In article <20060119153215.Y63095@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, xeno says...
>All of that is a red herring. We didn't need a so-called "airtight" air
>defense because nobody had any real capability to attack the US mainland.
In fact the United States mainland WAS attacked, not just once, but on
several
occasions. It was the fortunate stupidity, short-sightedness and
incoherence of
our enemies which prevented much worse.
>> >having any real strategic bombers. (& also by not taking advantage of
>
>> The Germans didn't need strategic bombers to bomb Britain.
>
>Their bombing of Britain would have been far more effective if they had
>bombers that could deliver a larger payload & had a greater range, like
>the RAF & the USAAF had. Not to mention fighters with enough range to
>protect them over their targets & on their way back. You can't dispute
>that w/o absurdity.
Their bombing would have been even more effective if they had had a
coherent
plan of operation, and rational leader****p. They lacked both.
>> Arguably it was the Soviets who enabled Hitler to START WWII by
>> eliminating the immediate danger of a second front. The invasion of
>> Poland in 1939 was a JOINT one.
>
>So what. The Soviets made a deal with Hitler to stave off an attack by
>Hitler which they presumed was going to ineventually come anyway. Who
was
>going to come to defence of the Soviet Union? Nobody. So, just because
the
>Soviets were ruthless doesn't mean that they enabled Hitler in his
>aggression. They did what they did because of it.
They made Hitler's aggression possible, because they hoped to profit from
it,
which in the short run, they did. However, like so many of Stalin's other
decisions, it bit him in the ass in the full measure of time. Of course
he
inflicted substantial casualties on the Red Army HIMSELF, before a single
German
boot touched Soviet territory. You also have to ask yourself this: If
Stalin
was such a sharp operator by agreeing to the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact, how
come
Hitler caught him with his pants down around his ankles in 1941?
>> Certainly not in any meaningful sense. Now if we were sending tens of
>> thousands of Iraqis home as slave laborers and gassing millions more to
>> death, you'd have a point. We aren't and you don't.
>
>
>The Iraqis didn't attack us, had nothing to do with 911, & we started a
>war with them anyway lying about the reasons. That's what makes us like
>Nazis. You brought up this WW2 analogy business & it just doesn't work.
>Not the way you want it to.
You seem to be conceding the point. Not only aren't we enslaving or
exterminating the Iraqi people, tens if not hundreds of thousands of them
are
wandering about the United States freely, many as citizens. The Wehrmact
and
the US Army both wore boots. That doesn't make us Nazis.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.
|
