Why don't people see?

[Skeptic]

Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.
Gosh I don't know. Why do so many people on the right murder then devour their own children? I guess the world is full of perplexing strawmen to confuse and confound the rational mind.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by SkepticWhy don't people see?
Because there is no information passing down the optic nerve to the brain?

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel?Why have many on the right stopped beating their wife? It is truely perplexing.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.

Look, I supported the invasion of Iraq, but even I recognize that most people on the left who opposed the war did so not because they supported Saddam, but for other reasons (didn't feel he was a big enough problem, wasn't worth risking lives/foreign relations, etc.)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.

Wow!

After he started talking about Monty Python I thought that there may be some hope for him after all.

I was wrong about that!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.
I am constantly amazed at your inability to debunk opposing positions that you have invented for your own use. Surely Its not that difficult to defeat your own imagination? I'm sure if Saddam had even 10% of the worldwide support you invent for him he'd be secretary general of the UN at least.

Does reality give you a headache or something? There has to be a reason why you avoid it.

[demon]

I only went to take a look becasue I wondered what sort of crap "Paul Bremer", Imperial Overlord in Iraq was writing now.
It wasn`t him of course, it was one "Paul Berman" and it was still crap.

[Mr Manifesto]

Further posts from Skeptic will be delayed as he regains his bearings after being slapped from one end of P, CE & H to the other. We apologise for any inconvenience during this time.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.


Why do many on the right not see who the author is of the article they are linking to?

[Zero]

The real question is "why don't right-wingers see Bush for the person he is?" :p

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.


We cant help but support Saddam. Hes such a charmer. And hes soooo dreamy. Oh Saddam, you know I cant stay mad at you!:p

[Dorian Gray]

Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Since you haven't advocated that we go to war with any other dictators, I guess you must be supportive of Khadafi, Charles Taylor, Arafat, Castro, Blair, Leader of China, the house of Saud, etc., etc. Why is the right always supportive of every dictator in the world except Saddam?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject. What makes you automatically assume that people who "support freedom" and also "support Saddam", etc, MUST be from "the left"? Define "the left" as you understand it?

You might then consider what to automatically call people who "support freedom" but do NOT "support Saddam", etc, are called. What if they support Quaddaffi but not Saddam? Do they go further "right" in your estimation if certain bad guys are still in power and haven't been invaded yet?

What about people who do NOT support "freedom and equality" but DO like Saddam and want Israel eliminated? Negative score?

Seriously.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Since you haven't advocated that we go to war with any other dictators, I guess you must be supportive of Khadafi, Charles Taylor, Arafat, Castro, Blair, Leader of China, the house of Saud, etc., etc. Why is the right always supportive of every dictator in the world except Saddam?

Because the minute the right says anything about deposing any of them, they'd all be the left's new poster children.

[Zero]

Originally posted by shuize


Because the minute the right says anything about deposing any of them, they'd all be the left's new poster children. Really? Isn't it usually the right wing who supports dictators up to,and sometimes even during, the time that they are deposed? Charles Taylor is a good example of this, and so is Saddam Hussein, who was tight with the Reagan administration.

[Cain]

_Dissent_ is actually a leftish publication co-founded by socialists like Irving Howe. I even subscribed once... but let's just say _Dissent_ is to dissent as Skeptic is to skepticism.

[Zero]

Something I find odd is that when someone is talking about the insanity of the right wing, they quote politicians, political advisors and staff members, national television and radio personalities, multi-million dollar think tanks with links to all of the above, etc.. When talking about the insanity of the left, people quote obscure blogs, the foreign press, unknown extremists, and little-known grass-roots organizations, and then claim that it is mainstream Democratic Party thought on the subject.

[Skeptic]

_Dissent_ is actually a leftish publication co-founded by socialists like Irving Howe. I even subscribed once...

I keep wondering: Does ANYBODY subscribe to these "leftist publications" except for well-off college students?

[Cain]

Well-off college students? Oh, God. I only signed up because they offered a year's subscription for 12 dollars.

[Dorian Gray]

Because the minute the right says anything about deposing any of them, they'd all be the left's new poster children. Which dictators? I don't recall too much stink about Milosevic or Noriega or... Oh, wait , Milosevic was deposed during a liberal's administration. Hmm.

Okay, but still, there was Noriega, and the Taliban.... Oh, wait, you mean the minute the right says anything about deposing any of them on false pretenses and shoddy intelligence.

David Kay was wrong. There are WMDs in your post - words of mass defecation.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Which dictators? I don't recall too much stink about Milosevic or Noriega or... Oh, wait , Milosevic was deposed during a liberal's administration. Hmm.

Okay, but still, there was Noriega, and the Taliban.... Oh, wait, you mean the minute the right says anything about deposing any of them on false pretenses and shoddy intelligence.

David Kay was wrong. There are WMDs in your post - words of mass defecation.

Interesting you bring this up because it deserves its own thread I believe.

Haiti and Serbia had no WMD and were no threat to the US certainly.
This was done under the Clinton administration.
Yet there was regime change in those places to stop human rights abuses.

So if that was a good idea, wouldn't deposing a FAR greater abuser with a much higher body count in Iraq be an even better idea.

WMD or no WMD?

(Of course asking the left to be consistent is pretty much impossible.)

[PogoPedant]

So if that was a good idea, wouldn't deposing a FAR greater abuser with a much higher body count in Iraq be an even better idea. WMD or no WMD?
I've a hunch that the problem might not be deposing of Saddam, as much as the stated motivation for the deposing. But you knew that, right?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Interesting you bring this up because it deserves its own thread I believe.

Haiti and Serbia had no WMD and were no threat to the US certainly.
This was done under the Clinton administration.
Yet there was regime change in those places to stop human rights abuses.


Correction:

Noriega was the dictator of Panama, not Haiti (Haiti´s dictator was...I´m not sure...Duval...or Aristide?).

And Panama happened under Reagan, IIRC.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mike B.



(Of course asking the left to be consistent is pretty much impossible.) As impossible as asking the right to use their brains for even a moment.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Interesting you bring this up because it deserves its own thread I believe.

Haiti and Serbia had no WMD and were no threat to the US certainly.
This was done under the Clinton administration.
Yet there was regime change in those places to stop human rights abuses.

So if that was a good idea, wouldn't deposing a FAR greater abuser with a much higher body count in Iraq be an even better idea.

WMD or no WMD?

(Of course asking the left to be consistent is pretty much impossible.) Don't know that much about the Haiti situation, but as for Serbia and Slobodan Milosevic....

The problems in the former Yugoslav republics were the result of civil wars which were threatening to spill over into the surrounding countries. The human rights abuses committed under Milosevic's direction were extreme, and easily comparable to those of Sadaam Hussein. And last but by no means least - the invasion of Serbia was carried out by a multinational taskforce under full UN mandate, and with the full support of the vast majority of the worlds governments.

Compare to the Iraq situation - yes Sadaam did kill large numbers of Kurds at the time of the first Gulf war, and should be held accountable for that, but since then the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed by the UN had meant that the Kurds were fairly safe and pretty much self-governing. Sadaam was not involved in any current war, there was no intelligence to suggest that he was intending to attack anyone, and he was complying with the UN weapons inspectors. Subsequent to the invasion no weapons of mass destruction have been found and the Americans own chief inspector has resigned saying that he believes that Sadaam neither had nor was intending to develop any WMD. The majority of the worlds governments disagreed with the invasion and the was no UN mandate, although the US and their allied governments used some nebulous wording in old UN resolutions to justify their actions.

Hmmmm.. Thanks for raising the comparison, it really elucidates the subject.

Oh, one more question, how can a country in the middle east, with no weapons capable of travelling more than 200 miles, no navy, a small land army, only a handfull of old soviet jets subject to strict flight restrictions enforced by a huge alliance of UN backed forces and NO WMD pose any real threat to the US?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos


Correction:

Noriega was the dictator of Panama, not Haiti (Haiti´s dictator was...I´m not sure...Duval...or Aristide?).

And Panama happened under Reagan, IIRC.

I know Chaos,
Just trying to make a point.

Haiti was in 1993. It was an invasion of a country to overthrow a right wing juanta that had overthrown the left wing President Aristede (spelling?)

My point being, I don't remember the crocodile tears from the left at the time about invading a country that posed no threat to the US or had no WMD.

I also don't remember human shields going to protect the Haitians...

Panama was under the first George Bush in 1990, I think.

Come on, let's be honest here. Much of the problem with Iraq is really problems with Bush. When Clinton bombed it in 1998, I don't remember the anguish...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I know Chaos,
Just trying to make a point.

Haiti was in 1993. It was an invasion of a country to overthrow a right wing juanta that had overthrown the left wing President Aristede (spelling?)

My point being, I don't remember the crocodile tears from the left at the time about invading a country that posed no threat to the US or had no WMD.

I also don't remember human shields going to protect the Haitians...

Panama was under the first George Bush in 1990, I think.

Come on, let's be honest here. Much of the problem with Iraq is really problems with Bush. When Clinton bombed it in 1998, I don't remember the anguish...

Oh, for crying out loud...

You know, just because you don't remember it (likely as not because the media only gave it cursory coverage), all of these things WERE protested by the Left. The Haiti invasion, Panama (in fact, there was an Oscar-winning movie made that protested the Panama invasion, called "The Panama Deception.")

Clinton's actions towards Iraq were protested too. You didn't see hundreds of thousands on the streets, no, but that's kind of difficult to organize in a non-sustained campaign. (Most of Clinton's bombing runs were only one-time things, and only announced after the fact.)

Likewise, another example that people "don't remember," Yugoslavia. Most of the people involved in organizing the anti-war movement around Iraq *also* organized the anti-war movement during the Yugoslavia "police action" (or whatever the hell Clinton called it to avoid calling it a "war").

[Chaos]

For the record: the Yugoslavia police action (or whatevert you call it) was also fiercely protested in Germany, and we had a governement crisis (though without permanent consequences) because of it.

Mike B

If you are making a point, please do it with correct data.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleon


Oh, for crying out loud...

You know, just because you don't remember it (likely as not because the media only gave it cursory coverage), all of these things WERE protested by the Left. The Haiti invasion, Panama (in fact, there was an Oscar-winning movie made that protested the Panama invasion, called "The Panama Deception.")

Clinton's actions towards Iraq were protested too. You didn't see hundreds of thousands on the streets, no, but that's kind of difficult to organize in a non-sustained campaign. (Most of Clinton's bombing runs were only one-time things, and only announced after the fact.)

Likewise, another example that people "don't remember," Yugoslavia. Most of the people involved in organizing the anti-war movement around Iraq *also* organized the anti-war movement during the Yugoslavia "police action" (or whatever the hell Clinton called it to avoid calling it a "war").

Yeah, who remembers the anti-Iraq war protestors embarassing Madeline Allbright? Heck, the Left even managed to make Clintion back down on Iraq! Power at last! Those were the days...

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos
For the record: the Yugoslavia police action (or whatevert you call it) was also fiercely protested in Germany, and we had a governement crisis (though without permanent consequences) because of it.

Mike B

If you are making a point, please do it with correct data.

I am sorry if I was not clear Chaos.

I am curious. What was the major objection to the war in Yugoslavia in Germany?

I was under the impression that the early intervention to protect the Croats was fairly popular in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

So was it the conflict in Kosovo that was unpopular or the whole thing?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I am sorry if I was not clear Chaos.

I am curious. What was the major objection to the war in Yugoslavia in Germany?

I was under the impression that the early intervention to protect the Croats was fairly popular in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

So was it the conflict in Kosovo that was unpopular or the whole thing?

For one thing, there was no UN approval, IIRC. (funny how that objections keeps popping up, isn´t it?)

Also, the junior partner of our government coalition, the Greens, were (at that time) a fiercely anti-war platform, at least as far as the party base is concerned.
Also, here in Germany we have a "collective memory", as you might call it, that war is a VERY bad thing. (Might have something to do with the fact that the Allies beat the crap out of our fathers and grandfathers in WW2...) So a limited intervention to put someone with a blue helmet between a Serb and his victim was okay, but beating the crap out of the Serbs (including a not-so-insignificant number of innocent civilians) was not okay - for most Germans.
Personally, I think the Coalition focussed too much on infrastructure (which would produce lots of "collateral damage" civilian deaths, by the way) and did too little to directly prevent the Serbs and Yugoslavian Army forces from killing Kosovars.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos


For one thing, there was no UN approval, IIRC. (funny how that objections keeps popping up, isn´t it?)

Also, the junior partner of our government coalition, the Greens, were (at that time) a fiercely anti-war platform, at least as far as the party base is concerned.
Also, here in Germany we have a "collective memory", as you might call it, that war is a VERY bad thing. (Might have something to do with the fact that the Allies beat the crap out of our fathers and grandfathers in WW2...) So a limited intervention to put someone with a blue helmet between a Serb and his victim was okay, but beating the crap out of the Serbs (including a not-so-insignificant number of innocent civilians) was not okay - for most Germans.
Personally, I think the Coalition focussed too much on infrastructure (which would produce lots of "collateral damage" civilian deaths, by the way) and did too little to directly prevent the Serbs and Yugoslavian Army forces from killing Kosovars.

I don't know Chaos. It seems you are making doing nothing almost always while genocide is going on into a virtue.

Didn't a Dutch contingent of UN troops baisacally stand and do nothing while Serbs slaughtered people right in front of them?

I fail to see how this is more progressive or liberal.

[Skeptic]

Also, here in Germany we have a "collective memory", as you might call it, that war is a VERY bad thing. (Might have something to do with the fact that the Allies beat the crap out of our fathers and grandfathers in WW2...)

Which part of it was bad? The murderous genocide of the jews, serbs, gypsies etc. by your fathers' and grangfathers' generation--or merely the part that the world DID start a war to stop it and "beat the crap out of them"?

Some lesson you learned: "well, in the past, the agressive and genocidal nature of our government led to retaliation by the disgusted world! We won't let that happen again--we're not going to fight any other agressive genocidal murderers! It HURTS them! War is BAD!"

The lesson should have been the exact opposite: that war, and ONLY war, is what can possibly stop people like Saddam, in the same way that is was the only thing that could possibly have stopped people like Hitler.

So a limited intervention to put someone with a blue helmet between a Serb and his victim was okay, but beating the crap out of the Serbs (including a not-so-insignificant number of innocent civilians) was not okay - for most Germans.

"Limited" is right. So "limited", in fact, that when a UN contingent heard of a Serbian massacre of villagers was going on right next to them, their sole action was to turn up the volume of their CD players--to drown out the shouts of the butchered villagers. By the same token, the war against Hitler was evil: sure, the US and Britian might have put a few guys from the red cross "between the nazis and thier victims", but blaming ALL of Germany for it and fighting to actually END such a regime? That's agression, tsk tsk, not nice.

Such "limited intervention" would not have done anything than make Hitler laugh--just like it did nothing to stop the Serb massacre of the muslims and croats. The only thing that worked was the US taking out the Serbian government and toppling the regime. Nothing less, experience shows, ever work with such people. You REALLY think Saddam would have not killed more Kurds if "limited" intervention would "put someone with a blue helmet" there asking him nicely not to do so?

Personally, I think the Coalition focussed too much on infrastructure (which would produce lots of "collateral damage" civilian deaths, by the way) and did too little to directly prevent the Serbs and Yugoslavian Army forces from killing Kosovars.

God, I love armchair generals...

Chaos, experience shows that destroying infrastructure is one of the BEST ways to stop a regime from committing genocide, because it's one of the best ways to destroy a regime in general, by beinging the war to the fastest possible conclusion.

[ggcarl]

Because Nanook has rubbed a dog-dew snowcone in their eyes (doh-da-doh-doh-doh-doh) ;)

[Gem]

Chaos, experience shows that destroying infrastructure is one of the BEST ways to stop a regime from committing genocide

Negative. WW2 was not won by bombing infrastructure. The Germans were able to rebuild these in short ammount of time. Although it helped win the war, you have to keep in mind that it was the physical presence of an army that finally put an end to war.

It also depends which infrastructure your talking about. If you're taking out civilian infrastructure, the civilians (the innocent) are going to suffer more. If you're taking out military bases, like supply depots, ammunition factories and hangars, then there is no or little civilian deaths and the enemy's army will be severly hampered.

But as Afganistan showed us, you don't need infrastructure for an army. You just need food, water, guns and ammunition and recruits, and you have your own army to do whatever you want. (Not that they'll be really good against other more well trained/equiped armies)

You REALLY think Saddam would have not killed more Kurds if "limited" intervention would "put someone with a blue helmet" there asking him nicely not to do so?

Didn't the no fly zones basicly stopped it?

or merely the part that the world DID start a war to stop it

Wrong. The holocaust was never a reason the war started.


However, I still agree with your main point that it takes an army to stop genocidal tyrants/desposts/whatever, but I'm skeptical that wars were started for this reason.

Gem

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic

God, I love armchair generals...

Chaos, experience shows that destroying infrastructure is one of the BEST ways to stop a regime from committing genocide, because it's one of the best ways to destroy a regime in general, by beinging the war to the fastest possible conclusion.

This statement is sublime in its irony.

How long did WWII last again?

What about Vietnam?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do many on the left talk about freedom and equality--but supports Saddam Hussein and the eradication of israel? Here is an article (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm) by Paul Bremer on the subject.

Why do so many who are Jewish talk about freedom and equality--but support Sharon and the eradication of Palestine? Here is an interesting article on the subject by The Ku Klux Klan on the subject.

[a_unique_person]

[i]

Chaos, experience shows that destroying infrastructure is one of the BEST ways to stop a regime from committing genocide, because it's one of the best ways to destroy a regime in general, by beinging the war to the fastest possible conclusion. [/B]

I agree, build more bulldozers. One of the most underestimated WMD.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


This statement is sublime in its irony.

How long did WWII last again?

What about Vietnam?
You are implying that bombing raids in WWII, Vietnam, and today are similar?! Back in WWII they were lucky if 5 bombs out of 1000 actually hit the target. And even when they did, they were smaller, used less powerful explosives, and so caused much less damage. Things didn't improve much by Vietnam. There was no real ability to damage infrastructure back then! You could burn cities, but couldn't destroy bunkers or hardened targets w/o troops on the ground. Add that to the inferior transportation of the day (it might surprise you that much of the forces in WWII were reliant on horses to haul supplies), poor communications, and supply difficulties (it was no easy task getting a convoy across the North Atlantic past all the U-Boats) is the reason it took so long for WWII to come to a conclusion. And you seriously compare it to today?

The Serbs were stopped w/o a single ground battle, merely by destroying infrastructure w/ precision bombs in a few months time.

Wollery:
Compare to the Iraq situation - yes Sadaam did kill large numbers of Kurds at the time of the first Gulf war, and should be held accountable for that, but since then the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed by the UN had meant that the Kurds were fairly safe and pretty much self-governing. Sadaam was not involved in any current war, there was no intelligence to suggest that he was intending to attack anyone, and he was complying with the UN weapons inspectors.
The no-fly zones were not imposed by the UN. They were part of the treaty signed at the end of Gulf War I to end that conflict. Iraq violated that treaty repeatedly by firing on US and British planes almost daily. For that alone the US and Britain had the right to reinstate hostilities.

And Iraq was not cooperating w/ weapons inspectors! They blocked them and denied them access to suspected weapons sites repeatedly, which is why the inspectors pulled out and Clinton bombed Iraq in '98. Saddam only allowed them back in a desperate attempt to avoid another conflict w/ the US and Britain, only to block access once more.

Chaos:
Also, here in Germany we have a "collective memory", as you might call it, that war is a VERY bad thing. (Might have something to do with the fact that the Allies beat the crap out of our fathers and grandfathers in WW2...)
So war was a good thing as long as Germany was using Spain as a testing ground for their weapons, invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the USSR, and bombing the crap out of Britain?
I see... it only sucks when the 3rd Reich lasts 988 years less than der Fuhrer predicted, and Jews still have the nerve to breathe your air. The nerve of the allies! Should have just MTOB.






Why do I get involved in these threads anyway? Can't we all just have a beer and talk about girls?

[Chaos]

Skeptic

Just a few points:

- as always, it is amazing how easily you turn other peoples´ words around in their mouths. Any not-quite-rabid anti-palestinian is a murderous anti-semite, right? Anyone who is anti-war is pro-genocide, huh? You are so full of *****, you should rename yourself Dirty Diaper.

- a real intervention - that is, ground troops in the right position with orders to interfere* if civilians are attacked - WOULD have been effective. At least, more effective than "for every couple of Kosovar villagers you kill, we will bomb one of your bridges".

- as others have already said, stopping the genocide was never the intention of WW2. It was about stopping Hitler´s conquests. Any jews, gypsies etc. that were saved by the Allies were merely...well...you might call it "collateral benefits" - completely unintentional, but still very welcome.

- as for "destroy the infrastructure to stop a war" - that is right if you are talking about making it impossible for the army to fight against another reasonably well-equipped and well-trained army. But to slaughter (mostly unarmed) civilians, you don´t need all the fancy guns and tanks and aircraft. You just need soldiers with rifles - and these were not noticeably hampered by the Allied bombings during the Kosovar campaign.

*THIS is the reason for their inaction, as far as I know - they were ordered not to fight. I have heard that personally from one soldier who had been there: even when under fire from Serb snipers, they were ordered not to return fire. So please don´t keep claiming that Europeans just don´t care about genocide. You would not even have to order them to stop it - you would just have to let them.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat

You are implying that bombing raids in WWII, Vietnam, and today are similar?! Back in WWII they were lucky if 5 bombs out of 1000 actually hit the target. And even when they did, they were smaller, used less powerful explosives, and so caused much less damage.

That's nice. Germany was still levelled by two years of saturation bombing (and England had plenty blown up by Germany as well), yet the war still went on. It doesn't matter how small or innaccurate the bombs are, as long as you throw enough to destroy the infrastructure. You haven't addressed my argument.

Things didn't improve much by Vietnam. There was no real ability to damage infrastructure back then! You could burn cities, but couldn't destroy bunkers or hardened targets w/o troops on the ground.
Were Vietnamese factories hardened? Why didn't the destruction of the Vietnamese infrastructure in 1972 during the Linebacker raids stop the Vietnamese? Again, you have shifted the focus of the argument. You are now talking about military targets, not things like a country's infrastructure, which is what I was talking about. Concentrate.


Add that to the inferior transportation of the day (it might surprise you that much of the forces in WWII were reliant on horses to haul supplies), poor communications, and supply difficulties (it was no easy task getting a convoy across the North Atlantic past all the U-Boats) is the reason it took so long for WWII to come to a conclusion. And you seriously compare it to today?


Well, says you. Your model seems to assume that all the troops had to do was get to Germany quickly to win the war (thanks for the patronising comment about the horses, too, but I was aware of the need for horses in WWII. It was because the rail lines were bombed, you know. Infrastructure.). The fact remains, though, that destroying Germany's infrastructure (or Britain's, or USSR's) didn't have an effect on the length of the war. I'm not making this up, by the way, you could learn a bit about it yourself by reading "Voltaire's Bastards" by John Ralston Saul.


The Serbs were stopped w/o a single ground battle, merely by destroying infrastructure w/ precision bombs in a few months time.


I remember a lot of criticism at the time about the number of people the Serbs were killing because the Americans were too afraid to commit to ground forces. That's the Yanks for you: always a bit shy of a good fight.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Were Vietnamese factories hardened? Why didn't the destruction of the Vietnamese infrastructure in 1972 during the Linebacker raids stop the Vietnamese? Again, you have shifted the focus of the argument. You are now talking about military targets, not things like a country's infrastructure, which is what I was talking about. Concentrate.
- Vietnamese forces in the main operated on a few pounds of supplies per person per day. Supplied by human bearers on foot down trails. The USAF may have overestimated the supplies needed by the VC/NVA and tried to reduce supplies to a trickle. And succeeded. However a trickle was enough - for a jungle war, lightly equipped peasant army.


Well, says you. Your model seems to assume that all the troops had to do was get to Germany quickly to win the war (thanks for the patronising comment about the horses, too, but I was aware of the need for horses in WWII. It was because the rail lines were bombed, you know. Infrastructure.). The fact remains, though, that destroying Germany's infrastructure (or Britain's, or USSR's) didn't have an effect on the length of the war. I'm not making this up, by the way, you could learn a bit about it yourself by reading "Voltaire's Bastards" by John Ralston Saul.
- (pedant mode on) Horses were used by all not wholly mechanised armies, Hitlers attack on the USSR commenced with 3,000 tanks and 650,000 horses - and that was well before effective strategic bombing commenced (pedant off). The effect of strategic bombing was to force production away from bombers and artillery to AA guns and fighters in catastrophic numbers (and about a third of all the ammunition produced being AA). And 2 million workers assigned to repair duties and catastrophic loss of oil from late 44 and absenteeism/disruption reducing planned military production by a third and stopping Speer from concentrating industrial production for efficiency gains[/B]