If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
PC war
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
John Leo (back to story)
November 7, 2001
Let's have a 'sensitive' war
By late 1942, after Adolf Hitler had invaded most of the nations of Europe, relentlessly bombed England and declared war on the United States, the vexing question naturally arose: What's better, to fight back or to sit down and study the root causes of Germany's behavior?
Some impetuous students simply rushed off campus to defend their homelands. But their professors knew that many semester hours of causal analysis lay ahead, especially since several very promising root-cause seminars in Poland and Belgium had been interrupted by Panzer divisions rolling through on their way to Paris.
The root-causists agreed that Germany had been badly misunderstood and that Britain and America had brought the terror of war upon themselves. Some pointed to misguided policies -- not handing over the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler quickly enough, for example. Others thought the deepest roots of the root causes were in the eighth century. That was when the Teutonic knights were treated discourteously by newly Christianized Slavs, thus setting the stage for a perfectly understandable "religious war" between the pagan Nazis and majority Christian nations 13 centuries later.
One problem with the growing sympathy for Hitler was the unsettling news that the Nazis were rounding up and killing Jews, some 6 million of them. But the Episcopal bishops of the United States were able to put this in perspective. In a soothing formal statement titled "Wage Reconciliation, Not War," they said that while killing so many people is surely not a good thing, it is also true that 6 million children die of natural causes every few years without attracting nearly as much attention.
When President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill put together their "broad coalition" to fight Hitler, they ran into unexpected problems. One ally said it would fight only if the war could end within two months. A few wanted a cash payoff before joining up. One was willing to fight without a bribe but would cease fighting if it didn't like the looks of the probable postwar government in Norway. And one said, we are with you all the way, but we can't send troops, and you can't use our airfields or our airspace. And please don't mention that we're on your side.
As if that weren't bad enough, the Allies had to confront the ticklish question of whether to suspend the bombing of Germany during Oktoberfest. The Nazis, in fact, had already killed several million people during previous October beer-drinking festivals, but they were known to be very much opposed to being shot at themselves during this culturally important period. "What's next? Bombing during Lent?" asked a New York Times editorial. It appeared under the headline "Let's Bomb, but Sensitively."
Several papers ran daily photographs of dead German children, helpfully provided by Berlin. As a result, some columnists pronounced themselves shocked into second thoughts. Nobody had told them that children sometimes die in war. They had been led to believe that Allied bombs, though dropped from 30,000 feet, would fall only upon the heads of German troops and Nazi-armband wearers.
Another problem was that German saboteurs were known to be crawling all over America, but the FBI was reluctant to arrest any lest it be accused of "racial profiling" or outright ethnic insensitivity. Besides, if you start arresting German-Americans, German speakers all around the world and all students who have ever studied German or visited Germany will hate Americans forever.
National Public Radio weighed in with a 19-part series reporting widespread bias against German-Americans. The series said Americans of German descent had been targets of 100,000 hate crimes -- two had been shot at, three had suffered punches in the nose, one had been slapped with a bratwurst, and 99,994 had received hurtful sidelong glances or insincere hellos from neighbors.
NPR also announced it had decided to cover the war by attending every meeting of the Berkeley, Calif., city council. NPR reported that the council, by a 7-to-2 vote, decided not to declare war on either Germany or Japan. Instead, the nine members and all 10,000 students at Berkeley lighted candles and declared themselves individual hate-free zones.
Somehow, however, America and Britain won the war and established the peace, probably because they ignored all the amazing nonsense around them and just fought the good fight. But then some people always prefer standing around with scented candles instead of attacking the darkness.
Contact John Leo
©2001 Universal Press Syndicate
townhall.com
November 7, 2001
Let's have a 'sensitive' war
By late 1942, after Adolf Hitler had invaded most of the nations of Europe, relentlessly bombed England and declared war on the United States, the vexing question naturally arose: What's better, to fight back or to sit down and study the root causes of Germany's behavior?
Some impetuous students simply rushed off campus to defend their homelands. But their professors knew that many semester hours of causal analysis lay ahead, especially since several very promising root-cause seminars in Poland and Belgium had been interrupted by Panzer divisions rolling through on their way to Paris.
The root-causists agreed that Germany had been badly misunderstood and that Britain and America had brought the terror of war upon themselves. Some pointed to misguided policies -- not handing over the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler quickly enough, for example. Others thought the deepest roots of the root causes were in the eighth century. That was when the Teutonic knights were treated discourteously by newly Christianized Slavs, thus setting the stage for a perfectly understandable "religious war" between the pagan Nazis and majority Christian nations 13 centuries later.
One problem with the growing sympathy for Hitler was the unsettling news that the Nazis were rounding up and killing Jews, some 6 million of them. But the Episcopal bishops of the United States were able to put this in perspective. In a soothing formal statement titled "Wage Reconciliation, Not War," they said that while killing so many people is surely not a good thing, it is also true that 6 million children die of natural causes every few years without attracting nearly as much attention.
When President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill put together their "broad coalition" to fight Hitler, they ran into unexpected problems. One ally said it would fight only if the war could end within two months. A few wanted a cash payoff before joining up. One was willing to fight without a bribe but would cease fighting if it didn't like the looks of the probable postwar government in Norway. And one said, we are with you all the way, but we can't send troops, and you can't use our airfields or our airspace. And please don't mention that we're on your side.
As if that weren't bad enough, the Allies had to confront the ticklish question of whether to suspend the bombing of Germany during Oktoberfest. The Nazis, in fact, had already killed several million people during previous October beer-drinking festivals, but they were known to be very much opposed to being shot at themselves during this culturally important period. "What's next? Bombing during Lent?" asked a New York Times editorial. It appeared under the headline "Let's Bomb, but Sensitively."
Several papers ran daily photographs of dead German children, helpfully provided by Berlin. As a result, some columnists pronounced themselves shocked into second thoughts. Nobody had told them that children sometimes die in war. They had been led to believe that Allied bombs, though dropped from 30,000 feet, would fall only upon the heads of German troops and Nazi-armband wearers.
Another problem was that German saboteurs were known to be crawling all over America, but the FBI was reluctant to arrest any lest it be accused of "racial profiling" or outright ethnic insensitivity. Besides, if you start arresting German-Americans, German speakers all around the world and all students who have ever studied German or visited Germany will hate Americans forever.
National Public Radio weighed in with a 19-part series reporting widespread bias against German-Americans. The series said Americans of German descent had been targets of 100,000 hate crimes -- two had been shot at, three had suffered punches in the nose, one had been slapped with a bratwurst, and 99,994 had received hurtful sidelong glances or insincere hellos from neighbors.
NPR also announced it had decided to cover the war by attending every meeting of the Berkeley, Calif., city council. NPR reported that the council, by a 7-to-2 vote, decided not to declare war on either Germany or Japan. Instead, the nine members and all 10,000 students at Berkeley lighted candles and declared themselves individual hate-free zones.
Somehow, however, America and Britain won the war and established the peace, probably because they ignored all the amazing nonsense around them and just fought the good fight. But then some people always prefer standing around with scented candles instead of attacking the darkness.
Contact John Leo
©2001 Universal Press Syndicate
townhall.com
0
Comments
That was my favourite part.
Where dya get it?
[This message has been edited by Mindless all the way (edited 07-11-2001).]
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif">
Townhall
Well I actually stole the article from a post on the Newsmax forums. And you DEFINATELY wont like it there.
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
And I thank you, gents, for providing an entertaining and intelligent debate of the issues involved. Even though we may disagree about certain ideals I have a great deal of respect for you because you know what your thoughts are, and they are based on facts and not emotions.
(What's that brown stuff on my nose?!)
But I mean it. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
I don't think that any of us really glory in the warfare or loss of life which is the direct result. In any conflict, innocent people lose their lives and that is a simple fact of war. So what you need to do is weigh up the pros and cons of taking this kind of action, whilst remembering that your Govt has a duty to protect and defend it's citizens, and that this duty far outweighs any other global responsibility.
In this instance there is a very real threat to global and national stability, which has been caused by both Bin Laden's actions and the Taliban's refusal to allow him to face justice.
What happenned in 11/9 was unprecedented and until then Govts of the 'west' had lived with the terrorist and taken limited action against them. However, the WTC woke them up to the fact that here was a group intent on large scale attacks, little or no regard for innocent life. Here was a group with the planning and capability to mount such attacks and who (without doubt) would use any weapon they could get their hands on.
So look at the options open to them...
A man professes to want the destruction of the US and to free the 'holy land' from corruption (ie the Saudi Monarchy), and that he sees this as a holy crusade. And what do you think would have happenned (or will happen) if zealots get power in Arabia? Oil prices going up, world recession, no oil for the west? There is no room for negotiation with such an approach, the blind faith that follows religion, and his view that this is his duty under the laws of his religion, mean that he will not bow from this goal and that he will use any force available because it is 'god's will'.
Which leaves force. Or justice.
Justice was ruled out by the Taliban. A BIG mistake, had they handed OBL over (very publically) the US would have been forced to provide evidence to prove beyond doubt that OBl was behind the attacks. Do you think that they could have done so? that they could have produced the evidence which they DO have, in a court of law? I suspect that most of it would be inadmissable and that OBL would have walked free - a true hero who stood up to the great satan and won. But I guess they don;t have the wit to think that one up.
This leaves force...OBL's choice because in death he would be a martyr. However, it also means that Afghanistan suffer unneccessarily in the interim.
I would be nice to think that aid alone would have been enough, but that would not have removed the religious factor from OBL and his cronies. the only way to beat them is to eradicate them.
None of us wants to see people die, but sometimes it is the only option. I think that the Hitler quote is a good one just becuase it shows that very point and shows that there are some people who we SHOULDN'T negiotiate with.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif">
A pessimist is never disappointed...
http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent
In all negotiations, for the end of a war or whatever, there needs to be co-operation and give&take. It's obvious the Taliban will not do this so it leaves us in an impossible position. And, yes, we cannot allow them to manipulate a religion and a people for personal gain or glory.
I think it's sad that it boils down to oil again. When will someone perfect the hydrogen fuel cell so we don't need the Arab oil?!
However, I suspect that it would be invented soon after the oil fell into the hands of people like OBL.
So, any time soon then... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif">
A pessimist is never disappointed...
http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent
A little visit from South Park seemed appropriate at the moment.
Not to be caried away by the part now mind you.
Diesel
88888888