In article , OzOne wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:55:35 GMT, "Gilligan"
scribbled thusly:

The compromise between good and evil is never good. When dealing with evil,
war (force) is the only solution. Otherwise don't deal with evil. Your
solutions would bring people like Noriega, Saddam Hussien, Hitler(remember
Chamberlain and appeasement), Stalin, Il Jung and others into greater and
greater power. Negotiate with the devil and lose!

Gilligan, a veteran


Interesting isn't it...
Noriega was installed by the US
Saddam was a friend of the US
Hitler was trying to right what the Germans saw as a wrong when they
lost land to Poland and France after the Treaty of Versailles presided
over by Britain, France, Italy and the US

My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?

Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

PDW

Peter Wiley wrote:
My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?

Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
is, shall we kill people over it?



Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).

Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.



As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.

DSK

In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?

Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
is, shall we kill people over it?

No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.

Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).

Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.

Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.



As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.

Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers. That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.

PDW

Peter Wiley wrote:
No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.


No, at least not officially. But then that doesn't seem to be in style
these days anyway. Plenty of whackos with the potential to become
suicide bombers in Nusutengarra though.



Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).


Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.

I disagree somewhat. The German armies in the field had not been
decisively defeated, that is true. But they had been pushed back from
the Hindenburg line and only managed to prevent an Allied breakthrough
at high cost. Their manpower was waning dramatically (especially with
regard to bringing up trained reserves) and their supplies were running
out. Mostly they were being starved into submission. But an army that is
starving cannot fight.




As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.


Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers. That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.

yep... utter ruthlessness is hard to beat, and hard to believe for a lot
of people. IMHO Saddam Hussein's gov't is a classic example of a
revolution gone wrong... happens in history more often than ones that go
right, perhaps. The irony is that we (the US mainly, but also the
western powers) supported him against the obvious danger of Iran and now
we have toppled him which mostly helps Iran.

DSK

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?

Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
is, shall we kill people over it?

No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.

Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).

Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.

Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.



As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.

Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers.

Your inability to see reality is truly impressive.

*Before* the invasion, I said that there was no evidence to support Bush's
wild claims about WMD.

*Before* the invasion, I said that a war would create MORE terrorists - not
less.

Can you give us an example of a forecast that you made that has turned out
to be correct?
If you cannot, then you should consider the possibility that you have no
idea at all about the subject.

That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.

Saddam killed 300,000 in 30 years.
100,000 have died as a result of the war in little more than a year. Would
you say that Bush is more ruthless than Saddam?

I am constantly amazed by man's inability to learn from history.


Regards


Donal
--