It is hardly a conflict, since their is really no down side. As for the oil belonging to our government…well, yes. What other government does it belong to? The oil was a national industry under Sadaam, to the best of my knowledge, so until an Iraqi government can be set up, we have to administer it. No one else will. We have an obligation to use the profits from it to help Iraqi’s, and we are. We are going to give it back to Iraq, so i dont see a problem.

the war was illegal. period. regardless of what Saddam did in 1990-ish. Also you are not simply bringing Saddam to justice - you are invading a sovereign nation, you are killing foreign nationals in their country, you are destroying infrastructure, you have created a volatile environment which is resulting in more chaos daily than these people have experienced annually. How many car-bombings did Iraq suffer before the invasion? Please get your terms correct. This is not an arrest.
As for the families of the 800 000 - a war would not have been necessary - a show of force would have been useful. Also if proper attention was brought to Rwanda (and the Sudan more recently), then a war would not have been illegal. Furthermore, these incidents would not likely have occurred. Poor Romeo Dallaire.

Well, his random arrests and oppression fo Kurd and Shiite rights were continuing untill his removal, so it was not just 1990ish. A minor point, but still. The problem with your arguement is that in order to make such an “arrest”, war is often the solution. Besides, it was not just Sadaam, it was his whole government that needed to be removed. The whole system was totalitarian and oppressive. As for the car bombing and destorying infastructure, those are nto relevant to the debate. You will find few people who are more disappointed than me as to how the occupation was handled, but those are not relevant to justifying an invasion. If we had declared war on Nazi Germany, but, in the ensuing war and bombing campaigns, lost, in addition to devastating France and Germnay, would the war have been unjust? I would say no. By the same token, if we had invaded, stabilized the situation, and created a secure, growing Iraq almost immeadiatly, would you be in support of the war?
I personally dont feel that in Rwanda a show of force would have worked. The interhamwe were often outside the government’s control. Another hypothetical, though: what if America, upon hearing all the reports from the Red Cross and witnesses, had moved in immeadiatly, without wasting weeks consulting the UN? would such a war be illegal, even if it cost thousands of lives?
I apologize for any spelling mistakes, I was rushed for time.

So, where is the betrayal, when did France and Germany say they would support the US?

Before the March declaration, when America was preparing a resolution and gathering support, they said they would support it, then afterwords said they would oppose it without informing us. I cannot find a source at this moment, if a i do i will post it. However, it seems like several people here are aware of this fact, thye may eb abel to give mroe details.
As for vetoing the resolution, it was a typo. I meant to say they WOULD veto the resolution. Sorry.

Now, for some of the people here. Do the next step of thinking.
The world doesn’t “hate” the US because they are rich or free. But exactly because of the same behavior that Yarric said “should” make people mad at something.
So easy, yet i bet the ones who should read this don’t.

I think you did not read what I wrote, or you do not differenciate between anger or hatred. Every nation in the world would get mad at a country that said they would shut down a proposed resoultion, and that anger is justified. However, for that to turn into a general hatred for the population required alot of campaigning by the media, and they suceeded. I get angry at my mom all the time, but i dont hate her. In the same sense, a nation can get angry at America alot, but this should not translate into hatred for the nation unless they did something truly horrible. You may think they did, and then you are justfied in hating them, but i really think such an opinion is unfounded. Of course, i dont think I said people hate America becuase we are great, that was other people. I dont think Ameirca has done anything to justify hating us, but anger I understand. Im a bit angry at it myslef, but I would still die for it.

You are siphoning the oil income to the US, by using their income to pay your enigineers and your firms. And you probably have no idea which company was best fitted for doing jobs there (i don’t, but i doubt that it must be USie companies). “in the best position” … of course, these were US firms, as the US said they would not allow “non-willing” to get a foot in the Iraq.

We are using their oil to pay engineers and firms who are rebuilding the country…so we are using their oil to rebuild the country. They wont do it for free, you know. The companies in the best position were American companies becuase of that block. Most of our allies do nto have alot fo large companies, so out of the coalition the best companies were American. It doesnt taint the war, it just shows praticality. We spent money on the war and lost people in the war, so we are going to try to benefit from it. Iraqi’s are hardly being hurt. As you said, the government of Amerca is paying for it, which means that their actions are not economically smart. Foriegn companies would lose money doing such projects unless they were subsidized by a government or organization.

This logic only holds true when you are under attack.

We were talking about a draft in case of invasion, and if you would fight…you can figure the rest out. Maybe those other strategies could work, but it would depend on the anutre of the enmy and the war.

the war was illegal. You should not benefit from anything illegal.
What would you think if someone beats you up, then drives you to a hospital and takes all your money as a “taxi fee” for driving you to the hospital?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Read that. Sadaam violated about 16 of those articles pratically every day. Not to mention genocide, which justifies a war against any nations commiting it. Could not find the actual law for that, but http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/stat2000.htm#4
shows that any such leaders shall be punsihed byt he interantional tribunal. Since those acts are illegal, I fail to see how bringing him to justice is an illegal war. The UN may not have backed it, but the UN refused to intervene in Rwanda either. Tell the families of the 800,000 people who died int hsoe months that a war to stop it would ahve been “illegal”. You will be killed. I’ll alter you example to fit reality:
That man is murdering someone’s family. i beat him up, and then to ensure that he doesnt die, I dirve him to the hospital, and make him pay for my gas. I think that is a more fitting to the situation.

Yeah, i think the creator mixed up his words. He means nationalize industries. I personnally think several industries should be nationalized: healthcare, including pharmacuticals, defense, education (college), transportation, and energy and all means of acquiring them, such as coal mining, etc. I also think nationalizing agriculture could be very beneficial, since today farmers often have to hold several jobs to stay afloat. Would make food doles much easier if we needed them as well. Insurance is a good idea, i would antionalize that too. Save doctors alot of headaches if you dont want to nationalize healthcare.
As for competition in regards to defense, you could simply have two or three different divisions within the governement, and reward those who succeed at developing the product. Give them a goal and a deadline, and let them go at it. China currently employs this system, and their military is advancing at a rapid pace. Their best tanks are better than ours although not as numerous, and their airforce is developing fighters that are as advanced, and maybe more so, than America’s. Defense is one of the few industries to be consistently capable of being nationalized effectively.

If i did not have these skills, then i would be drafted to kill people. Training sargents do not train you to protect others and your gov’t. They train you to kill in the most efficient ways possible.

That is how you protect people in that situation, though. Protection involves violence, and the better you are at inflicting damage, the more able you are to protect. The quicker you kill the enenmy, the less people he can kill. Its bloody, and i can definately see the moral questions it would bring up, but in the end it is sometimes necessary for people to survive and live enjoyable, moral lives. However, i think are disagreement on the draft stems more from a difference in priorities. You value morality and sinlessness higher, while I value honor and duty higher. Similar, but with key differences. Killing is morally wrong, so forced service into doing so is wrong, even if the consequences are dire, while I view the duty one has to his/her nation to justify such a draft, even if it goes agianst one’s morality or the purpose for such a war is less than clear. Of course, this does not mean i would fight in a war of conquest for power, since that violates the reason for the government existing, that of protecting it’s citizens and ensuring thier well being. Unless it was Canada, of course 8) .
Anyway, im ranting, so ill stop.

it’s not about violating laws, but rather fundamental principles. I violate laws all the time - speeding, and even some biblical laws. Still, nothing quite violates “thou shalt not kill” and “love your enemies” and “pray for those that persecute you” and “do good to those that hate you” quite as much as killing people. This is very opposite.

By laws, i meant religious or moral principles, which, in my mind at least, imply a set of moral laws. Sorry for the confusion. However, i think their is a fundamental difference in “do good to those that hate you” and “let others do harm to you and innocents”, which is essentially what happens in a war. You need to stand up to oppressors in the best way possible, and the best way is through an organized military, in my opinion at least.

it depends. By allowing only companies that the Americans approve of to participate in reconstruction, then you are limiting the number of companies that may participate. One does not need to be an economist to realize that this violation of competition principals predetermines a more expensive construction effort which the Iraqi’s must pay for (via their oil supplies). The benefit would go only to US (and coalition) companies. On the surface, this appears fair. However if the US invasion of Iraq was as ultruistic as his idiotship tried to make appear, then the optics become more dismal (please don’t make me spell this out to you).

True, blocking competition from external sources will raise the prices, but as it was America that liberated the country, i beleive that America should benefit from it. We are currently paying billions of dollars to secure the nation, and we do need some compensation. The war is not some holy crusade, entirely benevolent in execution. However, it is (or will be) benefiting the Iraqi’s, and for thier trouble America should be compensated, even if it would slightly inhibit the development of the Iraqi’s. Its the best way for both America and Iraq to benefit, and America needs to benefit due to reality.

this is the right of the French to do, however. For them to at one point publically issue one opinion and change it the next day required something to happen. I’m not sure what this is - perhaps the US invasion plans were MUCH more hasty than they had anticipated, perhaps there was a discussion about their military and future capabiliities, or perhaps their best interests as a trading partner with Iraq arose and convinced them to change their minds.
This is not new. The US does this on important issues that we have to deal with nearly daily. Commodities prices and stock prices, as well as jobs and the status of entire industries fluxuate directly in response to American “changes of heart” often with devestating consequences - and not just in my country, but all over the world. If we have to learn to deal with it, so can the US.

Of course it is their right to do so, but that does not mean we cant be mad at them for it. We should be. It was only the spark, however. It was escalated by the media (the O’Reily embargo, for example) and certain individuals. I guess I should have clarified that I do NOT hate the French at all, except for their soccor team when they beat England in the Euro Cup this year. I was at the game in Portugal, it was devastating.

conscription is a terrible idea - in any country. I have no trouble with serving my country and i would be prepared to as a physician, or in a civic role. But a gov’t telling me to go out and kill people whether i want to or not is one of the most oppressive regimes i can imagine.

Maybe you were trying to spark a different debate, otherwise you are picking straws. Anyway, if you were drafted you would become a medic for your skills, in all likelyhood anyway. I dont view it as my government telling me to kill people, but telling me to protect others and protect my government, an organization that i hold an almost unpayable debt to, by fighting against terrorists and murders.

2. i am too intelligent and too old to serve in an infantry, artillary, etc. capacity. The military would much more likely assign me a rank of Captain or greater.

Im glad your not too full of yourself :lol: .
As for the religious issue, i dont think you would be violating any laws, becuase you are trying to save the lives of people. Its open to interpretation, of course, but i beleive that self defense is soemthing you can perform without punishment under God. Of course, you could always aim for the legs :wink: .

why would you expect them to double their forces at your whims, but not be allowed to help in reconstruction and security?
And if this invasion was for the good of Iraq, why should the best firms (or at least the best prices) not benefit Iraq and Iraqi’s? (unless the war was for US self-interest - in which case the French are right to not participate).

I never said either of those. Japan’s military forces are limited by thier constitution, if the government, or more importantly the emperor, asked more people to join, im sure they would. And it would not be at the whim of America. Their are many Japanese politicians who want to alter the constitution, and that would be much easier if they had a specific reason to. I think the Japanese want to participate, they were very mad when they could only help out monetarily in the Gulf War of 1991. I also never said they could not help out in reconstruction, i just think they should be able to fight as well. American soldeirs are doing both, so can the Japanese. I think they want to do it, and we should give them a reason. Right now we arent trying to convince them to do so, we should be more openly positive and receptive to the idea. If that fails, we could always threaten them with economic sanctions 8) :lol: .
As for the firms, they are benefitting the Iraqi’s, its just that they are benefitting Americans too. We are using the oil income to rebuild the infastructure, and American companies are sending over engineers to rebuild the essential services like power and water. We cant just create a new company out of thin air to rebuild Iraq, we have to use existing ones, and the ones in the best position to help were largely American. They are providing jobs for Iraqi’s and rebuilding the country, how is that not benefitting the Iraqi’s?

.Yeah, that really pissed me off. When the commission said that Sadaam did not assist Al-Queda in 9/11, the emdia went off to sya that absolutely no link exists, which is completely false. They have talked several times, proetcted Al-Queda terrorists, and provided them with with money and aid on several occasions. Stupid media :evil:

You guys suck at staying on topic. You really, really suck. Very badly :lol: .

To clear up why we hate the french, it is becuase they originally said they would back the Iraq war and would support the bill, but when the UN held the summit they completely changed their policy and vetoed our resolution. The Germans betrayed us as well, but France has veto, so thye did more damage. Since then, it has spiraled out of control, in both nations, due to the media.

Now, i think we should employ a larger army, but as we are a volunteer force, that would be difficult. I would not have a problem with a mandatory 2 year service in the military at a certain age, or some other form of conscription, but that wont ever happen in America, so i might as well forget about it. To increase troop supply for the important wars like Iraq, we need to reorganize our deployment. We need to pull out of all the nations we had troops in becuase of the Cold War, and we also need to pull our troops out of S. Korea, becuase thye are not doing anything their. SImply put, N. Korea wont be attakcing anyone, they cant afford to. Go the Korea topic if you feel like debating or want to hear my reasons.

Another way we could increase troop supply is rearm Japan. Thye want desperatly to help in Iraq, and would always support America becuase we did, and still do, so much for their economy. They could get a large volunteer service together relatively quickly, and since the population has little fear of war compared to Europe, the people would undoubtedly support such a war by a majority or at least 50/50. The current size of Japan’s military forces is 180,000, but i beleive thatcould eb expanded at least two fold if promopted by America. Thats another 100,000 troops for Iraq at least. I dont think we should accept allowing Japan to help only in reconstruction and security in non-combat areas, like the recent bill allows. They should be equal participatants. OF course, America cant really force Jpaan to change it’s policy, but their are many politicians hwo want to change that policy. I think it could be done.

What about a Democratic Communist Republic? There is a president elected by the citizens, a senate to make and change laws, and the government takes all the money, buys goods, and then gives everyone the same things. No taxes to complain about, no neighbor rivalries over lawnmowers, everyone is equal and has equal things. Everyone is also egually important. (The trash guy is just as important as the doctor because without the trash guy, the town would be so unsanitary that the doctor would be over whelmed. )

I agree with you completely on the democratic part, but with the garbage man/doctor analogy your arguement fails. If the garbage man and a doctor got the same exact rewards, even if their jobs are equally important, no one would be a doctor. This is becuase i, as a sixteen year old, could be a garbage man right now, but to be a doctor i would have to go to eight years of college. Furthermore, i would work nearly twice the hours of a garbage man. Now i personally would make the sacrifice, but most people would not, since their is no incentive. Therefore, you need to have some different classes in order for their to be any doctors, engineers, etc.
I like to twist the definition of Communism from “everyone equal” to “government controlled economy”. The government controls all aspects of the economy, and gives everyone a job. Then, it gives everyone thier basic needs, such as food, clothing, healthcare, etc. Then, based on a combination of the effort, skill, and importance of your job, they give you a certain amount of “dollars” to buy luxury goods from the government. To combat lazyness, you simply cut the luxury funds of anyone who is not working, or who’s supervizors think are workering well below compacity. They would still be fine, but they would not be very happy and would have ot get back to work. injured people would still recieve luxury funds, obviously. Jobs would always be available, because the government could always build another factory, even if there is no demand for the product. I am a communist, but more of a realist.

On the topic of anarchy, i think it is going to fail pretty bad. I beleive Falk said the people would band together to build a hsopital if need be, but once it is built staffing it would be horrible. Under anarchy, the doctors could just go as the please, and if they did not like a patient, they just would not treat him. Furthermore, individual doctors may have been making mroe money before the hopsital showed up with private visits, and would sabatoge the operation. With no laws, their are just too many unkowns.
On a philisophical level, it just could not exists for long. First, i you had no laws, the peole would become increasingly slefish and amoral, becuase thats what anarchistic society breeds. Wihtout a government to initiate propoganda, the people would be more prone to follow instinctive urges. Second, it simply would not last do to desires of power and control. Groups would band together to structure their soictey out of saftey, and to be able to oppress others. Within this society, thye would create their own laws, which would make it something else. With such structure, these groups would more powerful than the inidividual (the group is alwys more powerful and more important than the individual :P ) and owuld be able to conquer the surrounding land. As long as the original people were not fascist dictators, life would be safer under their rule, and the poeple woudl most likly welcome a relief form the constant battle of survival that occurs in an anarchist system. Anarchy could only be temporary, like in Civilization III :lol: .
Wow, that was alot longer than expected, ill stop now

i fail to see how an NA that throws “the balance of the game entirely out of whack” would be bad. Salvage can be very usefull now that the tanks defend at three, unless Germnay has panzerblitz, and LEnd-lease is arguably the best NA in the game. It essentially lets men go twice, as long as one of thsoe moves is in the Russian front.

I personally like playing as Japan, simply becuase island hopping is so cool. Its much more complex and difficult than just sending hordes of men at you opponent, like Germany does with Russia. Obvioulsy the Russian front is more in depth than that, but island hopping requires pratically every unit type (infantry, transports, battleships, and AC’s with fighters have all been needed in my game). I also like playing as them simply because they are Japanese 8) .

Actually it was not necesity that made Germany innovate, it was Hitler waking up. From 1941 to 1943 he shut down almost all research and cut the funding for science drastically. Had he not been so stupid, he could have had Jet Fighters by 1943, and maybe even Nuclear Missles.
On the subject of Germany, i think their NA are a little underrated. The atlantic wall get decimate nearly any D-day, especially when combined with Fortress Europe, and personally, i think Panzerblitz is one of the bets NA’s. It allows hit and run attacks, so Germany doesn’t have to worry about the counter atack, since nothing will be left. If you can predict how many guys you will lose failry well, you can send just enough infantry in an assualt, send in a horde of tanks, and the run. Works well against Causcasses, since it disables the IC. Still, i think Britian has better NA’s (Radar, Joint Strike, Colonial Garrison, and Enigma can pretty much ruin any move the German’s make on Britian).

I got
Economic left/right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authortarian:2.87

Im close to Sadamm Hussien…fear me…