The only problem with having this in the digest is that when interesting
threads come along you have to scroll and scroll and scroll. I'll just post
my thoughts as I am scrolling.

Christian - when I was in the Army (1972-1974) I was stationed in the
Saarland - in a town called Landstuhl. Believe it or not in the early 1970s,
remnants of WW2 were still visible. I have pictures of the Sigfried Line -
Germany's answer to the Maginot Line. Complete with all the tank traps.
Landstuhl was spared the ravages of WW2 - when I was there it was a charming
little village - I returned 20 years later to discover it full of Kentucky
Fried Chickens, used car lots and video stores.

When I mentioned the disastrous politics of the 1930s with Britain &
France's response to the rise of Hitler, much is forgotten about the true
cost the 2 countries paid in blood in that war.

In 1 day, during the Battle of the Somme (1915?) I read that 50,000 soldiers
died. Fifty thousand in 1 day. Denys, while I agree with much of what you
said in re: the straw dog argument of oil et al, I don't believe Germany was
kicking France's "derriere" in WW1. In fact, the reason for the horrible
causalities was the stalemate. I have read that the balance was slightly in
Germany's favor but nothing momentous. 1000s of men dying daily in the
trenches due to artillery and machine gun fire. Men dying for 100s of
meters.

It was our entry - relatively late - in 1917 - that tipped the balance. God
only knows how Europe would have been different had we remained out.

So while I may appear harsh in "judging" Britain and France during the 30s -
given what they had suffered - it is certainly easier to see their aversion
to more armed conflict.

Christian - I enjoy reading your views - and I must say a lot of
misunderstandings between peoples is due to false perceptions. Now to many
of us the French are - perplexing. The French to me seem like a beautiful
woman you are intoxicated with - doing strange things - inexplicable
irrational  things - but you love her nonetheless. Does that sound like a
French viewpoint? ;-)

The French, for their part, seem to mistrust the motives of "The Anglo
Saxons" as they call the British and us. I read today that the French
embassy here was deluged with 1000 phone calls yesterday. Many Americans are
perplexed and angry for what they see as simply obstruction. Many veterans,
who fought in France helping to liberate the country - see this latest
political maneuvering as simply back stabbing. Now I must say we certainly
had as much reason to eliminate Hitler as you - had Roosevelt followed one
of Churchill's strategies, there never would have been a D Day - you see, he
wanted to cut up though the Balkans, cut the Germans in the middle and
keeping the Russians out of the west - well,  think of how history would
have been different. Anyway I am rambling and will try to veer back on
course ;-)

I think it is true to say that September 11, 2001 was a watershed event for
the US. Just as December 7th, 1941.  Historians will note a change in the
politics. I believe it is safe to say we wouldn't have considered invading
Iraq on September 10th. Despite what many want to believe the issue isn't
over oil. I would suspect that Iraqi oil will be used to rebuild their
society. Saddam has squandered their wealth. If you want my opinion for our
rationale on Iraq today (which I suspect is different from Wayne's ;-) ) -
it is a fear of Saddams WMD and free lancing terrorists - giving Iraq
plausible deniability.

I can't over emphasize the change in thought - with our seeing the collapse
of the twin towers, the absolute barbaric acts of the terrorists - and
knowing that if they had a nuclear bomb, or serin and a good way of
administering it - they'd be happy killing 100,000-500,000 Americans.
Perhaps that day will yet come, as I believe this war - with a shadowy
enemy, can easily last a decade.

The only way we can win this war is to either kill or imprison the
terrorists. I suspect that if a few thousand innocent Frenchmen (and women)
die  on the Champs E'lysees  - for no other reason other than they are
considered Satan's Children by al Queda -  the attitude of the Chirac govt
may change. Just as it did in 1939.

Now today I read that North Korea was given some nuclear expertise by
Pakistani scientists. Like Neville Chamberlain, our previous administration
felt that if they just gave the North Koreans what they wanted, everything
would be fine. So it certainly isn't difficult to envision them selling a
bomb to anyone with the cash.

I remember reading an article by a CIA analyst 20 years ago - and at the
time he predicted that with the collapse of the USSR, fragmentation of
countries - proliferation of nuclear weapons, we will yearn for the days of
the Cold War.

I'd say he was spot on. The difference between now and 20 years ago while we
were in a Cold War the Russians could count us us to be semi rational - and
we could count on them. Now there's people that if they have the means will
kill as many as they can. For no other reason than thinking God wants them
to.

So, in regards to Iraq, I believe the Bush Administration regards it as
nearing critical mass - no pun intended. Fight a small war now, or a huge
war later. Just like the 1930s.


Gosh, I still have much to scroll - I'll have to keep this digest and reply
more tomorrow. Haven't even gotten to the Kurds - or Schroder - or all the
rest. HP3000 is doing fine.

Bill Brandt
Sacramento, CA (with no duct tape or plastic)

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *