And I was under the impression that when the camps were first encountered, that they didn't release them right away from those hell holes for a reason. Same reason they didn't give them tons of food and water... It probably ended up saving many lives.
Now it's my turn to be confused. How exactly did they save lives by not releasing them from "hell holes" or giving them ample food and water?
Of all the things to base this upon, but on that series "Band Of Brothers" which was based upon the book on a regiment of the 101st Airborne, they had an episode where they liberated a concentration camp. A medical officer told them they should only be given the basics in food and water because they'd been starved so much they could overeat and die. Don't know how. They were also concerned with the spread of diseases and sickness from the prisoners so they kept them in the camp until they could check em all and find places to house them. Bad thing to base a resonse upon I know, but perhaps that's what happened in that situation.
Umm.. Thats not what I was thinking... It's more from things I've read from dealing with people dying of hunger in Africa. but ok...
I know it's a bad reference, but it was based upon real events where a U.S. regiment was told not to feed or let out a group of Nazi concentration camp survivors.
Plaese to stop with the "either/or" rhetoric, it's getting old. I'm not saying the Allied forces as a whole, meaning every single soldier, officer or politician, was anti-semetic. I am saying that anti-semetism was high among various individuals and organizations (i.e. big business) in the US prior to entering the war and the US and British Militaries had little or no interest in making the saving of Jews a priority.
To put this back into the context of my larger argument, I'm saying that WWII propaganda led the US public to wrongly believe that they were entering a "just" war in order to fight facism. Our current administration is also using propaganda (e.g. citing Saddam's ruthless mistreatment of his people as justification for bombing the shit out of the same people) in order to win over a wary public.
So you think it would have been better if we had all just left Hitler alone to get on with his plans...If that had happened I think that there would be a lot of western europe and maybe the US speaking german these days as part of "The 1000year Reich".
Appeasement does not work in these situations, remember Lloyd George and his claim of "Peace in our time"
Sure we could have left Saddam to his own devices,however in the long run it would have been a mistake.
He should have been removed/eliminated the first time.
Sure we could have left Saddam to his own devices,however in the long run it would have been a mistake. He should have been removed/eliminated the first time.
Saddam, had a piss poor army that had serious moral problems, 2 no fly zones in the North and the South where the U.S. and the U.K. would bomb his air defense system at least once a year, sanctions which Saddam was using to steal Iraqi money from but had cut off the ability to upgrade his military, and U.N. inspectors had destroyed his WMD program. The containment strategy pretty much had him penned in from being a threat to others. How he treated his own people is another question though.
But the idea of the US could have just bombed rail lines would have saved lives... Maybe at best you would have slowed down the process (Maybe...). But you weren't stopping the death marches until you got to them.
I am curious what you base your opinion on? I am no bombing expert but it would seem to me that any delay would have most likely spared many thousands of lives. Another option that Churchill purportedly endorsed was bombing Auschwitz itself. This too would have saved tens maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. Alas, neither of these options were ever attempted.
Far and away most of the Jews died by machine gun or gas chamber. The death marches were horrific events (read "Night" by Elie Weisel for a compelling first person account of his experience on such a march) but most of the Jews were gone by then.
But the idea of the US could have just bombed rail lines would have saved lives... Maybe at best you would have slowed down the process (Maybe...). But you weren't stopping the death marches until you got to them.
I am curious what you base your opinion on? I am no bombing expert but it would seem to me that any delay would have most likely spared many thousands of lives. Another option that Churchill purportedly endorsed was bombing Auschwitz itself. This too would have saved tens maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. Alas, neither of these options were ever attempted.
Far and away most of the Jews died by machine gun or gas chamber. The death marches were horrific events (read "Night" by Elie Weisel for a compelling first person account of his experience on such a march) but most of the Jews were gone by then.
Bombing a rail line would have stopped nothing. And as far as delaying goes... What a day or a week? The nazis would have just done it a different way (Maybe with bullets or maybe they would have just set the rail cars ablaze right then and there). The only way to stop these killings were to do it with troops on the ground and defeating the nazis.
But the idea of the US could have just bombed rail lines would have saved lives... Maybe at best you would have slowed down the process (Maybe...). But you weren't stopping the death marches until you got to them.
I am curious what you base your opinion on? I am no bombing expert but it would seem to me that any delay would have most likely spared many thousands of lives. Another option that Churchill purportedly endorsed was bombing Auschwitz itself. This too would have saved tens maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. Alas, neither of these options were ever attempted.
Far and away most of the Jews died by machine gun or gas chamber. The death marches were horrific events (read "Night" by Elie Weisel for a compelling first person account of his experience on such a march) but most of the Jews were gone by then.
Bombing a rail line would have stopped nothing. And as far as delaying goes... What a day or a week? The nazis would have just done it a different way (Maybe with bullets or maybe they would have just set the rail cars ablaze right then and there). The only way to stop these killings were to do it with troops on the ground and defeating the nazis.
Anyways.. this is wayyy off topic. Lets talk more about spliffs post!
DOR you're a nice guy but right now you're talking out of your ass. Neither of us knows what allied bombings could have done. So I'll leave it at that.
Look, I'm no fan of Bush or his administration, but after 9/11 I think it would have made little difference who was in power, things would have gone down pretty much the same.
Why not look at the situation like this, Saddam and his cronies were/are evil and corrupt men and it is better for his people and the world in general that they are in jail or dead.(Same with Hitler!)
It will probably be only a matter of time until something similar happens in Iran, I don't want to see more war, but the thought of them having nuclear capabilities I dislike even more...
No matter what you are told are the reasons for a conflict, sometimes the ends justify the means...
Wow...this friggin American media mislead me again!!
Rascism is at an all time high? Firstly only some idiotic media outlet would try to measure something you can't measure.
Secondly I wonder where they got their information? For example a link someone posted on this site led me to a Washington Post journalist who published an article on Rascism in Europe, stating that Kentish town in London was a Nazi stronghold, with walls daubed with Nazi graffiti and posters. So I emailed him to ask him to justify his statement (Kentish Town is actually a really nice area) and he said that his article was based on London in the 1970s!!!!!
Just quickly wantto chime in on EU rascim/nationalism
It is definitely on the rise in response to growing immigration and globalization (EU consolidaiton) Nationalistic political parties with a racial agenda have gained in popularity
Notably the FN in france with that bastard LePen(2nd in the french elections), the "north" party in Italy, almost neonazi party in Austria (3rd), swiss nationalist party. Increasingly these parties are gaining support and representatives and cooperatingbetween each other. Given the fragile position of many of these countries' internal politics they are often important political allies in minority governments
Look, I'm no fan of Bush or his administration, but after 9/11 I think it would have made little difference who was in power, things would have gone down pretty much the same.
Because what? He didn't have connections with Al Qaeda. He didn't have connections with any active anti-Western terrorist groups. He might have had some left over WMD from the Iran-Iraq war that U.S. intelligence wasn't even sure still worked because it had a limited shelf-life and might have expried. That's what U.S. intelligence is telling Clinton and the early Bush administration.
And if we're fighting a war on terrorism against religious extremist Islamists, how does invading a secular dictatorship in Iraq help?
By the way, have you ever heard of Pakistan? They supported the Taliban. They supported Al Qaeda. They have nuclear weapons and WMD. They were selling nuclear technology to countries like North Korea, Libya, etc. that we don't like. Bin Laden is probably hiding in northern Pakistan. They have Islamist terrorist training camps STILL in that country today. They STILL support Islamist terrorist because they use them against India in Kashmere. They have ex-military officers and politicians who openly support the Taliban STILL. The ex-head of Pakistani intelligence told the BBC radio just last year, well Al Qaeda did bad things but the Taliban are our brothers, they've done nothing wrong, why should we be against them? Their president is a military dictator who took power in a coup. He's turned against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but there are reports that junior officers in the intelligence service let Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives escape from capture.
But yeah, Iraq probably was the next front in the war on terrorism right?
Here's what Tony Blair's cabinet thought of the U.S. arguments for war in secret memos after meeting with the Bush administration to discuss Iraq in March and July 2002.
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said ???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.???
???The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
It seems like ur pointing alot of finger at who the US should invade next. Is that what ur getting at?
And you mention Libya. What are your thoughts on their move from terrorist state? To now wanting to join the world community? Could that in any way be attributed to anything that has gone down in the past 4 years? Including in part not wanting to end up like Saddam and Iraq?
Note: This isn't what I believe, I'm just asking your thoughts on the matter.
It seems like ur pointing alot of finger at who the US should invade next. Is that what ur getting at?
And you mention Libya. What are your thoughts on their move from terrorist state? To now wanting to join the world community? Could that in any way be attributed to anything that has gone down in the past 4 years? Including in part not wanting to end up like Saddam and Iraq?
Note: This isn't what I believe, I'm just asking your thoughts on the matter.
I'm not for invading Pakistan, Iran, any of those places really as part of the war on terror.
I'm trying to say 1) Iraq wasn't involved with Al Qaeda so it's a funny place to invade in the war on terror, 2) Pakistan had and has a much larger role with Islamists and spreading WMD so that would probably be a better place to work against Islamists. Invading Pakistan wouldn't be the answer though.
As for Libya, they'd been trying to make up with the U.S. since the Clinton administration and we're pretty much ignored. They're economy was stagnant and Qaddafi was isolated. He stopped supporting anti-Western terrorism in the 1990s as part of this. I don't think they did it just because Iraq got invaded.
Islamism is a growing threat to the U.S., Europe, Asia, hell everywhere. Just thinking we can go out and kill them all will not slay the beast. All that stuff about this is a "war of ideas" isn't just a touchy feely saying to win people over, I believe that's a large part of the war on terror. Islamists don't just blow up car bombs, but also act as social organizations and provide a sense of meaning to a lot of Muslims' whose identity is in flux and face pretty bad economic conditions. Ache is a province that was hard hit by the Tsunami for example, and it's Islamist groups, not the government who've provided most of the aid to the people there. The U.S. needs to confront this issue with more than just military might and we've been failing at that big time.
Comments
I know it's a bad reference, but it was based upon real events where a U.S. regiment was told not to feed or let out a group of Nazi concentration camp survivors.
So you think it would have been better if we had all just left Hitler alone to get on with his plans...If that had happened I think that there would be a lot of western europe and maybe the US speaking german these days as part of "The 1000year Reich".
Appeasement does not work in these situations, remember Lloyd George and his claim of "Peace in our time"
Sure we could have left Saddam to his own devices,however in the long run it would have been a mistake.
He should have been removed/eliminated the first time.
"Go home and get a nice quiet sleep"
heh
Saddam, had a piss poor army that had serious moral problems, 2 no fly zones in the North and the South where the U.S. and the U.K. would bomb his air defense system at least once a year, sanctions which Saddam was using to steal Iraqi money from but had cut off the ability to upgrade his military, and U.N. inspectors had destroyed his WMD program. The containment strategy pretty much had him penned in from being a threat to others. How he treated his own people is another question though.
Oops! late here now, 3.45am, getting a bit fuzzy headed...
I'll consider myself...
Night all...
I am curious what you base your opinion on? I am no bombing expert but it would seem to me that any delay would have most likely spared many thousands of lives. Another option that Churchill purportedly endorsed was bombing Auschwitz itself. This too would have saved tens maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. Alas, neither of these options were ever attempted.
Far and away most of the Jews died by machine gun or gas chamber. The death marches were horrific events (read "Night" by Elie Weisel for a compelling first person account of his experience on such a march) but most of the Jews were gone by then.
Bombing a rail line would have stopped nothing. And as far as delaying goes... What a day or a week? The nazis would have just done it a different way (Maybe with bullets or maybe they would have just set the rail cars ablaze right then and there). The only way to stop these killings were to do it with troops on the ground and defeating the nazis.
Churchill knew about the Holocaust.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=109
Anyways.. this is wayyy off topic. Lets talk more about spliffs post!
How about a nice discussion about the future of social security?
DOR you're a nice guy but right now you're talking out of your ass. Neither of us knows what allied bombings could have done. So I'll leave it at that.
Why not look at the situation like this, Saddam and his cronies were/are evil and corrupt men and it is better for his people and the world in general that they are in jail or dead.(Same with Hitler!)
It will probably be only a matter of time until something similar happens in Iran, I don't want to see more war, but the thought of them having nuclear capabilities I dislike even more...
No matter what you are told are the reasons for a conflict, sometimes the ends justify the means...
Rascism is at an all time high? Firstly only some idiotic media outlet would try to measure something you can't measure.
Secondly I wonder where they got their information? For example a link someone posted on this site led me to a Washington Post journalist who published an article on Rascism in Europe, stating that Kentish town in London was a Nazi stronghold, with walls daubed with Nazi graffiti and posters. So I emailed him to ask him to justify his statement (Kentish Town is actually a really nice area) and he said that his article was based on London in the 1970s!!!!!
OK..who is that???
Yes, inquiring minds wanna know...
It is definitely on the rise in response to growing immigration and globalization (EU consolidaiton) Nationalistic political parties with a racial agenda have gained in popularity
Notably the FN in france with that bastard LePen(2nd in the french elections), the "north" party in Italy, almost neonazi party in Austria (3rd), swiss nationalist party. Increasingly these parties are gaining support and representatives and cooperatingbetween each other. Given the fragile position of many of these countries' internal politics they are often important political allies in minority governments
Something to know and consider
Because what? He didn't have connections with Al Qaeda. He didn't have connections with any active anti-Western terrorist groups. He might have had some left over WMD from the Iran-Iraq war that U.S. intelligence wasn't even sure still worked because it had a limited shelf-life and might have expried. That's what U.S. intelligence is telling Clinton and the early Bush administration.
And if we're fighting a war on terrorism against religious extremist Islamists, how does invading a secular dictatorship in Iraq help?
By the way, have you ever heard of Pakistan? They supported the Taliban. They supported Al Qaeda. They have nuclear weapons and WMD. They were selling nuclear technology to countries like North Korea, Libya, etc. that we don't like. Bin Laden is probably hiding in northern Pakistan. They have Islamist terrorist training camps STILL in that country today. They STILL support Islamist terrorist because they use them against India in Kashmere. They have ex-military officers and politicians who openly support the Taliban STILL. The ex-head of Pakistani intelligence told the BBC radio just last year, well Al Qaeda did bad things but the Taliban are our brothers, they've done nothing wrong, why should we be against them? Their president is a military dictator who took power in a coup. He's turned against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but there are reports that junior officers in the intelligence service let Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives escape from capture.
But yeah, Iraq probably was the next front in the war on terrorism right?
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said ???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.???
???The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
And you mention Libya. What are your thoughts on their move from terrorist state? To now wanting to join the world community? Could that in any way be attributed to anything that has gone down in the past 4 years? Including in part not wanting to end up like Saddam and Iraq?
Note: This isn't what I believe, I'm just asking your thoughts on the matter.
I'm not for invading Pakistan, Iran, any of those places really as part of the war on terror.
I'm trying to say 1) Iraq wasn't involved with Al Qaeda so it's a funny place to invade in the war on terror, 2) Pakistan had and has a much larger role with Islamists and spreading WMD so that would probably be a better place to work against Islamists. Invading Pakistan wouldn't be the answer though.
As for Libya, they'd been trying to make up with the U.S. since the Clinton administration and we're pretty much ignored. They're economy was stagnant and Qaddafi was isolated. He stopped supporting anti-Western terrorism in the 1990s as part of this. I don't think they did it just because Iraq got invaded.
Islamism is a growing threat to the U.S., Europe, Asia, hell everywhere. Just thinking we can go out and kill them all will not slay the beast. All that stuff about this is a "war of ideas" isn't just a touchy feely saying to win people over, I believe that's a large part of the war on terror. Islamists don't just blow up car bombs, but also act as social organizations and provide a sense of meaning to a lot of Muslims' whose identity is in flux and face pretty bad economic conditions. Ache is a province that was hard hit by the Tsunami for example, and it's Islamist groups, not the government who've provided most of the aid to the people there. The U.S. needs to confront this issue with more than just military might and we've been failing at that big time.
NOw I'd like to join the REAL debate that's going on in Soulstrut, and ask, yes, who the hell is that??!?!?! Spanish language TV host who is???