You’re absolutely right, they didn’t have the industry to fight a massive campaign. But, by your reasoning, let’s go back to 1000 AD thinking.

Population of Axis countries in 1940:

Germany – 70 million people
Japan – 70 million people
Italy – 40 million people

Total – 180 million people

World population – 2400 million people.

By AD 1000 thinking, there is NO way Germany, Japan, and Italy posess the power to threaten the entire rest of the globe, they don’t have enough people, they’re outnumbered 13 to 1.

But why could they threaten the globe? Because they posessed a multiplicating factor of technology.

Now, what technology could one nation (or even one person) use to blackmail all of those around him for a couple mile radius? Let’s even ignore Chemical or Biological weapons, assuming they never existed, let’s just say one, that’s nuclear. Now, what other technology could allow you to threaten those around you in, say, a 200 mile radius? Missiles (or even rockets). Now, what other technology could allow you to threaten anyone on the globe? Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.

Which of those three technologies did Saddam have? Missiles. That one’s easy. Which one did we KNOW he was actively pursuing? Nuclear. Which one, with the aid of newer and newer computer technology, would he eventually be able to build, develop, and test without ever having to run a single real-world test? ICBM’s.

You think what you want to think, believe what you want to believe, but the simple truth is Saddam could have gotten the equipment and technology, it was only a matter of time. And if he had them, it’s a whole new cold war all over again. Only this time it’s Saddam and whoever he chooses to give the technology to, against the United States and all who stand against Saddam and what he stands for. Who knows, maybe a missile never launches, maybe it does, what do we do then? Either way, another cold war is something I do not want to see happen in my lifetime, or in my children’s, or grandchildren’s, or their kids, or…

That’s funny. Especially the part where they made that “irrelevant relic, over the hill, alcoholic who should retire” the Prime Minister. Once what he said was going to happen, happened. But unlike modern socialists (er.. I mean liberals…) like you guys, Neville Chamberlain at least admitted that he was wrong.

“Again, READ THE BOOK and stop making shit up.

Since England was in NO position to challenge Germany militarily and everyone knew it, including Churchill, the key to keeping Hitler in check was obviously to threaten Germany with the prospect of a two-flank war. Nobody in Germany, including Hitler, had any illusions about Germany’s ability to win a such a war. (Hitler only invaded Russia when he thought that Britain had been knocked out of the war… and if the US hadn’t eventually shown up to help Britain invade Europe, the two-flank war probably would never have happened.)

The idea of trying to knock out Germany’s huge armed forces with a lightning blow would have been an utter disaster for England. The fact that you even believe that this was a military option shows that you know NOTHING about the subject.

Nearly exhausted by WWI and up to its eyeballs in debt, Britain was not in any position to have super-power pretensions. Churchill would not have even considered for ten seconds the sort of idiotic Bush-like unilateral action which you suggest.”

Whoa there tiger, calm down before you go off swearing at me like I’m making stuff up and outright lying. Liberals do that best… “ahhh did not haaave sexual relations with thaaat wo-man”… anyhow… getting back on point…

What year are you talking about here? After World War I, Germany was a defeated nation, unable to build a real military of any sort, until Hitler violated the treaty. If you’re talking about August 1939, yeah Britain was kinda at a disadvantage. If you’re talking the early to mid 1930′s, it’s another story. Even back then, Churchill was saying “Um, guys, Hitler isn’t building those tanks just to have parades. We need to build up our army.”

Had England did what he suggested from that point on, Germany would never have had the military power they had in World War II. At some point a decision would have been made to stop them before they become too powerful. England would have struck Germany for violating the Treaty of Versailles while they had the upper hand, and Churchill would have went down in history as a warmonger who killed tens of thousands of people for a “needless” war. But seven million Russian civlians would have lived, thirteen million Russian soldiers would have lived, three million German civilians and three million German soldiers would have lived, two atomic bombs would not have been dropped… You get the point? But the writers of history would have demonized Churchill and his pre-emptive strike against Germany as unnecessary, without ever knowing that fifty-two MILLION people would have died otherwise during the course of a World War that Winston Churchill would have prevented by preemptively striking Germany while they were still a defeated nation, trying to build up their military might in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

How does our preemptive attack on a country not involved the attacks on 11 SEP 2001 equate with England’s action? Saudi Arabia would have been a better target only after we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Which task is still unfinished, if you haven’t noticed.”

Go back and read it in context. I said “liberals probably would have whined if Winston Churchill was in charge and attacked Germany in 1937 while he was still building up his army, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles”. He would have “caused” the deaths of tens of thousands of people, you’d be protesting the crap out of him for being such a warmonger, how dare he do such a thing?

This is the FIRST time the US has attacked a rogue nation who was threatening us, in violation of peace treaties signed after they were defeated, yadda yadda yadda… you get the point. Had Saddam been allowed to continue, he would undoubtedly have been able to develop nuclear weapons, threatening everyone around him, and if he ever developed long range missile capability, he could threaten the entire globe. THAT is why we are over there, because there was no end in sight, no diplomatic solution (we tried for eleven years), and Saddam was never going to back down, much like Hitler would not be appeased.

This is sheer bullshit, Barwick. Stop making shit up and READ THE FUCKING BOOK for yourself. Nobody in Parliament was afraid of Churchill rising to a position of power. Most MP’s, of all parties, thought he was an irrelevant relic, an alcoholic, over the hill and should retire, etc.

Would you go right out on record, right after the “War to end all wars” when everybody’s starry-eyed with peace, and say “we need to attack Germany and destroy their weapons that they illegally produced”?

Again, READ THE BOOK and stop making shit up.

Since England was in NO position to challenge Germany militarily and everyone knew it, including Churchill, the key to keeping Hitler in check was obviously to threaten Germany with the prospect of a two-flank war. Nobody in Germany, including Hitler, had any illusions about Germany’s ability to win a such a war. (Hitler only invaded Russia when he thought that Britain had been knocked out of the war… and if the US hadn’t eventually shown up to help Britain invade Europe, the two-flank war probably would never have happened.)

The idea of trying to knock out Germany’s huge armed forces with a lightning blow would have been an utter disaster for England. The fact that you even believe that this was a military option shows that you know NOTHING about the subject.

Nearly exhausted by WWI and up to its eyeballs in debt, Britain was not in any position to have super-power pretensions. Churchill would not have even considered for ten seconds the sort of idiotic Bush-like unilateral action which you suggest.

How does our preemptive attack on a country not involved the attacks on 11 SEP 2001 equate with England’s action? Saudi Arabia would have been a better target only after we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Which task is still unfinished, if you haven’t noticed.

After Neville Chamberlain came back with a “signed promise of peace” from Hitler, and everybody was celebrating, applauding Chamberlain on such a great diplomatic victory and avoiding a horrific war, everyone was standing and clapping while Winston Churchill remained sitting, looking grim.

When asked what he thought of this great day that Neville Chamberlain had brought upon the continent, he responded:

“Mr. Chamberlain had a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor and he shall have war.”

To which everyone responded by railing him, calling him a warmonger and such.

Don’t tell me Churchill only wanted an “alliance” with these countries. Churchill is on record many times as saying that Britain needs to take a stand militarily against Hitler.

Would you go right out on record, right after the “War to end all wars” when everybody’s starry-eyed with peace, and say “we need to attack Germany and destroy their weapons that they illegally produced”?

Churchill at NO time proposed a pre-emptive strike against ANYONE.

What he DID propose was that England and France sign a defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia—
a nation which, contrary to popular stereotypes was actually quite well-armed and could have held out against Hitler quite well, thank you very much, IF the Germans had been faced with a two-front war.

But since neither England or France wanted to give the Czechs such a guarantee, Hitler could confidently invade Czechoslovakia, and did so.

After the fall of Czechoslovakia, it became quite plain that Poland would be the next target of Nazi aggression, so Churchill called upon England and France to form a defensive alliance with the USSR in order to guarantee Poland’s borders.

But neither England or France was willing to make such a defensive alliance with the USSR. So Stalin and company decided that their NEXT BEST choice to protect their asses from the Nazis was to sign the 1939 non-aggression pact. Once this was accomplished, Poland was obviously toast.

You can verify this for yourself in William Manchester’s excellent Churchill biography, “The Last Lion”. Go to the public libray and read it, so you’ll know WTF you’re talking about the next time you start shooting your mouth off, you stupid arse.

Incidentally, you should also know that the US at that time was staunchly opposed to intervention in Europe.

And that was NOT because the liberal president Roosevelt was opposed to intervention, but because prominent RIGHT-wingers of the thirties,including radio’s Father Coughlin (the Rush Limbaugh of the 1930′s, the German Bund, and even prominent American air ace Charles Lindburgh, were staunch Hitler fans who wanted the US to leave their boy alone.

http://www.ushmm.org/dorpm.cgi/wlc/film/dfr0710r.smi

And yes, the soldiers I know are GLAD to be over there doing what needs to be done. For the first time in the history of the United States someone had the balls to make a pre-emptive strike against those who within the next few years or decade would be able to (and would gladly take the opportunity to) threaten us with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Had Winston Churchill been in power in Britain in 1935 as Hitler was violating the Treaty of Versailles, he would have given an ultimatum to destroy all weaponry that was made. If he did not comply, he would have struck Germany and Hitler’s war machine as it was preparing for the Blitzkrieg against Poland, France, and the rest of Europe, thereby “causing” the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers of Britain and Germany, and certainly thousands of innocent civilians at the same time.

BUT World War II would have been averted. My grandmother would still have her brother, my grandfather wouldn’t have been haunted by memories of his service in the Pacific till the day he died in 1994, millions upon millions of soldiers AND civilians lives would not have been lost, two nuclear weapons would not have been dropped on two separate cities in Japan… you get the point?

THAT is what Churchill would have done, and I’m sure if you were alive back then you would have been screaming up and down at Franklin Delano Roosevelt for supporting him (or for not condemning him), screaming that it’s a “war for nothing” and this and that.

World War II was not a war to capture Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. It was a war to end the horrific acts that were occuring across the globe at the time. You may not see it as such, but the war on terrorism is much the same thing. Terrorists and those who support them in any way will be attacked and disabled (whether they give twenty-five thousand dollars to families of suicide bombers, producing chemical and nuclear weapons (as verified by UN inspectors) against the rules of the Gulf War peace treaty, which he could then sell to terrorists or other nations).

If Saddam was given enough time he could easily have threatened every nation around him with those weapons, and if he developed ICBM technology, he could threaten the entire globe.

As I said, the soldiers I know are glad to be over there getting the job done. And no they’re not glad that they have to be there, that they’re risking their lives, that they might have to or have killed people, that they’re in a war at all.

In the choice between peace and war there is an obvious choice. But there is only one way you can be guaranteed peace, and that is surrender.

I know that you and he probably have other things on your minds right now, but I’d be really interested to see his reponse to Barwick’s posting.

Barwick, you weren’t “censored” because of your views but because your post was so devoid of connection with the discussion or the entry, I honestly thought it was spam. Spam trolls often dump a bunch of ascii onto comment threads simply to make the comments section literally illegible to users. Your barrage looked like greasy pink stuff to me.

You’re certainly welcome to join any discussion. I’d recommend quoting the portion of the post you’re referring to and addressing that specific area rather than yacking up a rambling, incoherent “I hate liberals and this blog” fugue, which is characteristic of spam. Complaining that you weren’t treated special is like walking into a bar and busting chairs, then carping that the service was terrible.

Chris, about asking the families, I think they should be consulted about privacy for the funerals, but commemorating the dead by reading their names on the news should be done until the mission really is accomplished. That Maupassant Molly mentioned — which I’ll have to dig up, Molly, cause it sounds like the perfect allegory — seems to nail what a lot of homecoming vets experience. A lot of the shame people lay on vets after the action’s over is from not knowing how to have a dialogue about war wounds. (Just ask Gulf War vets who have persistent health problems from DU and can’t get recourse.) IMO that awkwardness is why vets’ benefits get targeted so swiftly, even during war, as the Bush admin has sleazily done. Saying the names of the dead honors their service, and it makes it harder to turn our backs on them afterwards. (BTW, for a good vet’s eye view of things, do visit Jo Fish at his blog, Democratic Vet.)

Thanks for the nice comments, all.

PS: I’ve been untethered from my main system for a couple of days because of repairs going on in my office. Sunday’s and Monday’s posts are inacessible. I should be back on the mothership tomorrow so I’ll have a few new entries tomorrow.

It’s what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.

“Now, I realize the above comment from barwick is just spam, but there’s a pretty scary (if inadvertent) disconnect there — “Look at the dead fetuses! Ignore the dead soldiers!” Just goes to prove that the wingnuts have no interest in the living, only potential lives. Sad, really.”

Yeah I don’t care about them at all. I know some of them fighting over there right now. I grew up in the same parish as Jerry Zovko, one of the men who was over there and dragged through the streets by crazed civilians of Fallujah on March 31.

You know what? Every one I know who is over there is GLAD to be over there, taking a stand with strong resolve, against those who would rather threaten and defy the free nations of this planet.

You and your like appeased Hitler and look where that ended up. You whined when George Bush Sr. wanted to finish off Saddam’s Regime over a decade ago after he had invaded Kuwait, you whined when we attacked Iraq after they violated the terms of the ending of the Gulf War (namely unrestricted access, not to mention pursuit of nuclear weapons as verified by UN inspectors, posession of chemical weapons, etc.)

And don’t even try to say he didn’t have them or he got rid of them… even if he buried them, that’s one backyard swimming pool’s size worth of chemicals in a big giant sandbox, do you *think* he could hide them? The dude buried MIG jets in the sand right outside a base occupied for US forces for months before we found out the MIGs were there.

Give me a break. You liberals aren’t about “freedom” or making this country better, all you want to do is advance your socialist agenda, spewing hate towards all those who stand in support of our Founding Fathers and their principles.

For all your liberals’ talk of “free speech” then you go and delete someone’s post when they speak the truth… heaven forbid.

As I said before… heaven forbid I confuse you liberals with something so insignificant as the truth.