spendius wrote:
I wouldn't get too carried away with Asherman's post if I was you.It is very slipshod and naive and contributes nothing new to anything.
"Hitler wasn't provoked" is a ridiculous thing to say.
The German people were provoked into electing him by the economic situation resulting from WW1,a circumstance we managed to learn from after WW2.And the idea that Islamic terrorists have no cause is equally ridiculous.They have a cause from their point of view and they have suicide missions to demonstrate how strong they feel it.
Asherman is still dreaming up utopias.The bald assertions in para three are plenty proof of that.The jury is out on all of them.Asherman's logic suggests that surveillance of Libya is a waste of manpower.
And the jury is still out on whether the US have "gotten(sic) good value".
Then just to unwind the whole thing study the use of the word "victorious" and the concluding sentence which is a traditional justification for war.
.
Actually Asherman's post was a compact, reasonable and persuasive statement of a widespread point of view about the intervention in Iraq and situation there; neither slipshod nor naïve. One couldn't say that about Spendius' response however. It is disjoint, filled with contradictions, non-sequitors, and criticisms that are merely tautological expressions of extreme possibilities.
While the German people were certainly provoked by the greed and stupidity of Britain and France at Versailles into eventually seeking redress of the crimes attendant to the negotiation that ended WWI, it is not at all accurate to imply that Hitler had any real provocation to seize Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. He had fully addressed the real elements of the old provocation by rejecting the Versailles treaty and reoccupying the Rhineland. Problem was, he didn't stop there. Your points here are specious.
No one suggested the Islamist terrorists have no cause: rather that their cause is itself reprehensible and will bring no good to them or anyone else. No one doubts the strength of their conviction, just as no one doubts the strength of Hitler's. An illusory sense of certainty and superiority, coupled with zealotry and the conviction that anything is permissible in the pursuit of one's cause does not constitute rational justification for anything. These arguments are very confused and without merit.
Moreover there was nothing utopian in Asherman's expressions that we are doing fairly well in Iraq. Indeed, though the final judgment of History is still a long way off, things do look pretty good. This is an observable fact. The insurgency will continue, but it is not achieving its objective, and time appears to be on our side. Of course there will be other problems ahead, but we are, so far dealing with them quite well.
Spendius also ignores the fact that the present difficulties in both the Gulf region and in the Middle East are directly traceable to, and the results of ,the greed and duplicity of Britain and France in their secret resolve to take down the Ottoman empire and divide its spoils in WWI, and their perfidy and incompetence in dealing with and deceiving the Zionists and Arabs who were induced to assist them in their cause. The explosion of Jewish emigration from Europe to Israel after WWII was also a further consequence of the intolerance and inhumanity of European countries, including France, but in this case, not Britain. At this juncture the best and most appropriate posture for Europeans in these matters is a respectful, shamed silence..
I do hope Asherman chooses defend himself against this petty BS, but would be surprised not at all if chose not to waste his time.
