Posted on 07/06/2013 10:45:11 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham think attacking Syria to establish a no-fly zone will somehow stem Iranian nuclear ambitions, while Dr. Robert Gates says the whole mess is like "sticking your hand in a tornado." Gates, both a former Secretary of Defense and a former CIA director, says involvement in Syria is a slippery slope that will only lead to deeper, riskier commitments.
"The question about the involvement in Syria is, can you put just a few fingers into the tornado? And at what point, when that fails, do the pressures to do more gradually draw you in further and further?" Gates said during a talk at the Hearst Tower Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Their vibration analysts aka rocket scientists were leading the way and continued to advance the mathematical art through the 60s, or as a fine Prussian researcher once told me, "Ya, Ya, if ve only had dese methods in the day of de V2, ve'd all be speaking German now, YA?
Hitler declared war on the USA
A lot of Eastern Europeans, admittedly non-Jews, vastly preferred the Nazis to the Soviets.
The US already stuck its d*ck in the tornado that is islam’s extermination of humanity by electing a fully-fledged islamic cleric and jihadist to the US presidency.
There may not be a good way out.
Remember this?
“The Marines are at war. America is at the mall”.
A rare common sense headline...
If it weren't for the globalist greed that couldn't accept the dictators showing independence from the west, we were better off with the dictators who doled out limited amounts of freedom that their warring populations could handle.
The lesson should've been learned with Iraq. When you overthrow a government, you don't know what's behind every door. And you don't control (forever anyway) which doors get opened.
/bingo
But you have to realize, there are those who come straight here from Lew Rockwell, one of the places online where anti-Americanism masquerades as conservativism.
Secretaries Gates and Rice argued strenuously for the diplomatic option. Gates also argued for preventing Israel from bombing the reactor and urged putting the whole relationship between the United States and Israel on the line.
With this regime in power I say do nothing......this idiot has a propensity do the polar opposite of what benefits this country.
German propaganda doesn't equal real science. Your Prussian friend might have wanted to pretend that German science and technology was superior to ours, but it wasn't. Germany's V2's were not intercontinental missiles; they were scuds, and would have been little use to them once we started dropping nuclear bombs.
Yeah, so what? He couldn’t even mount an invasion across 26 miles of the English Channel. How was he going to make good on his declaration of war across thousands of miles of Atlantic Ocean?
Maybe there are, but I'm not one of them. If you're commenting on my posts, the FR etiquette is to address everyone involved in the thread rather than making cowardly and snarky little insinuations.
One doesn't have to be a Nazi in order to understand that our WWII policy served Soviet interests, and not our own. We gave the Russians everything the Molotov-Ribbentrop promised them, and more, in spades. In addition to that, Soviet agents of influence in the Roosevelt administration maneuvered us into both betraying our ally Chiang Kai-shek and aiding the Ya'nan Communists in China. Imagine how different the world would be today -- and for most of my lifetime -- if American diplomats and high-level military staff had served American interests instead of Soviet ones.
Yet for this, you get called a Nazi by the good little Soviet bootlickers at FR.
First, I can't quite speak to this, because I don't know which aggression you're talking about. Hitler's threats and bluster were a form of diplomatic aggression, and they were, sadly, quite successful.
If you mean aggression against Western Europe, it's hard to argue with success. If you're talking about aggression against Russia, there are plenty who claim he had no choice. In The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich even the very pro-Soviet William L. Shirer concedes that the Russians were already expanding their sphere of influence beyond what they agreed to in the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and that if anything Hitler struck too late because of a vendetta against Yugoslavia that pushed his offensive too late into the year. There was also some evidence the Soviets were preparing to strike first.
If you mean in general terms, I can't really agree. One of the reasons Hitler had a technological advantage at the start of the War was that he had mobilized a decade before the Allies. The advantage -- contrary to what some people on this thread have posted -- was rapidly disappearing, and by the end of the war was virtually gone. The one weapon he had that the Allies did not was the ME-262; a truly formidable weapon which fortunately he did not have the foresight to exploit. [If you believe Speer -- and there's probably no reason you should, since his bio is largely self-serving crap and he was Nazi scum -- Hitler diverted research and war production into increasingly less effective weapons systems.] Heisenberg, again in a self serving account, claims he deliberately foot-dragged the development of the German nuclear bomb. The truth was that Heisenberg could not mount a first-rate research staff because the Nazi's had already exiled, driven-off, or murdered most of the people who might have developed nukes. Heisenberg himself appears to have actually been working on a hydrogen bomb -- but he had no engineers who could have told him that while the physics for thermonuclear weapons was mostly understood, the technology for such a weapon did not yet exist, and would not for 15 years.
I don't take my history from throw-away lines from Patton or other Hollywood vehicles, and I certainly don't believe Nazi propaganda fed to the German people about miracle weapons that would be "coming to the front any day real soon now" in order to keep them fighting. The V1 and V2 were terrorist weapons and not effective weapons of war. A lot of the other technology was years from fruition.
As for what "most historians" believe, I'm afraid I must demur. I'll be glad to discuss individual historians, but when you remember that "most historians" believe that Joe McCarthy was a witch hunter, Richard Nixon was a more dangerous enemy of liberty than Barack 0bama, or that Bill Clinton should not have been impeached, just to name three bits of conventional wisdom (read: lunacy) I can think of off the top of my head, I'm afraid I can't say I'm very impressed with what "most historians" believe.
Correct. He is taking the side of your enemy Assad and giving the shaft to your ally Al Qeada.
No, that’s *your* ally the Assad dictatorship that he’s backing; Assad and al-Qaeda are *both* my enemy, which is something you and your fellow pro-jihadists can’t say.
Well, thanks for self-identifying, perhaps via your psychic gifts, but the fact is, I’m in agreement with those who think we gave Stalin far too much during the war, which made it politically and militarily impossible to do otherwise than was done after the war. Of course, all of that is with the benefit of hindsight and not having to be there at the time.
The USSR had the best tank of the war. Molotov went to the Far East for surreptitious meetings with the Japanese, who told him nothing outright, but he returned to tell Stalin that he thought the czarist-era treaty would hold, so 70 divisions were stripped from that frontier and shovelled straight into the German front in the west, a remarkable redeployment.
Stalin realized that he would have to let people who knew how to fight a war direct the war, a lesson Hitler never learned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.