September 11th

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

sorry, Mr. Magoo, I mistyped. What I meant to write was if it wasn't for the US, you, I, and our other UK-based DL'ers would all be speaking German today.

[Guest Guest]

I agree. But that doesn't diminish the reasons things turned out this way does it?

[Guest Mr Magoo]

What is life anyway? An average 75 year struggle against the microscopic, and in the end the microscopic always win.

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

What is life anyway? An average 75 year struggle against the microscopic, and in the end the microscopic always win.

well, that's cheered me right up for the day. I happen to think life's pretty good fun, most of the time. My job's all right, I have plenty of good friends, Liverpool won the Champions League, England are rugby world cup champions, cricket team just won the Ashes. Plus "Lost" is on TV tonight, and I know it's rubbish, but it's entertaining rubbish, and Kate looks great in a tank top.

[Guest Mr Magoo]

I can't stand sport, but thanks for reminding me that "Lost" is on.

 

I hope it doesn't clash with "The World At War " on the History Channel.

 

Just want to err, check my facts

[Gunjaman5000 32]

sorry, Mr. Magoo, I mistyped.  What I meant to write was if it wasn't for the US, you, I, and our other UK-based DL'ers would all be speaking German today.

This commonly held belief, the first time I've ever heard it from a Briton, is quite wrong. If it weren't for Hitler you'd all be speaking German. Had he taken advice from his Generals and stayed out of Russia and North Africa it would have been a completely different kettle of fisch.

My aunty Agnes pretty much summed it up years ago saying, "War, what is it good for?". She's the family philosopher.

[Guest Mr Magoo]

Yes

True, If Hitler had let the generals plan the war and not taken it upon himself to micro-manage everything (Donald Rumsfeld take note), they would have probably won the war, developing the jet engine and the A bomb along the way and dropping the big one on anyone they couldn't overcome by conventional means.

 

Towards the end of the war there were actually plans to develop a long range jet bomber to bomb the United states.

 

It was well known that Germany was well on the way to developing the A-Bomb.

In August 1939, Albert Einstein warned President Roosevelt of the threat.

The fear of the Nazi A-Bomb was what got the Manhattan project up and running.

 

Thanks to Hitler's ego and the intervention of the US we managed to avoid becoming toast.

 

(For the time being).

[Windsor 2,235]

Its impossible to say what would have happened had America not joined the war in Europe. Whats to say the Soviets couldn't have defeated the Nazis - it is a possibility. This would then mean a massive western expansion of the USSR.

 

Indeed the Nazis could have won and developed A-bombs and such like. None of this actually matters because the US did fight the war in Europe but it would be unfair to claim that victory in 1945 was soley down to the US involvement.

[The Yeti 14]

What is life anyway? An average 75 year struggle against the microscopic, and in the end the microscopic always win.

[Tuber Mirum 126]

Its impossible to say what would have happened had America not joined the war in Europe.

Who can tell?

 

Here's how it might have been if the Germans had won the first world war.

 

And here's an interesting variant on WW2.

 

 

This is also not bad.

 

Continue on to read the following topics; it takes about six pages until someone brings up the World Cup final of 1966.

[The Yeti 14]

It was well known that Germany was well on the way to developing the A-Bomb.

In August 1939, Albert Einstein warned President Roosevelt of the threat.

The fear of the Nazi A-Bomb was what got the Manhattan project up and running.

However it is now commonly believed that the Nazis were actually not well on the way from getting one to work.

They had a program for its development, but it was not considered high priority, and their physics calculations were all phooey (either due to incompetence, stupidity or covert sabotage by the scientists themselves to make sure it wouldn't work. The latter is often stated by the surviving Nazis, er, scientists themselves after the war)

[Gunjaman5000 32]

Its impossible to say what would have happened had America not joined the war in Europe. Whats to say the Soviets couldn't have defeated the Nazis - it is a possibility. This would then mean a massive western expansion of the USSR.

Well done Windsor, you're nearly right. The Americans would have joined the war in Europe after seeing the USSR kicking German arses all the way back to the Fatherland, their fear and loathing of communism wasn't the post war phenomenon we're led to believe. The fear of communism helped Hitler to power in the first place, backed by German industrialists, conditions (both economic and social) in post WWI Germany not dissimilar to pre-revolution Russia and was seen by many of the time to be a great opponent of the red peril.

Wouldn't have been all bad though, they do make a nice sausage the Germans.

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

If it weren't for Hitler you'd all be speaking German. Had he taken advice from his Generals and stayed out of Russia and North Africa it would have been a completely different kettle of fisch.

But Hitler had no plans to expand in Western Europe. The way he saw it, Britain and France would be free to expand in Africa and Asia while he pottered about in Eastern Europe, merrily making a Germanic Empire from the Rhine to the Urals. He would have got away with it as well if it weren't for that silly little treaty between Poland, France and Britain.

[Slave to the Grave 26]

Just a quicky, which sort of links the current discussion on the world wars and September 11th.

There is a theory that the greatest military blunder of the 20th century was America joining the British side during the 1st world war.

If they had sided with the Germans it could be argued that the 2nd world war, the holocaust, the dropping of the atom bomb, the problems in the Middle East, the 'cold war', and September 11th would never of happened.

Over simplified claptrap I know, (and probably covered in one of notapotato's links, which I will get around to reading) but as realistic as the notion that a defeated Britain would have ended up speaking German.

[The Yeti 14]

Physician heal thyself

Unregistered guest: Screw thyself (preferably into the nearest lightbulb socket while standing in a bucket of water.)

Happy now Mr Fascist?

Lol. Bravo !

[The Yeti 14]

Looking at WW2 more broadly, one might argue that the Japanese were hardly the most level-headed bunch to be dealing with in terms of negotiating a surrender. ...

With the benefit of hindsight I agree dropping the 2nd A-bomb does seem unnecessary, but the theories that it was done to send a mesage to the Soviets or whatever are just that - theories espoused by political science professors. We'll probably never know the exact rationale, but one thing I heard once makes a lot of sense - the most obvious explanation for anything is the most likely one. Japan had given no signs of surrendering despite the US moving inexorably towards defeating them militarily, and had a reputation as being particularly vicious fighters. Anyone hear of the kamikaze, the original suicide bomber? The US had already sacrificed plenty of troops, and took a decision that they thought would end the war quickly, which it did. Maybe if they'd had 20 A-bombs they could have demonstrated their power some more by blowing up a few battalions of Japanese troops or whatever. But I believe they only had the two at the time.

Ah, ol' Occam and his razor.

And probably true in this case.

[millwall32 114]

A tragedy-yes. A massive failure by the Security Services of the U.S. government-yes. Put into the shade by all the innocent people killed by the U.S. over the years-yes.

I hate to spoil a good Spart-ish rant but when exactly has the US deliberately set out to kill over 3,000 non-combatants to make a "political" point? I agree that US/UK intervention has indirectly led to plenty of civilian deaths but I think "putting 9/11 in the shade" is wildly over-stating the case.

 

Do you really believe that there is a moral equivalence between Bush and Bin-Laden? Or perhaps between a tube-bomber in London and the officer who shot the Brazilian chap in error? You must have a very strange outlook on life if so...

Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Libya, Iraq, Lebbannon, El Salvodaor, and Nicaragua spring to mind.

[VileBody 11]

A tragedy-yes. A massive failure by the Security Services of the U.S. government-yes. Put into the shade by all the innocent people killed by the U.S. over the years-yes.

I hate to spoil a good Spart-ish rant but when exactly has the US deliberately set out to kill over 3,000 non-combatants to make a "political" point? I agree that US/UK intervention has indirectly led to plenty of civilian deaths but I think "putting 9/11 in the shade" is wildly over-stating the case.

 

Do you really believe that there is a moral equivalence between Bush and Bin-Laden? Or perhaps between a tube-bomber in London and the officer who shot the Brazilian chap in error? You must have a very strange outlook on life if so...

Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Libya, Iraq, Lebbannon, El Salvodaor, and Nicaragua spring to mind.

I'm bored with this argument because it's irrelevant to the site, but do read my original post:

 

"...when exactly has the US deliberately set out to kill over 3,000 non-combatants...".

 

I agree the US has never been overly concerned about "collateral" damage (or even blowing its own allies to shreds in virtually every war it's been involved in) but I do think there is a world of difference between (a.) killing non-combatants through negligence or even recklessness while fighting genuine combatants (eg Vietcong, Sandinistas, Al Quaeda etc, and (b.) fighting a war by deliberately targetting non-combatants, eg 9/11, the IRA, Palestinian suicide bombers etc.

 

You're obviously quite entitled to disagree with the distinction. I just think it must make for a very peculiar view of the world when if you think everyone has the right to kill anybody because you don't like other people's religion, society or politics.

 

Just out of interest, do you think that bombing London to further a Nazi victory in WW2 was more, less or equally blameworthy than bombing Dresden as part of the fight to defeat Hitler?

[millwall32 114]

Let us recap, based on what both of us have actually said rather than the words you are putting in my mouth if possible.

 

I originally said that 9/11 was a tragedy. Also that it was put into the shade by the acts of terrorism carried out by the U.S. (military) over the years.

 

You asked whether America had ever specifically targeted civillians (and by the way can you think of any army that has not deliberately targeted at least a few civillians?) and I cited half a dozen examples of parts of the world where the U.S. have deliberately targeted civillians. If you disagree with anything so far I would recommend that you go back and chaeck what has been posted.

 

I said nothin about moral equivalence. I did not compare anything to anything else or draw any conclusions from the fact that America has been responsible for so may civillian deaths. Neither did I compare GWB to OBL. Others have in this thread and you appear to be confusing me with them.I simply stated , admitedly through metaphor maybe that is where you are gettingt confused,that America (by which I mean its government and military) are responsible for more that the 3'500 dead on 9/11.

 

Neither did I say that anyone had a "right to kill" anyone based on their beleifs.

 

May I ask , when you "quote" me what exactly are you talking about?

[Guest IYG]

I saw a very interesting mural in San Francisco where it said: Death on 9/11 3,500 (they had the exact number) - Civilians killed in Afghanistan in the first two weeks of bombing 3,800 (again they had an exact number) = 300 IOU?

[millwall32 114]

I saw a very interesting mural in San Francisco where it said: Death on 9/11 3,500 (they had the exact number) - Civilians killed in Afghanistan in the first two weeks of bombing 3,800 (again they had an exact number) = 300 IOU?

THAT is sort of the point I was making.

 

(I notice that overnight I have gone from Firing Squad Commander to Shipman. Is that something that happens when you reach 261 posts?)

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

There must be a magic number to the Shipman promotion

[Lady Die 63]

There must be a magic number to the Shipman promotion

I think the number is "about 250"

[VileBody 11]

I saw a very interesting mural in San Francisco where it said: Death on 9/11 3,500 (they had the exact number) - Civilians killed in Afghanistan in the first two weeks of bombing 3,800 (again they had an exact number) = 300 IOU?

THAT is sort of the point I was making.

 

(I notice that overnight I have gone from Firing Squad Commander to Shipman. Is that something that happens when you reach 261 posts?)

What a co-incidence, Milwall - so did I!

 

OK point taken - I just find it irritating when people take the knee-jerk(mainly anti-US) view that Western countries killing civilians accidently during a war against combatants are as "guilty" as a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

 

Anyway, point made...enough!

[millwall32 114]

I saw a very interesting mural in San Francisco where it said: Death on 9/11 3,500 (they had the exact number) - Civilians killed in Afghanistan in the first two weeks of bombing 3,800 (again they had an exact number) = 300 IOU?

THAT is sort of the point I was making.

 

(I notice that overnight I have gone from Firing Squad Commander to Shipman. Is that something that happens when you reach 261 posts?)

What a co-incidence, Milwall - so did I!

 

OK point taken - I just find it irritating when people take the knee-jerk(mainly anti-US) view that Western countries killing civilians accidently during a war against combatants are as "guilty" as a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

 

Anyway, point made...enough!

Fine. We are both Shipman's. We are Shipmen in fact.

We disagree a little and seem to have both put words in one another's mouths. i would still contend that innocent civillians were deliberately targeted in Vietnam etc but you seem to have side stepped that. We do both agree that he targetting of civillians is wrong wherever it happens though (Don't we?). We jsut disagree about when it has happened. I hope that this does not effect our future correspondance.

(That is by the way the first argument I have ever peacefully settled in my life.)