A Russian patriot (my friend) speaks...

[WmGo]

... in response to Re: Re: Fear is another factor, posted by DanM on Apr 2, 2003

Afghanistan was about overthrowing and destroying as much as possible the government that harbored, protected, sanctioned, collaborated with and assisted the group (al Quaeda) that is responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It is also about hunting down and destroying al Quaeda. Both are perfectly just and legitimate. An act of war must be dealt with swiftly, decisively and severely. Although the job there remains to be finished, Bush scores an A+ on that front.

Iraq is about not allowing a tyrant with whom we negotiated a cease fire treaty to defy us after violating the terms of the treaty - as well as removing a possible future threat to the whole region. This is also legitimate morally and legally. Whether it turns out to be wise politically remains to be seen...I predict it will give rise to a new Arab/Muslim Alliance. It will be a long time before it can act...but it will at a moment of America's weakness. Ezekiel 38 and 39 will come to pass.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

[Zink]

... in response to Re: Re: Fear is another factor, posted by DanM on Apr 2, 2003

I partially agree with you. But there is one point I believe that many people miss. In order to keep these countries from becoming a future haven for enemies of the US, you will have to establish a colonial style government with full military backing. Otherwise as soon as the troops pull out things will revert to the way they were before. I don't believe that the US government really has a long term plan on how to change the under lying causes of it all. I'm not sure that there is a way to change the underlying causes. Who is in charge doesn't change a country. For example did Kennedy's death totally change how Americans thought and acted? You need to change their thinking from the bottom up. Fast wars rarely do that. We are talking about cultures that are steeped in hardship and bloodshed. You take out the top guys and there will be others to step into the gap and nothing really changed.

[BURKE89]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Yep!!!

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Glad to meet a fellow history buff. My favorite are biographies of historical characters. I am currently reading a book on Catherine the Great. My next one will be on a guy named Pugachev. I doubt I am spelling it correctly, but I hope you know what I mean. I also like WW II history. I went through a period where I read everything I could get my hands on. My favorite guy from that period has always been Rommel.

Sorry about the Oliver Stonish comment. I did not mean for that to sound sarcastic, but I can see where it could be taken the wrong way. Sorry. I just need more than motive (of some) and opportunity to believe its happening.

[Zink]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

Don't worry, Dan. I just started to read this board when you were very active. I alway thought you were quite diplomatic. I'm not as thin skinned as some of the guys either. I usually don't get into political discussions. But at times I feel the need to make a comment. Politics is murky water at the best. It's pretty difficult to know the real motives and almost nothing is ever black and white.

Rommel is something of a hero for me. He may have been German but he was honourable and no Nazi. He could possibly be the best leader in history. He did a lot with very little in Africa. His men loved him and his enemies admired him.

Catherine was an interesting person. I've read a few things about her but nothing in depth. Very influential person. Most of what I know about Pugachev is from a Pushkin story "the Captain's daughter" and a few footnotes from other sources. Both should be very interesting to read about.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Thanks for understanding and thanks for the compliment about being diplomatic too.

I agree politics is murky, but I do not think these guys are always intelligent or unified enough to develop the complex conspiracies that we might see on television. Sure there are some centers of power, but I think most of these are temporary at best. I think you give these guys too much credit when you think they are pulling our strings in some coordinated manner over decades. Yes they are selfish and not too constrained by anything like a conscience, but most of these guys are nothing more than self-serving opportunist. Lots of politicians, but few statesmen. Look at most legislation. People do quick fix compromises with little attention to the long view. Its hard for me not to take this at face value. I just don't see this as a smoke screen for some deep conspiracy. If you see things differently, then you might be right. It's just that I am not sold yet myself.

As for history, I really like guys like Rommel, Hannibal, Alexander, Peter the Great, Charles the IX of Sweden, Frederick the Great, Henry IV, etc. I could go on forever. They all showed a combination of confidence and creative genius that was very special. These guys were not limited by precedence. I suppose Rommel was my favorite, because he has the most available information regarding his life. I have read everything by Lidell Hart and any other scraps of information I could find. The last Rommel thing for me to read is a translated copy of his book. I think its called "Infantry Attacks". Once I read that, I think I am out of Rommel reading material.

Catherine was a very cool chick. She was a survivor, but she also had an impressive long view with regards to policy.

Are you going to be at Jack's barbecue in Dallas?

[BURKE89]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

Shame, Shame... Ha ha ha.

[DanM]

... in response to What? No, Manstein or Forrest - amongest..., posted by BURKE89 on Apr 4, 2003

Manstien was pretty impressive and Forrest was also a talented General. Its just that we did not have time to list them all. We could have also talked about Zhukov, Stonewall Jackson, Sherman, Guderian, Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Ceasar, Ghengis Khan, Donitz, Student, Bismark, Richard the Lionhearted or so many more. You just have to draw a line somewhere. : )

[BURKE89]

... in response to Re: What? No, Manstein or Forrest - amon..., posted by DanM on Apr 4, 2003

I agree wholeheartedly; however, von Manstein is the:

"General of WWII - bar none." The Crimean campaign, the 4th battle of Kharkov - exhibited near "supernatural" abilities, indeed.

My comments were more "anti-Rommel" than anything else.

Regards,Vaughn

PS. von Manteuffel was the "
tank-lad" of the war, IMHO.

[Zink]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy. I don't believe that there is some grand design to get us all. I just think that the moral standing of most politicians isn't that good. They're very good at saying whatever they think people want to hear and doing whatever they want anyhow.

I've been going to buy Rommel's book for a long time. But I never did. I only have one book dedicated to him. It is about his tactics in Normandy and what might have happened if he had been able to fully implement his ideas. I've read a few things on the others that you mentioned too. If you want a brief rundown of Russian history and other things this is a good site
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/index.html

No, I won't be going to Texas any time soon. Things up here and in Russia take all my time. I'd like to go to a gathering like that and meet a few more people who're involved in this. Maybe in a couple of years.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

You said, "I'm very cynical when it comes to claims that governments are doing something for absolutely no gain to themselves." That leaves little room for discussion. Of course I understand that self interest is a huge motivational factor for everyone. Always has been and always will be. I just cannot accept that its the only factor.

I think our self interest is built around removing a threat to us. Economically, this will still be cheaper than a lot of 9-11 scenarios so its something of a preventative  cost.

As for the cynical thoughts, I am sure some things are going on but I don't think its so dramatic. I just don't see the massive conspiracies by the military-industrial machine. It just seems a little Oliver Stonish to me. Sorry.

[cherokee]

... in response to america wants..., posted by vagn on Mar 31, 2003

sounds like the best scenario i've heard so far......bravo!