Jim.........Who did you know directly that was there.......?

With the exception of Omaha beach it was realatively easy compared to what they were prepared for. Had Adolf listened to his generals it would have been far worse for us. His resources were hundreds of miles away where he believed we would land, NOT on the russian front, HUGE difference there. And totally different divisions.

I never disgreed Hitler going ofter Russia was a mistake for him. Had he done it only a month or two earlier he would not have gotten bogged down in the exceptionally harsh winter that year, The weather did more to defeat him there than the russians themselves. If it would have been a mild winter the outcome may have been different.

I was a HUGE WW2 buff through high school...... now I may not remember dates due to the years since then but I don't forget everything.

From 1939 until 1941, the Non-agression Pact was a de facto alliance between Russia and Germany. At any time during that period, the two dictators could have converted it into a direct military alliance, and in fact they held a number of talks to do so. Whatever Stalin's ulterior motives were, during this period the two nations did all the things two countries that are about to become military allies do - they had cultural exchanges, their military commands conferred with one another as they split up Poland, and their diplomats conferred on future plans to divide the rest of Eastern Europe. We all know that Hitler secretly was planning an invasion, but he was also keeping his options open. For a great web site on the subject, there is nothing like the Avalon Project at Yale, which allows one to inspect the actual source documents involved.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm

Although the Non-Agression Pact was a simple agreement on neutrality, it contained secret protocols on the division of Eastern Europe. Who's to say that further secret protocols were not planned dividing up the rest of the planet?

Which simply strenghens my argument. Our success on D-Day was a lucky fluke that could have gone either way. The Russians on the otherhand, were going to wipe him out no matter what we did, and we knew it - many people in on the planning stated the purpose was as much to occupy Western Europe so the victorious Russians did not sweep all the way to Spain as it was to defeat Germany.

boneheaddoctor, this is a response to a post of yours quite a few minutes ago and now about a page or so back. Sorry.

I hear you on the basic issues you have, but in the grand scheme of things, we cannot afford to be caught up in a bunch of little, petty fly crap when, in fact, there are big threats looming. Like the Russians and their uncontrolled nuclear materials. And their unique technical skills. Quit wondering where the money is and realize they don't need much to be dangerous. They never had much and they found solutions to keep pace with us for half a century. Their solutions might not be as well rounded as ours, but they are likely equally fatal. So, yes, we should keep an eye on the Russians.

As for the French and the Germans, well, if we were not so universally hated around the world, our pointing out of their foibles with the UN program you cite might actually resonate with some people outside the US. But at the moment you can count on that story, no matter how factually supported it is, being ignored because over there it will be reported that the boogey man, George W. Bush is the one behind the charges and they all know he can't be trusted. We made our bed, now we must sleep in it.

I keep trying to get you and others to stop thinking in terms of what to do next to retalliate for what "they" just did. Who ever "they" might be at the moment. Our guiding strategy has to be based on maintaining our position of economic, social, scientific and, after a long list of fronts we can lead the world on, military strength, for the next century. WE have to become the manipulators instead of letting Saddams and Osammas manipulate us. In thirty years they will be Chinese names or Russian names again. We cannot let ourselves become so preoccupied with reacting to what "they" do that we allow ourselves to become weakened so we are susceptible to a real attack by an enemy.

Take a good, honest look at how our military is presently deployed and committed. Could we defend against another attack from an enemy on more than one front? I don't think so. At least not without escalating to using nukes. And at that point we have lost the future. So, the way I see it the answer to that question is, not if it was someone with some real military might, like Russia, teamed with some really looney nuts, like Al-Qaieda. I think we are dangerously overcommitted to this Iraq blunder, and dangerously low on total military strength.

We have a nation divided over issues engineered to divide us for political gain, things like gay marriage. Abortion. Name calling, like "liberals" and "conservatives" or socialists and nazis. Or taxes. None of this makes us stronger and more able to lead in this time of turmoil and change. They distract us, as do the slogans and sound bites, from being able to sort out what is really going on. From seeing what we should be doing.

We need to "benchmark" our world view against the world view of our neighbors -allies, enemies and others - and try honing that to be more broad and long term instead of so narrow and focussed on what just happened. Take a page from the Islamists - they are on a centuries long mission to unseat us - so our mission must be to thwart them for centuries. There is no two year, or five year or twenty five year solution. It is a centuries long solution. Keep your powder dry for when it is really needed. Jim

Jim I agree with you on the Russians....
Howver its not most of the people that hate us, its the politicians. In Iran many of the people actually like us, its the Imans and certain groups in power that are causing the problems (mostly the religious extremists) I know enough people from Iran, etc....... Most of the trouble is from the agressive minority. Personally I would pull all of out troops out of Germany and cut them off if they slip much further......Italy that is friendly would love the cash infusion.

Keep in mind most of the people that complain would be doing so regardless of what we did. Most of the trouble are the leaders..... If they complained about their leaders many places they would get tossed in the woodchipper. So they pick us to focus their anger on. They feel if they can't have what we do then we shouldn't either.

The divided nation thing........most of that are sour grapes democrats that are dead set on causeing trouble if they can't have things their way all the time. When Clinton was in office it was their way or the highway.....now Republicans are in office its the same story.....They need to review were they went wrong and thats because most people don't agree with their policies.......The country is far less liberal than it used to be.

Personally it would be nice if the world was a peacefull place. Its just not going to happen in my lifetime.

Boneheaddoctor,

I am not refuting anything based on any personal knowledge of my own, and I never said as much or suggested the same. So I don't get the question about who I knew who was there. Besides, how many people I know who were there and what they might have experienced and told me has nothing to do with the apparent inconsistency in your descriptions, on the one hand suggesting the Normandy invasion was "fairly easy" and then in another suggesting it was something else entirely ("no day at the park").

Anyway, my point was to ask you to read your answers to other people's posts and try to understand what the rest of us get from them. They often appear to be kind of high pressure stream of consciousness spurts that leave a spatter pattern that is not readily discerned. Slow down, let a post or two slip by without a response, and try to make a consistent argument. At times I see something that makes sense, but it is often hidden by other thoughts that seem unrelated. Or emotional convulsions about liberals.

My two cents. I would rather understand what you are thinking than ignore you. But it is in your hands, so to speak. Jim

I agree -- I've know quite a few Iranians/Persians in my life -- the ones I've known (with only a single exception) rather remind me of Croatians in that they seem almost American by nature. They're certainly a very different lot than other Mideasterners I've known. The handful I'm still in contact with would welcome an American invasion to unseat the zealots currently in power...

I've met and been friends with both Iranians and Iraqis. I must say, the Iranians tend to be the more cultured and even tempered of the two. Unfortunately, we are providing the mullahs in Iran the same propaganda bonanza Bush got from 9-11. With a huge American army on their doorstep, they are keeping their country as cowed with paranoia and fear as this one was. Too bad, they were ready to topple. Now. like the forces of fear in this country, they grow stronger and seek more power in the form of a nuke.

Bot, I agree with you. My concern is not a direct attack on the US. More like another Iraq or two and we will not be able to keep responding.

And I could not agree more with needing a really versatile tool box. Or with the statement that we need to support those we ask to do really scary, dirty jobs to ensure our success.

I also think one of the ways you keep safe is by having lots of allies who are willing to shield you while you shield them from dangers, all according to who handles what danger better. If having allies means you let them have a say in how the little things get done, it is a small price to pay. It should actually be part of the plan for the next century. Bring in more allies, make them dependent on you for something, preferrably economic or some other wealth we have cultivated to trade for allegiances and can fabricate more of pretty much at will, so you can buffer your boarders and your interests from enemies.

Yes, behind all this you have to carry the biggest, baddest stick too. So when the enemy attacks one of your allies because they can't get to you, you can strike back, hard. No one notices you are preemtively striking the enemy, because you are defending an ally who was striken by the enemy first. But for you, it is still a preemtive strike, technically. And the rest of your allies are grateful.

This isolationist stuff is appealing only if you get hung up on winning tomorrow to the extent that you let someone else win thereafter. Jim

I didn't buy it for one second in regard to Iraq, and I don't know enough in regard to Iran. I do know that the people who have shared this with me are happily living in America (take with large grain of salt).

This is from another post ("Taking away our guns")... but since this I started this monster... I feel compelled. ;)

I wouldn't.

IMHO I think it is very foolish that people tend to make it a black and white issue when it comes to Dems v. Reps -- We have had some terrific Dems and some terrific Reps. The way certain people ( :rolleyes: ) make it D v. R battle is simply uneducated at best. You have to look at the person and what *they* stand for. NOT the party. I had no love for most Dems. prior to Clinton, but I look at him as the person he is, NOT the party he belongs to. The same can be said about race, etc..

Bonehead, I was probably the first or second person to ask that this forum be put back up. You have no idea the help it ihas given me, but I have to be honest, I would not be happy if the lack of ability to distinquish between a person and a group causes this forum to be removed again.

Thanks for listening.

Pete

Well the problem is exactly that.....the dems seem to insist on dominating the board with negative baiting and posting of fraudulant sources. And jump all over anyone who posts anything that is pro-republican.

I don't think I explained my point well enough.

This may help.

I voted for Clinton, and I voted for Kerry.
Yet at the state and local level I voted for Reps.

Other times I have voted opposite.

Don't you see? THE PERSON, not the PARTY.

Just do me a favor, and if you think it may cause the OT to be removed again, don't do it.

Thanks,

Pete

Not sure if thats meant for the board in general or was directed at the me or the conservatives....

but there are a HIGH number of Anti conservative posts.............and I for one will not refrain unless they do.

This is not a Bash the Right forum that existed before..and thats exactly what it has become again. There a re a LOT of things that can be discussed without policical baiting and bashing...

If that is an issue for you, start a thread about it and quite clogging the issue threads up with your rants. Give us all a break.