America to withdraw troops from EU

Hobbes

thejollyrodger wrote:

It would be foolish to make any rash decisions. Now that the threat has been identified the US can start to redeploy.

and I am saying it is not that at all. The US is stretched for troops.

It has two options. Dedeploying troops from cushier areas or bring back the draft card. Bush can't do the latter in an election year and removing troops means not having to pay as much in exchange rates for per diem to the troops or have to worry about getting reemed by local currencies being worth more then the $.

The troops are there because of the cold war. Redeploying troops takes a while. Some of your posts are ridiculous.

As I said, you seem to be pointing out that it takes 13 years to redeploy troops because of the cold war? Yet the US war machine can move to any hotspot in the world at a moments notice without its forward bases?

The cold war is the reason the troops were deployed to begin with. The end of the cold war is not the reason they are being removed.

keu

Well yes it certainly was a shared effort, but the US spent over 12 billion dollars in that endeavor and more troops if I'm not mistaken. Americans and Bill Clinton also got the most "heat" for it among Serbians and others who opposed the intervention. I personally was against bombing all their historic bridges and using weapons with depleated uranium, by the by.

ah...the good 'ol days, when the US and Europe used to work together to give evil dictators the boot...

anyways....I've given you credit points just for being American.

Captain Trips

Hobbes wrote:

Can you post some kind of proof to that?

Proof on the EU being...

- Most despised.

- Constant Terror

- Aggressive expansionism.

I can't

Moriarty

The withdrawl of troops from europe and asia is part of a larger reorganisation and refocusing of the US military. There have been a number of people on this thread stating their firm belief that this is simply a cheap election ploy by bush to get military familys on side. These people don't know what they're talking about.

Regarding the balkans, the US put the overwhelming majority of men, equipment and support systems in place for the NATO operation. Without the US, it would have been impossible. The balkans was the equivalent of a central american country falling into chaos, with the US sitting idly by talking the talk - all the time waiting for europeans to walk the walk because the US didn't really care enough to do anything serious about it.

Regarding Hobbes' continuous statements of the US militarys sitatuation of being stretched for troops, I think you're (purposly or not) misreading the situation. The military is there to be used. Less than half of the US army is deployed at the moment (including ROK troops). They can deploy about 30% more without interfering with rotation schedules. If they were to go to a war footing they could increase that number to ~80% without a single additional person joining the army. Less than a sixth of army national guard units are activated. Saying that the US military is overstretched is wishful thinking on your part, nothing more.

Back to the original topic, I'd hope that this would lead to europe taking it's military more seriously - but I suspect this unfortunatly won't be the case. Were going to continue to be caught with our collective pants around our ankles again and again until the prevailing mindset changes.

Captain Trips

Moriarty wrote:

Regarding Hobbes' continuous statements of the US militarys sitatuation of being stretched for troops, I think you're (purposly or not) misreading the situation. The military is there to be used. Less than half of the US army is deployed at the moment (including ROK troops).

LOL! Then why are they filling the draft boards which haven't been used in 20 (30?) years? WHy are they shipping Vietnam Veterans to Iraq http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/monitor1.htm? WHy is a 67 year psychiatrist being recalled for duty http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/9185340.htm?

Why do they need "International Police Officers" of exceptional pay (~$120,000/year) to patrol Iraq? http://www.lawenforcementjob.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail&JobID=9618 Surely the cheaper and more efficient and "meant to be used" military should suffice?

Of the 140,000 or so troops in Iraq, around 50,000 are support personnel. And of teh remaining, remember that only half can be active at any one time. So the big numbers theory is marginal (i.e., ~40,000 or so troops at any one time on patrol vs. at least that number wanting to kill them). http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11052003.html

And not just troop shortages, but money: why did they cut "Imminent Danger Pay" to the US troops in Iraq? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Numbers "deployed" don't mean squat. They lengthened the service contract for the Iraq war to 12 months, when the soldiers originally thought it would be just another "Let's Roll" event over in 6 weeks and back home to wave flags and eat apple (humble?) pie. This was due to lack of resources. This is undeniable and to suggest that "only half of the military is in use" borders on the ridiculous. That includes, for example, chefs. And Steven Seagal isn't one of them. They have troops on 135 countries world wide. Expensive to run? Prehaps you missed the countless news articles and US TV shows on how stretched the military is. Perhaps you missed Rumsfeld's speeches on the need to use National Guard and Reserve troops (how ironic that if this was 30 years ago BUsh would have been called up to serve whereas in Vietnam it was his easy out).

No money, massive budget deficit, military spread wide and stretched thin. It's like a bad game of Command & Conquer.

Captain Trips

Moriarty wrote:

Less than a sixth of army national guard units are activated. Saying that the US military is overstretched is wishful thinking on your part, nothing more..

The fact that they are using the National Guard is the whole point!

keu

Back to the original topic, I'd hope that this would lead to europe taking it's military more seriously - but I suspect this unfortunatly won't be the case. Were going to continue to be caught with our collective pants around our ankles again and again until the prevailing mindset changes.

I'm not a military expert, but from some of the links posted, it seems europe is getting its military together. As for how seriously it takes it, again I think that for the most part europe is contracted to the arangments made after WW2 and not inclined to take military action as readily as the US. (not trying to promote these values, just stating them as I see them). It is usually a case of an turning the other cheek as oppose to an eye for an eye.

In all fairness, the larger european community is not under the dictatorship of one solitary leader. I can only imagine it is difficult for an amalgamation of so many countries to agree to take forceful action. (too many consciences)

Hobbes

Captain Trips wrote:

LOL! Then why are they filling the draft boards which haven't been used in 20 (30?) years? WHy are they shipping Vietnam Veterans to Iraq http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/monitor1.htm? WHy is a 67 year psychiatrist being recalled for duty http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/9185340.htm?

Calling up reservists and reintroducing the Draft are two different things. The links you posted sound like accounting issues or they will be removed from service.

Bush will not introduce the draft this year. There have certainly been rumblings of it being reintroduced but to do it on an election year would be career suicide. Even with currently 40% of the military in service in Iraq being reservisits, a lot of the population have a "It if its not me, its not my problem" attitude.

I strongly believe (from what I am reading from various places) that the US will invade Iran next, assuming Bush gets his way. So expect to see the draft late 2005/early 2006.

Why do they need "International Police Officers" of exceptional pay (~$120,000/year) to patrol Iraq?

Depending on where you live in the US, 120k isn't exceptional. But it isn't the US government looking for people. It's an independant contracter. That package covers meals, accomodation, etc.

US military do not have Police Training as standard.

No money, massive budget deficit, military spread wide and stretched thin. It's like a bad game of Command & Conquer.

If it was SC then Bush could do a Zerg Rush! ^_^

popinfresh

since the cold war ended the new threat has been difficult to establish and thus it was hard to redeploy troops in the proper footing to meet the threat.

What are you talking about "the new threat". Terrorism simply cannot be tackeled by military might. It doesn't work!!!!.
The US invaded Iraq with the excuse that Iraq was helping terrorists. Let's just pretend that this excuse was justified. Even if this was the case, all this war has led to is an increase in the resentment and disgust that the Arabian civilians feel towards the US. And it is this resentment that drives people to joining terrorists organisation. So by launching this war the US government has in fact made the US a potentially unsafer place.
The golden rule that Dubyah has forgotton is a simple one. If a nation is acting hostile towards you, use your military, not appeasment. If a terrorist group is acting hostile to you, use appeasement, not military. Of course I mean appeasement within reason.
Back on topic, with the US's little crusade at the moment, (sorry "making the world a safer place") I welcome this withdrawl. I think it's a very disturbing time but it's now becoming clear that we, as a member of the EU, have to distance ourselves from the USA and it's warped ambitions. The terrorists motives are a fight against opression they feel the US is inflicting on them (for the record, I do not agree or disagree with these motives), not an attack the freedom of the US people (the propegandic excuse Dubyah is stuffing down the throats of the American people). And also for the record, I do not hate or look down on the American people, I feel pity for their current situation with regards to the political state of their country. They are by means of propegada being forced into the state of mind that what their government is doing is the right thing to do. And other governments that oppose this course of action are in some way inferior (remember "old europe")

Gurgle

Surely the US is pulling out of Europe to move to new bases further east!
They can't provide enough troops to keep bases all over europe occupied as well.

The battle lines have moved further east, so you move nearer to the line. They've been heading in that direction since WW2.

sovtek

Gurgle wrote:

Surely the US is pulling out of Europe to move to new bases further east!
They can't provide enough troops to keep bases all over europe occupied as well.

The battle lines have moved further east, so you move nearer to the line. They've been heading in that direction since WW2.

Yes they've been looking into the eastern bloc more and more for the past few years. I've read things speculating that's it both for strategic access to the Middle East and Eastern European oil...that's why there are troops in places like Georgia and the 'stans now.

Seaneh

This has far more to do with America needing to bring people home/cut costs than anything, and I think it's a bad thing for the EU.

For the last 50 years European Countries (espically the northern ones) have been able to become Sociolist paradises because they were able to neglect thier defence budgets because there were "Nato" bases littered around France/Germany that offered all the protection we needed from the big bad Russians.

But yeah, it does mean that countries like Germany, France, Sweden and Norway will have to invest a lot more in thier Military now that they can't rely (as much) on the U.S.

RicardoSmith

Who would Germany, France, Sweden and Norway need to defend against?

halkar

Troops will move, US probably will positions its troops in Turkey in order to have wider control around Middle East and close to Europe and Russia. After all Turkey is right in the middle Then, eventually Turkey will join EU and troops will be in EU again.

chill

popinfresh wrote:

What are you talking about "the new threat". Terrorism simply cannot be tackeled by military might. It doesn't work!!!!.

Terrorism that is sponsored by countries does need to be tackled with military might, like Afghanistan.

The US invaded Iraq with the excuse that Iraq was helping terrorists. Let's just pretend that this excuse was justified. Even if this was the case, all this war has led to is an increase in the resentment and disgust that the Arabian civilians feel towards the US. And it is this resentment that drives people to joining terrorists organisation. So by launching this war the US government has in fact made the US a potentially unsafer place.

It was still worth it to free 20 million people.

If a terrorist group is acting hostile to you, use appeasement, not military. Of course I mean appeasement within reason.

What an appalling attitude !!

The terrorists motives are a fight against opression they feel the US is inflicting on them (for the record, I do not agree or disagree with these motives), not an attack the freedom of the US people

Wrong. It is simple hatred of all Western values and religions. There has been no American oppression because they oppress their own people, and have done so for centuries.

I also welcome the withdrawal of US forces.

It is about time Europe, AND Ireland got it's finer out and developed our own Military capabilities. With a joint foreign policy and military capability to back it up, Europe can offer the world a balance against dumbass American presidents when they come along like Bush. Europe can offer an alternative and a balance against the one dimensional policies that are implemented in places like Israel and Iraq.

Hobbes

chill wrote:

Terrorism that is sponsored by countries does need to be tackled with military might, like Afghanistan.

And what did that do exactly? You still have the taleban there, the country is still a mess and even the UN just recently are planning from withdrawing from the country as it has become too unstable.

AQ also wasn't sponsered by Afganistan. They hosted them. The US on the other hand did supply them weapons at one time when it served the US purpose.

What an appalling attitude !!

What he is trying to say, is deal with the cause not the effects. Why do people join AQ? Find that out and remedy the situation. For example if civil rights abuses drive more hands into the terrorists armies, it would be better to solve the civil rights abuses then just attack the terrorists.

Wrong. It is simple hatred of all Western values and religions

Mentioned on another thread already. Bother to actually read up on the AQ and their causes. Why do they hate Western values? Because they are seen as forms of oppression in their countries.

There has been no American oppression because they oppress their own people, and have done so for centuries.

American sponsored. Or prehaps the whole previous history of the middle east just passed you by?

chill

Hobbes wrote:

And what did that do exactly? You still have the taleban there, the country is still a mess and even the UN just recently are planning from withdrawing from the country as it has become too unstable.

Wrong. The Taliban no longer control Afghanistant which is on it's way to becoming a democracy, and the world is a lot safer because of it.

AQ also wasn't sponsered by Afganistan. They hosted them. The US on the other hand did supply them weapons at one time when it served the US purpose.

Sponsored/hosted is the same thing. I am glad they supplied them with weapons when it suited them. That's life and the nasty old world out there, and they wiped them when they changed their attitude.

What he is trying to say, is deal with the cause not the effects. Why do people join AQ? Find that out and remedy the situation. For example if civil rights abuses drive more hands into the terrorists armies, it would be better to solve the civil rights abuses then just attack the terrorists.

I agree to deal with the cause and not ONLY the effect. But the cause is in their own culture not ours. The cause is in their own oppression not ours or the Americans. The civil rights problem in Iraq is being solved. How do you propose to solve it in Iran ? in Pakistan ? in Saudi ? in any of the Islamic dictatorships that are centuries old, far older than the very existence of America, and definitely not being sponsored or aided or abbeted by the Americans or anyone else.

Bother to actually read up on the AQ and their causes. Why do they hate Western values? Because they are seen as forms of oppression in their countries.

Wrong. They oppress their own countries. No one else oppresses them. No one. It is their religion and their culture that oppresses them and they hate the Western Civilisation because of our success and freedom.

American sponsored. Or prehaps the whole previous history of the middle east just passed you by?

Not American sponsored, only their own home grown home cultured, home religion oppression.

popinfresh

Wrong. The Taliban no longer control Afghanistant which is on it's way to becoming a democracy, and the world is a lot safer because of it.

Look, realistically the Taliban had absolutely nothing to do with the terror attacks that the USA suffered. And the war in Afghanistan just meant that Al Quaeda had to go into hiding. And as for "the world is a lot safer", why did the US administration only months before 911 donate money to the taliban, for their help in cracking down on drugs, if they viewed this reigeme as a threat to world safety. Although technically the government is now a democratic one, There's practically no change in standard of living of the Afghan people as it was before the war.

Sponsored/hosted is the same thing. I am glad they supplied them with weapons when it suited them. That's life and the nasty old world out there, and they wiped them when they changed their attitude.

What are you talking about!!!!! What he's pointing out is that the US has done more to support Al Quaeda than the Taliban have. And yet the US found it justifiable to invade Afghanistan. I I remember correctly in the weeks before the war the Taliban offered to negociate the handing over of Osamma bin Laaden to which Bush replied "We don't negociate with terrorists".....

And as for the rest of your post, don't insult your own intellegence, let alone everybody elses. The reason these terror groups attack their own governments is because they despise these governments for supporting the US. Again I don't agree or disagree with them, but that's the way it is. Oh and by the way, had the US simply shut down their military bases in Saudi Arabia and pulled out, as opposed to invading Iraq, I think we would find that they'd be making a lot more progress in the "war on terror"

ionapaul

A lot of people are very upset that the US dealt with the Taleban, with the Baathists, with all sorts of shifty and down-right deplorable people and groups in the past. But at the end of the day, will anyone shed a tear for Saddam or the Taleban? Could they have been shifted without the use of force? If not, surely everyone must recognise that war is war, and innocents will die, which is a tragedy but is something that people need to accept.

Posters rightfully mention we need to look at and try to remedy the causes of the hatred of the West that has resulted in young men joining AQ...that doesn't change the fact that as long as AQ exists, the West is in danger, and our governments rightfully (they would be failing us if they did not) are trying to eliminate this threat. Deadly force is justified in this instance, IMO. The option to exert such force is one of the reasons nation states levy taxes for the upkeep of a military, right?

popinfresh

But at the end of the day, will anyone shed a tear for Saddam or the Taleban? Could they have been shifted without the use of force?

Well at the end of the day, Iraq is currently 100 times worse than when Saddam was in power, thousands of innocent lives were shed in the invasion. Not to mention the invasion has made the world a lot more unstable. So yes, I would shed a tear.

Hobbes

chill wrote:

Wrong. The Taliban no longer control Afghanistant which is on it's way to becoming a democracy, and the world is a lot safer because of it.

Not sure how you can say I am wrong when I am quoting the news. The Taleban are still fighting in Afganistan (which has very few troops in it). It was an oppressive regime and outside of the capital city it still is. The only difference is instead of the Taleban, you have a puppet president put into place by the US while the rest of the Afganistan is run by the warlords.

It isn't a democracy. Also you missed the news about people getting pulled off the street because they are strangers in the area and then being given to the US for $5k bounties for each taleban they find. A large number of people spent two years in Cuba whos only crime was to be in the wrong neighbourhood at the wrong time.

I am glad they supplied them with weapons when it suited them.

So it is ok to arm and train terrorists organisations when it suits you?

The civil rights problem in Iraq is being solved.

Puppet government installed by the US so they can get cheap contracts. How is that helping civil rights?

How do you propose to solve it in Iran ?

You do know that Iran is actually starting to reform to a democratic country?

in Pakistan ? in Saudi ?

Certainly not by invading them. Of course the US won't touch pakistan as it has nuclear capabilities and Saudi because they get their oil from there. Quite happy to leave oppressive regimes in this case?

Wrong. They oppress their own countries. No one else oppresses them.

If you have a Western corporation coming in giving pittance work with bad living conditions/lowering the life of its population while the government gets kickbacks for it, then you can say the corporation is as culpable as the government in power.

It is their religion and their culture that oppresses them and they hate the Western Civilisation because of our success and freedom.

So sick of this "They hate our freedoms" crap. It shows total niavety.

ionapaul

popinfresh wrote:

Well at the end of the day, Iraq is currently 100 times worse than when Saddam was in power, thousands of innocent lives were shed in the invasion. Not to mention the invasion has made the world a lot more unstable. So yes, I would shed a tear.

100 times worse? Do you really believe that?

Wow. I would say if Iraqis were given the choice, life now or life with Saddam, the vast majority would choice life now. I am equally sure they would also choose an Iraq free from American occupation, but doubt they would want Saddam or the Baathists back. No doubt a small percentage of Sunnis would, those involved in or supporting the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle. I'm fairly sure the Shia insurgents in Najaf and Kufa wouldn't want Saddam back though - Saddam did kill Al Sadr's father after all!

Thousands of innocent lives have been lost and the world may be a more unstable place now - likewise, the Allied defeat of Germany cost millions their lives and definitely made the world a more unstable place. No, Saddam was not Hitler (though equally as evil) and the US invasion was not the Allied defeat of the Nazis, but the point is clear...in war innocents will always die and the world will become more unstable. Ousting Saddam was the right move, though for the wrong reasons. Likewise with the Taleban.

popinfresh

Iraq is now being faced with the possibility of a rise of an islamic extremist style government, so yes it is worse than it was. And there is an awful lot more people being killed by milirary personel than there was when saddam was around

No, Saddam was not Hitler (though equally as evil) and the US invasion was not the Allied defeat of the Nazis, but the point is clear...in war innocents will always die and the world will become more unstable. Ousting Saddam was the right move, though for the wrong reasons. Likewise with the Taleban.

World war 2 was different (or was it). There was a nation, Hitlers Germany, trying to invade other countries for oil reserves and expansion of their own power. It was necessary to take out Hitler, otherwise the rest of the world could not have survived economically. Saddam on the other hand, was a sitting duck incapable of posing any real threat to anybody. Whether we like it or not, he posed no threat after the gulf war. As to a larger extent were the taliban. Regardless of whether or not the world has become a safer place, one thing is for sure. America has now got a much larger say (power) in the oil reserves of that region. Oh, and America is sure to make money with contracts. It's ironic how you compare Saddam to Hitler, when there is clearly only one government, lacking proper justification, invading other countrys and, get this, becoming richer because of it.

Hobbes

but doubt they would want Saddam or the Baathists back.

The Baathists haven't really gone though. The US are employing a lot of them to get the infrastructure back in Baghdad.

Btw, my earlier comment about UN pulling out of Afganistan. Appears it was NY union that asked them to be pulled out. Not the UN in afganistan. The Taleban bombed an election offices and NY Union were worried about safety of workers.

bonkey

chill wrote:

Wrong. The Taliban no longer control Afghanistant which is on it's way to becoming a democracy, and the world is a lot safer because of it.

Really? In what way is the world safer? Teh Taliban posed no threat to teh world....and before you start on about crushing Al Qaeda, bear in mind two salient points :

1) Worldwide terrorist activity has increased since the invasion of Afghanistan

2) Donald Rumsfeld admitted - in his famous note - that the US lacked the ability to determine whether they were making things better or not by their actions.

Clearly you have figured out what Rummy couldn't. YOu should have a word with the senior administration...they'd have a high-paying job for anyone with that kind of proof.

I am glad they supplied them with weapons when it suited them.

Lets just set this aside for a moment....and then have a look at :

Wrong. They oppress their own countries. No one else oppresses them. No one.

Whoah. Hold on thar pardner. The US armed these people, gave them the means to seize power, and when said scumbags do so there is no-one but themselves to blame?

So if I give a scumbag on the street a fully-loaded automatic rifle because it suits my agenda to do so, and he then goes and kills a load of innocents along with some of the targets I hoped he would....I am in no way responsible? Not at all??? I can't think of how I can actually comment furhter on that without breaking the charter.

It is their religion and their culture that oppresses them and they hate the Western Civilisation because of our success and freedom.

As Hobbes commented...the naievity of this line of reasoning is staggering.

Not only does it deny several evident truths, and is blatantly anti-Islamic (lets remember that "their religion" collectively is Islam, not fundamentalist or extremist Islam), but its just not logical.

They hate the West because the West is threatening their way of life. Its that simple. And you know what they've done in retaliation? They've found a way to threaten the Western way of life in return.

And isn't it amazing...whats our reaction when our way of life is threatened?

INVADE! BOMB! OVERTHROW! KILL! LOCK THEM UP!

Well, gosh....that shows just how unreasonable they are in fighting for their way of life? They can't win a stand-up fight, so why should they stand up and fight - it would be counter-productive.

Western influlence, whether deliberate or incidental, overt or covert, welcomed by some or forced on all is changing the face of the Middle East and there are some who just don't see those changes as being for the better.....just as some in Ireland see the influx of immigrants as some fundamental threat to our Irishness which needs to be stopped.

From your standpoint, of course its unreasonable. After all, your standards say your way of life is the best one...so how could anyone reasonably want to fight it?? Surely anyone with reason would embrace it? And hey...given that its so good, why shouldn't we go out and actively promote it everywhere.

Well guess what. They don't have your standpoint, your standards, your way of life, or pretty much any of the things which will have been instrumental in you deciding that you are right.

They have a completely different set. Not wrong, not right...just different. They draw their conclusions based on their sets. And they've come to the same conclusion as you have, only with a different target. They have decided that something poses a threat to their way of life, and it needs to be tackled in the best way that they can.

But having to recognise something that complex won't sell to the McMedia with their need for the latest McSoundbite. God no. So instead, we need the McReason (They Hate Our Freedom) and the McSolution (We Will Fight Them Abroad So That We Don't Have To Fight Them At Home).

Fortunately (from my perspective anyway), Life is a bit more complex than a Happy Meal, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either selling you propaganda, or has already bought it themselves.

Not American sponsored, only their own home grown home cultured, home religion oppression.

Not American sponsored? Only a few lines ago (I pointed it out and said to remember it) you said that the US did sponsor these people and that you were glad they did.

Jeez....couldn't you at least keep the current excuse consistent within the confines of a single post?

jc

The Corinthian

popinfresh wrote:

World war 2 was different (or was it). There was a nation, Hitlers Germany, trying to invade other countries for oil reserves and expansion of their own power. It was necessary to take out Hitler, otherwise the rest of the world could not have survived economically.

Where on Earth did you study history?

Hitler’s was only interested in eastern expansion - the so-called policy of Leibensraum, and as such the only oil fields and, by extension, economy that he threatened in were in the Soviet Union. All his other territorial adventures were largely defensive ones to defend against the allies and militarily prop up Italy’s Mediterranean expansionist policies. He even told Franco he didn’t want him in the war largely because he had enough coastline to worry about.

There are a number of similarities between Hitler and Saddam; both were dictators and came from what would be roughly considered Fascist ideologies. However these similarities are limited. Bush, on the other hand would ironically (as he is traditionally an isolationist) be more akin to an American or European premier of la Belle Epoc, such as Teddy Roosevelt - pursuing a course of economic imperialism, fueled by technological superiority and justified by the promise of bringing civilization to the fuzzy wuzzies. Not really like Hitler at all.

I do wish people would think before going off on a mindless rant...

popinfresh

Where on Earth did you study history?

My apologies, by other countries I was in fact refering to just Russia but I simplified it to "other countries" in an attempt to draw a comparison between Hitler invading "other countries" and Bush invading "other countries". as opposed to opening up a discussion about the details of World War 2.

Hitler’s was only interested in eastern expansion - the so-called policy of Leibensraum, and as such the only oil fields and, by extension, economy that he threatened in were in the Soviet Union

Yeah you are 100% correct here, in fairness though I wasn't disagreeing with this.

I suppose in some ways you're right, Hitler's brutality and ideaology is definately more comparable to Saddam than to Bush. But when I make the comparison between Bush and Hitler I am refering to the fact that they both beefed up their citizens with propeganda to gain support. Then invaded countries (Hitler=Russia, Bush=Iraq) so as to further the wealth of their own nations. And history shows us that the last time some1 tried to pull this off(The Nazis) it evolved into a very nasty situation. And I beleive when America starts to benefit economically from the Iraq war, a lot of countries are gonna be really p1ssed off. Namely Russia, China, EU. Which will lead to yet another nasty situation. That's why I'm so damn Anti-Bush at the moment

ionapaul

popinfresh wrote:

I suppose in some ways you're right, Hitler's brutality and ideaology is definately more comparable to Saddam than to Bush. But when I make the comparison between Bush and Hitler I am refering to the fact that they both beefed up their citizens with propeganda to gain support. Then invaded countries (Hitler=Russia, Bush=Iraq) so as to further the wealth of their own nations. And history shows us that the last time some1 tried to pull this off(The Nazis) it evolved into a very nasty situation. And I beleive when America starts to benefit economically from the Iraq war, a lot of countries are gonna be really p1ssed off. Namely Russia, China, EU. Which will lead to yet another nasty situation. That's why I'm so damn Anti-Bush at the moment

- ALL nations that go to war use propaganda to 'beef up' popular support. During WWII the Allies used propaganda as much as the Axis.
-America isn't going to benefit from the wealth of Iraq, the most you could claim is American corporations are going to benefit. More of the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi oil will go to the Iraqi people (via their government) than when Saddam built his dozens of palaces and Uday owned dozens of Ferraris. Ireland benefited from Saddam's dictatorship by selling beef to the Iraqi army, who murdered their fellow citizens...that's why I'm just so damn Anti-Irish Beef Industry at the moment!
- The French, Chinese and Russians who grumbled about the war did so because a) they dislike America's continuing (growing?) dominance of world affairs and b) they knew they could make more money dealing with Saddam than with the Americans. Don't kid yourself that they gave a rats ass about the Iraqi people. I at least believe that Bush cares about democracy as a general ideal.
- Again, the worst you could say (and remain plausible) about Bush invading Iraq was that he did so because of a personal vendetta, desire to further American power (one of his mandates as US President I would think) and due to faulty intelligence. Likening Bush to Hitler is laughable, IMO. Even if he goes down in history as America's worst president, he will look a whole lot better than Saddam, Hitler, or any other modern dictator ever did.
- Despite Bush's dubious motives, the end result (getting rid of Saddam, attempting to put in place a fairer and democratic government in Iraq) is worthwhile. Like I mentioned earlier, I am extremely confident that the majority of Iraqis, if given the choice, would choose life today over life under Saddam - those few who would rather live under Saddam echo those in the USSR who still harp on about their safe, oppressed llife under the Politboro.

sliabh

popinfresh wrote:

Then invaded countries (Hitler=Russia, Bush=Iraq) so as to further the wealth of their own nations.

Quite apart from whether this is a correct view of Bush's motivation there is no comparison, and you are in very dangerous territory there. I don't think anyone (even the most extreme Bush hater) is suggesting that the US is planning to start deporting Iraqis or executing them to make way for American farmers and colonists.

If you want a comperable economic colonisation model look at the European move into Africa or the British Raj in India where the local population was effectively controlled by the likes of the East India Company.

BTW, my personal view is that the position that the US is only there for the oil is too simplistic. But that's just my two (euro) cents worth

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

-America isn't going to benefit from the wealth of Iraq,

Assuming the Iraqis welcomed the US army and threw rose petals in front of Bush as he believed. The belief was the oil would flow from Iraq. Add to that not having to pay the bill for all the oil they got just prior to the war and the massive contracts the US companies are getting (or countries/even Iraqi businesses locked out from tendering). I would say they plan to make a serious amount of cash.

That is even ignoring the price gouging and profiteering by Cheny.

More of the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi oil will go to the Iraqi people (via their government)

That is quite unlikely. In fact the contracts put in place are just a nicer way of raping the country. On TV at the contracts signing, when mentioned what if the Iraq people didn't like that they were being taken the reply by the new government was "Tough, a contract is final it can't be changed" (sic).

Ireland benefited from Saddam's dictatorship by selling beef to the Iraqi army, who murdered their fellow citizens...that's why I'm just so damn Anti-Irish Beef Industry at the moment!

Actually they didn't. Saddam had a huge bill to pay Ireland at the break out of the first Gulf war and his reply was something along the lines of "get stuffed".

I at least believe that Bush cares about democracy as a general ideal.

Believes in it if it serves his purpose. Otherwise installing or supporting puppet dictators/rebels (aka terrorists) is par of the course.

Again, the worst you could say (and remain plausible) about Bush invading Iraq was that he did so because of a personal vendetta,

Then Bush is even more fuk'ed up then I give him credit for. Do you really think a president who uses all the countries resources and money to settle a personal vendetta is a good president?

due to faulty intelligence.

Do some research. The intelligence wasn't faulty. It was ignored by the administration as it didn't help give a reason to go to war.

if given the choice, would choose life today over life under Saddam

That may be true, but I believe after Saddam was removed the Iraqis asked the US to leave the country.