What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Your ability to tell the most outrageous lies is really quite remarkable- I see no evidence for this Turkish and Arab love of immigration by European Jews into Palestine at the end of the 19th Century.

Do tell us where you're getting your 'unbiased' information from.

It ain't Jewish sources.

molly, you never ever cease to amaze me. You seem to know everything and yet seem to know nothing.

Who owned Syria before 1916?

Who allowed large scale immigration of Jews prior to 1916?

Who was promised Syria as an incentive to go to war against the Ottomans?

Who signed a deal with the Zionist leaders at Versailles that welcomed Jewish immigration provided the Brits lived up to their end of the deal and gave them sovereignity over the whole of Syria save Lebanon as promised?

I am surprised you don't seem to know any of this.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Moving to defend Kuwait had nothing to do with it being an ally - it had everything to do with the collective security system of the UN. It is vital to recall when the first Gulf War came, right as the Cold War ended, so the paralysis of the UN system created by the direct rivarly of two permament UNSC members. Had the Soviets blocked UN resolutions allowing for military force to drive Iraq from Kuwait then history might have been different.

MOre importantly, the bigger US fear was a Iraqi move into KSA, which was a US ally and who certainly did not have the manpower to defend itself against Iraq mainly on its own.

GePap, to some extent you are right and to some extent you are wrong.

Bush made it clear that he would not let the Kuwait acquisition by Saddam "stand" (in his words) from the get go. He got both the UN and the US Congress to back him, and went to war. But, I can promise you this, without Bush's efforts to go to war, nothing would have been done to remove Saddam. Nothing.

Therefore, this was a US war backed by the UN, not the other way around.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Your ability to tell the most outrageous lies is really quite remarkable- I see no evidence for this Turkish and Arab love of immigration by European Jews into Palestine at the end of the 19th Century.

Do tell us where you're getting your 'unbiased' information from.

It ain't Jewish sources.

Ned is correct here to the extent that the Ottoman Empire did indeed invite Jews to resettle certain areas of Palestine at the end of the 19th century. AFAIK that invitation was never rescinded, though obviously it became moot with the British occupation of Palestine at the end of WW1.

[Ned]

It is interesting that molly, and many many others for that matter, often call me a liar. This whole Nediverse bit is a code word for liar.

But the truth of the matter is that I never lie. I have made factual mistakes before; but they were unintentional.

But what irks me most about the so many people here on this forum is their complete lack of civility. When they disagree with your point of view, they will go out of their way to be rude and obnoxious in the extreme, and will NEVER apologize when they are proven wrong.

There are a few on this forum I actually enjoy discussing things with, but the I find the majority of folks here to be, frankly, immature in the extreme.

Goodbye to those of you on this forum who are decent chaps.

To the rest of you creeps, go F yourselves.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, to some extent you are right and to some extent you are wrong.

Bush made it clear that he would not let the Kuwait acquisition by Saddam "stand" (in his words) from the get go. He got both the UN and the US Congress to back him, and went to war. But, I can promise you this, without Bush's efforts to go to war, nothing would have been done to remove Saddam. Nothing.

Therefore, this was a US war backed by the UN, not the other way around.

Hello Ned, the UN is a collection of states. Nothing happens in the UN regarding collective security unless some country sets the ball rolling. The fact that the US was the one to start the process and used it political muscle to get others to agree changes nothing with regards to the fact that the justification for war with Iraq was that Iraq was in violation of the collective security system set up as the UN, a sytem oin which Iraq and Kuwait were both members.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting that molly, and many many others for that matter, often call me a liar. This whole Nediverse bit is a code word for liar.

But the truth of the matter is that I never lie. I have made factual mistakes before; but they were unintentional.

But what irks me most about the so many people here on this forum is their complete lack of civility. When they disagree with your point of view, they will go out of their way to be rude and obnoxious in the extreme, and will NEVER apologize when they are proven wrong.

There are a few on this forum I actually enjoy discussing things with, but the I find the majority of folks here to be, frankly, immature in the extreme.

Goodbye to those of you on this forum who are decent chaps.

To the rest of you creeps, go F yourselves.

Don't let the door hit your neo-Nazi ass on the way out.

*******.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, the 'Nediverse' is 'code' for the home of the clinically insane. It goes way beyond lying. It reaches making **** up (lying) and then citing your own **** in a circular frenzy of insanity.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Don't let the door hit your neo-Nazi ass on the way out.

*******.

God knows I only read a fraction of the threads here so I can miss quite a bit. But what sort of neo-nazi sympathizing views has Ned ever posted?

From the posts I have seen I've always been more than a little taken back by condescending dismissal that got thrown Neds way but it's possible that I missed a couple appallingly notorious posts that triggered all of that contempt.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ned has this odd view of history. He seems to feel that the British were really responsible for WW1 and WW2. There have been a number of arguments to this effect. If you go back earlier in this thread you'll see that he maintains that the British were somehow responsible for forming a nefarious secret Anglo-Franco-Belgiac alliance in order to justify theri entry into WW1. Nevermind the fact that at the time the treaty requiring British protection of Belgium's neutrality was signed a united Germany was still a mere twinkling in Bismark's eye. Likewise Ned seems to feel that perfidious Albion engineered a mutual protection pact with Poland moments before the outbreak of hotilities in 1939 as a device to excuse opening a general European war against Germany in 1939. History records that the pact was made nearly a year before.

Time and time again he has excuse Nazi aggression, attributing the ultimate cause to someone else. To me he meets the criteria foa a Nazi apologist, though I honestly do not know why he has these crazy ideas fixed in his head.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ned has this odd view of history. He seems to feel that the British were really responsible for WW1 and WW2. There have been a number of arguments to this effect. If you go back earlier in this thread you'll see that he maintains that the British were somehow responsible for forming a nefarious secret Anglo-Franco-Belgiac alliance in order to justify theri entry into WW1. Nevermind the fact that at the time the treaty requiring British protection of Belgium's neutrality was signed a united Germany was still a mere twinkling in Bismark's eye. Likewise Ned seems to feel that perfidious Albion engineered a mutual protection pact with Poland moments before the outbreak of hotilities in 1939 as a device to excuse opening a general European war against Germany in 1939. History records that the pact was made nearly a year before.

Time and time again he has excuse Nazi aggression, attributing the ultimate cause to someone else. To me he meets the criteria foa a Nazi apologist, though I honestly do not know why he has these crazy ideas fixed in his head.

Yeah, I had him pegged as an anglophobe but hadn't detected the Nazi apologist streak in the posts I had read.

I hadn't known about the attempts to absolve the nazis of responsibility for ww2. No question that will rub most people entirely the wrong way.

[Ned]

Dr. S,

Why don't you at least get you facts straight.

After a full discussion, I agreed there was no "secret" pact between Britain, France and Belgium. It was the 1839 agreement, and that was no secret. Moreover, we also established that the Brit decision to intervene should the Germans cross the border was taken 11 hours before the Belgian decision to go to war rather than accept the German ultimatum. My contention was that the Belgians seemed to behave as if Britain and France had their back, and history seems to back that contention up.

As to WWII, you simply will not, will you, get the facts straight again. I never said Hitler was right to invade Poland. I said that that did not NECESSARILY lead to WWII had the Brits accepted Hitler's offer of a European conference in October of '39. I said I fully understood why the Brits would not agree to such a conference given Hitler's notorious lying and unless it included everyone, including the Soviets who had themselves taken half of Poland. There would be no diplomatic solution to Poland without them, and they had not offered peace nor agreed to attend.

As to the leadup to Sept. '39, Britain gave Poland a "blank cheque" in May of that year told the Poles they would support them immediately should war break out. The French did the same thing. Poland went to war expecting immediate British and French support.

It did not arrive and there were no serious efforts on the Western Front as well.

Most will agree that at a minimum that Britain and France overpromised Poland and that they knew it at the time they made the promise.

Now, I have asked this more than once, in fact, many times, and have yet to receive an answer. Why would Britain make such a promise to Poland in the first place knowing it could not deliver? Most will respond that the promise was made to influence Hitler while ignoring the effect of such a promise would have on Poland. Somewhat like the German blank check during WWI encouraged Austria to take a hard line on Serbia, the same thing seems to have happened in the case of Poland.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. S,

Why don't you at least get you facts straight.

After a full discussion, I agreed there was no "secret" pact between Britain, France and Belgium. It was the 1839 agreement, and that was no secret. Moreover, we also established that the Brit decision to intervene should the Germans cross the border was taken 11 hours before the Belgian decision to go to war rather than accept the German ultimatum. My contention was that the Belgians seemed to behave as if Britain and France had their back, and history seems to back that contention up.

Why should they not have done so? That was the whole point of the treaty to begin with, at least with respect to Britain covering Belgium's back. It certainly does not place the onus of causing the war to the British for backing up their promise to Belgium.

As to WWII, you simply will not, will you, get the facts straight again. I never said Hitler was right to invade Poland. I said that that did not NECESSARILY lead to WWII had the Brits accepted Hitler's offer of a European conference in October of '39. I said I fully understood why the Brits would not agree to such a conference given Hitler's notorious lying and unless it included everyone, including the Soviets who had themselves taken half of Poland. There would be no diplomatic solution to Poland without them, and they had not offered peace nor agreed to attend.

As to the leadup to Sept. '39, Britain gave Poland a "blank cheque" in May of that year told the Poles they would support them immediately should war break out.

Again why should not the British have done so? That was the whole point of a "mutual protection pact" anyway. In past threads however you have explicitly blamed the British for starting WW2. Pardon me if I fail to see how promising to protect a weaker country from the naked aggression of a more powerful one constitutes starting a war.

The French did the same thing. Poland went to war expecting immediate British and French support.

Poland did not go to war, Germany invaded. There is a difference. I'm certain that no one ever expected the British to try to send troops to Poland, that would have been suicidal.

It did not arrive and there were no serious efforts on the Western Front as well.

Most will agree that at a minimum that Britain and France overpromised Poland and that they knew it at the time they made the promise.

Now, I have asked this more than once, in fact, many times, and have yet to receive an answer. Why would Britain make such a promise to Poland in the first place knowing it could not deliver? Most will respond that the promise was made to influence Hitler while ignoring the effect of such a promise would have on Poland.

The leaders of France and Britain expected the Germans to pull a repeat of WW1, to put the Eastern Front on hold while they using most of their army on an offensive in the west. They were utterly dumbfounded when September and October rolled by and no German western offensive materialized. By November they judged it to be too late in the year to stage their own offensive. There also was the factor that the french were not willing to do anything until the entire BEF was deployed to the continent. The technology of sea transport in those days meant that it would take a couple of months to transport the relatively mechanized BEF across the English channel. Another reason for the allies lack of initiative was that they had not completed the modernization of their forces which they had begun after the Munich conference. They did not want to go on the offensive until they had the latest models of tanks and planes present in sufficient quantities. Unfortunately they were to later discover that the weapons they waited for were designed under faulty doctrines and therefore failed to live up to expectations.

Somewhat like the German blank check during WWI encouraged Austria to take a hard line on Serbia, the same thing seems to have happened in the case of Poland.

The Austrians invaded Serbia. The only thing the Poles were guilty of was breathing the same air as ther Germans. There is a difference.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Yeah, I had him pegged as an anglophobe but hadn't detected the Nazi apologist streak in the posts I had read.

I hadn't known about the attempts to absolve the nazis of responsibility for ww2. No question that will rub most people entirely the wrong way.

You'd wonder where he got it from, but then he repeatedly cites neo-Nazis as sources.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You'd wonder where he got it from, but then he repeatedly cites neo-Nazis as sources.

Maybe Ned isn't a neo-nazi but is rather an armchair revisionist historian synthesizing original interpretations of history based upon arbitrary Google derived assortments of source material.

[Kuciwalker]

That sounds right.