|
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Well, I probably misused the source. It says basically that the Soviet Union wanted to start a Communist revolution in Germany (and the rest of Europe), and encourage them with Soviet agents rather than the Soviet military.
When the World War II started, the Soviet Union wanted to keep out of it as long as possible, utilizing the buffer zone granted by the Ribbentrop pact. But when the situation would permit, the Soviet forces had huge offensive power (evidenced by a million trained paratroopers) to attack Germany if the German troops had been preoccupied too far away from the potential Eastern Front (I think Hitler was a bit wary of invading Britain for this reason). At that stage, both Germany and the Soviet Union were prepared to attack each other pre-emptively.
|
I disagree about Soviet offensive power. Although the 5 year plans made a significant impact on the Russian economy they were still relatively inept militarily. They had nowhere near the industrial capabilities or technological weaponry that the Germans possessed. If the Russians had significant military capabilities, why did it take 2 years and over 10 million deaths before the Russians were able to rally enough industry to arm their forces and begin offensive operations against the Germans? Truth be told, the after the ribbentrop-molotov treaty was signed the Russians had no intent to invade Germany anytime soon. Stalin's gross and criminal errors in even recognizing the German invasion as it was happening is testament to the level of trust Stalin placed in the treaty and the Germans.
| quote: |
As to your claim that the Soviet army was a pathetic fighting force to invade Germany. On paper this was not true: it was a formidable attack force. But in reality it had its bad moments (like when the Soviet troops struggled to invade Finland). Still, in 1944 the Soviet army showed its true attacking potential, as evidenced especially by the fast advance of the Soviet forward units.
|
In 1940 it was pathetic. Yes it had impressive numbers but Soviet training and equipment was laughable. Like you said, Soviet forces VASTLY outnumbered the Finns and suffered inumerable losses. And like I said, the Soviets only built up their capabilities as an effective fighting force after several years and countless deaths.
| quote: |
You probably mean that those are the reasons why many ordinary Americans make the mistake of supporting the invasion. Those reasons might indeed have made an invasion a humane act, but unfortunately, the reasons of the Neoconservatives were primarily to get themselves a dominant position in the Middle-East. As a proof, I once again post the following excerpt from the PNAC declaration:
http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
The American war plan indicates that the invasion was tailored to suit these Neoconservative goals. If getting rid of Saddam and the Iraqi WMD had been the primary goals, the war plan and its political preparations would have been different.
|
You're equating this PNAC declaration as American policy. That is not the case. How would the war plan and its political preperations been different then if our goal truly was to get rid of Saddam (and it is) and to rid Iraq of WMDS (it is to a lesser degree)?
| quote: |
Everyone probably agrees that Saddam and his WMD should have been removed. France and Russia hardly objected to this, and would have carried out the invasion just as happily as the US if it had been in their economical interests. Even if it hadn't been in their economical intererests, they would still have rather done it themselves than given the Neoconservatives an opportunity to increase their power compared to Europe.
|
France and Russia never would have done so because they have too many interests in Iraq in its current state. And I believe you are blindly placing faith in the altruism of France and Russia in performing actions that are not beneficial to their own self interests. At any rate I still don't believe in this "neoconservative" domination of the American government. Are you saying that not only did these neoconservatives subjucate the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the American people?
| quote: |
The impact of Neoconservatives on Bush has been variable, counterweighed by Bush's more traditional conservative advisors. Unfortunately, Bush submitted to the Neoconservative plans almost completely after the WTC tragedy. Their huge impact on Bush was proved by the facts that Bush adopted the exact amount of defense budget, the missile defense program and an Iraq invasion suggested by the Neoconservatives (I can find sources for this if necessary). And their impact on Bush's thinking (  ) is still considerable:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/i...ial/06POLI.html (registration required)
Shortly after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of President Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and went back to work.
...
"Iraq is not just about Iraq," a senior administration official who played a crucial role in putting the strategy together said in an interview last week. It was "a unique case," the official said. But in Mr. Bush's mind, the official added, "It is of a type."
Every now and then, there have been signs that Bush is hesitant about the plans of the Neoconservatives, and prefers to listen to his other advisors. But because the Neoconservatives have gotten too much power, there's an urgent need of a regime change in the US. Just for the same reason why the Baath Party can't stay in power in Iraq even after the really bad Baathists have been removed. When some members of the Government are lunatics, and lose their international credibility, the whole government must go.
|
Could it simply be that many of the suggestions by this secretive "neoconservative" group might be decisions already arrived upon by the President? It would make sense to increase defense spending after 9/11 right? The ABM system has ALWAYS been an agenda by Bush and that too makes sense after 9/11. At any rate I find these neoconservative conspiracy theories to be silly in predicting the future. We're both going to continue to disagree. Can we simply put the issue at rest and then IF the US invades Syria or Iran THEN bring up the issue? Otherwise I sense we're going to continue the banter of yes this is what's going to happen no this won't happen how do you know for sure, etc. etc. etc. I agree its somewhat of a copout on my part to back out of the argument but I just think the entire theory is simply not conclusive enough to arrive at a definitive answer. Yes it COULD mean something, but there really isn't any smoking gun so to speak. Otherwise it would be well picked up and publisized by the media. At any rate I don't know if I can stand anymore mention of the word "neoconservative" 
Last edited by occrider on Apr-08-2003 at 01:16
|
