Well, about 48 - why do you asked?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, about 48 - why do you asked?
I just wanted to put it in simple terms that people can easiloy understand. Now, Steve's citation (along with countless other people) complains that the US either had no plan or the plan is going badly, and their evidence is that the occupation is taking too long. I thought a historical example might help validate or invalidate that notion. Thanks.
Scrat
I don't think any historical analogies are valid, but trying to compare Germany 1946 with Iraq 2004 doesnt work at all.
A simple question. How many American troops were killed after May 1945 in Germany compared with how many Americans have been killed in Iraq since Bush declared the war over in May 2003?
Well, Scrat, you certainly know as we others about the plans, why this worked. :wink:
Well, Scrat, you certainly know as we others about the plans, why this worked. :wink:
Some other flaws in that specious analogy: We did not preemptively attack German over the objections of most of the civilized world--Germany declared war on the United States in 1941; the prolonged occupation of Germany had to do with the occupation of eastern Germany by the Soviet Union, not with a perceived need introduce democratic institutions to a nation which had had such institutions are recently as 12 years previously; Germany was filled with refugees who were both displaced peoples who had found themselves there at the end of the war, as well as those fleeing the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe, no such condition applies in Iraq; a war crimes tribunal was organized in Germany, subscribed to by the nations which had conducted the war against Germany, and was rounding up literally hundreds suspects, who were then tried--in Iraq, we've gotten a vacuous "teevee" style pack of playing cards most wanted list, and it seems to have taken an awfully long time to round up fewer than 60 suspects.
All in all, comparing the occupation of Germany in 1945 to the occupation in Iraq is an embarrassingly "apples-to-oranges" exercise.
Actually, the 2plus4-Treaty in the early 1990's ended finally the allied occupation, and Germany only got full sovereignity then. :wink:
"Poland says it was 'misled' about the threat of Iraq's weapons and is considering taking its troops out of Iraq.
The comments from President Aleksander Kwasniewski mark the first time Poland has criticized the war in Iraq. He didn't blame any specific country."
I'm wondering, which countries he could have meant
:wink:
Steve - I agree that since Iraq has foreign nationals coming across their borders trying to derail the progress being made it might actually make the job harder to do than was the case in Germany after WWII. This of course just makes the "why's it taking so long" argument even less valid.
Walter Hinteler wrote:"Poland says it was 'misled' about the threat of Iraq's weapons and is considering taking its troops out of Iraq.
The comments from President Aleksander Kwasniewski mark the first time Poland has criticized the war in Iraq. He didn't blame any specific country."
I'm wondering, which countries he could have meant
:wink:
I don't think they are pulling their troops which makes the message not match the actions. Political posturing?
Well, it's offically from the Polish president's press office.
And the Polish PM said today that their troops would be withdrawn earlier than origianally thought.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, it's offically from the Polish president's press office.
And the Polish PM said today that their troops would be withdrawn earlier than origianally thought.
Yes, I have heard that report now, as of my earlier post the most recent report I heard was that the troops would stay.
This is probably old news, but my search for "Polish withdrawal of troops" produced this interesting link.
http://www.eightlinks.com/archives/001401.html
On Monday March 15, 2004, post #600731, blatham posted:
blatham wrote:Quote:I disagree. Perhaps my sources of information are more convincing to me than they are to you. Mine say Saddam aided and abetted the Taliban, and the Taliban aided and abetted al Quada. Also Saddam aided and abetted training of the 9/11 al Quada perpetrators.
Not only are they more convincing to you than to hobbit, they are more convincing to you than to your president, to Rumsfeld, to Cheney, and to Powell, each of whom have now publicly acknowledged no evidence of connection (after a good deal of previous deceit). So, do get with the program, at least on this one terribly simple concept.
I replied with post #602377 on March 16, 2004:
ican711nm wrote:blatham wrote: Not only are they more convincing to you than to hobbit, they are more convincing to you than to your president, to Rumsfeld, to Cheney, and to Powell, each of whom have now publicly acknowledged no evidence of connection (after a good deal of previous deceit).
Please provide references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publically acknowledging they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban,
or between Saddam and el Quada,
or between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.
If you do, I shall surely get with the program.
I promise I will even abandon that old Einstein observation: "absence of proof is not proof of absence."
Subsequently, nimh started posting on the same topic.
This link will bring back what "actually" happened with the UN resolution for war.
********************************
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C908042%2C00.html
Sunni and Shia marchers demonstrated against the Iraqi interim constitution in Baghdad Friday as the world marked the first anniversary of the Iraq war that toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The demonstration was organized by the highest Sunni authority in the country, the Association of Muslim Scholars. The interim constitution - formally known as the Transitional Administrative Law - has been criticized by Shia religious leaders, Iraqi members of the Arab Union of Jurists and others as being anti-majoritarian and for leaving critical issues unresolved.
Iraq: Interim constitution condemned
They should pull an old English trick on them and invite all the major leaders to a meeting...
Some Iraqi experts talking on radio this morning was saying that the initial attempts by the US to boiler plate our democracy onto Iraq was a big mistake, and it was wise of the US to let them 'create' their own constitution. However, the problems I see is the continued disagreements between the three major tribes in Iraq in trying to draft any constitution that will be anything close to a compromise, and therein lies the rub. June 30, 2004, is impossible from what I see, and June 30, 2014 is a maybe.
Just released from Reuters; "Elsewhere in Baghdad, thousands of Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims marched against the U.S.-led occupation after prayers in two main mosques. "No to America, no to Saddam," they chanted in a show of unity."
