You just can break violence if you answer non-violent.

In the way that the US trained and financed this people and this islamistic ideology has been wanted.

No. You negotiate with them and you don't stop negotiating! All kinds of "soft power"...
And if they don't care and come you capitulate and then you can start with civil defense.

None.

Not at all. You don't make it better for a country as Iran if you overthrow the democratical elected premier and install a regime.

The only issues are and were money, oil and weapons.
And it had its reasons that they overthrowed Mossadegh...the MI 6 and the CIA. And this reason was oil.

For shure. The West supports nearly all regimes in the ME. And all of them turned into democracies.

The strategy is wrong and nobody cares if this countries get democracies or not. They have to make their business, nothing else.

Nothing. We can live that, it's ok. But it's not ok to lead a war of aggression "because of this". Our governments aren't leading wars because they want freedom and democracy there. They want a pro west government or regime and benefit from it.

And really, what would you say if Iran would come and say: "hey, our values and our system are the best in the world, you have to accede it!"

And it's easy to answer why. If he would have told that he hasn't any weapons there would have been a revolt in Iraq. And how many dictators are in favour of this?

Hussein was an "ally".

No. The US wanted to democratize Iraq. But not because of the poor oppressed Iraqis. If the US (tries to) democratize another country, there are several reasons why.
1.) Installing a pro west government or a regime
2.) If this is done you get easier to your oil
3.) Iraq is geostrategical not that unimportant-> you want to control the whole ME
4.) You show your might and you are present
5.) The arm industry is very very lucky. They would do everything for war.
6.) The media are lucky

I mentioned it above. Using all kinds of soft power. Or overthrow Hussein. If the US brought him to power you could have overthrown him also.

War is the worst on earth. It combines the worst crimes and that makes it the worst.

I don't think so. It is hard to compare because we don't have any kind of politics by pacifists.
Appeasement politic means that you appease. You don't put real pressure on your "enemy" and don't negotiate, you just appease. And you let blackmail your own. When did they put pressure on Hitler? When?

A politic of pacifists in such a case would be totally different. You negotiate, you don't stop negotiating. It would mean an unnecessary loss of control. You put diplomatical pressure on your "enemy" and try to force him to stick to treaties. If all of this doesn't help and the other country is going to invade you, you capitulate. You accept the occupation of your country. And if it's real pacifism in the government, you already trained the people what civil defense mean. Now your country is occupied and now you try to get them out with civil defense, civil disobedience, (non violent) national strike and non-violent resistance.

Civil defense? Yes.

The appeasement politic has been consisted of an anticommunist policy as I already said. This was neither soft power nor hard power and had nothing to do with pacifism. They didn't act at all.

Of the Holocaust probably yes, but not in the war itself.

I'm sorry, but what means OBL? The Western countries knew exactly why he didn't deny that he (not) have had weapons.
In this case it was very simple. Iraq wasn't a threat anyways.
You shouldn't have stopped negotiating with him. It didn't mean a threat to us and Iraq didn't attack us so we hadn't any right to attack Iraq (and in my opinion even if there would have been an attack it would have been wrong to beat back).

The massacre of Tinneman Square is an example of civil defense which wasn't successful. Civil defense has as military defense some suppositions. The protesters were mainly students, that means that probably not all or the majority of the people supported them. And that's the problem. You need at least a majority and some kind of "strategy".

This doesn't mean that it will fail always. You need some suppositions that it can be successful. For example Mahatma Gandhi, the fall of the Berlin wall etc. there are enough examples where it has worked.

You can win a war militarily only. And sometimes not even this (take the war in the Gulf for example). A war is always lost if you look on the side of the humans who are affected on it.

The problem is that civil defense is very "young" and until today not really known. Because of this, nobody trains the people for civil defense. Often civil defense has to be organized very fast, so it can be successful or fail. If it would be trained, you would have much better chances.

So if you take this time it probably wouldn't have worked. As I said civil defense has suppositions also and these suppositions weren't given in this time. But if these suppositions would have been given it would have worked. It's all a question about organization.

I don't know can we really say that this is world peace? If we can call this stuation world peace then it would probably be the U.S for all the nukes oh and george bush xp

Speculation on "what ifs" is always subjective but there are some facts to support the belief that the USSR was the predominate force in ending the war against Germany. Most historical scholars cite the battle of Stalingrad as the turing point in Europe. Germany was not defeated at that point but they were no longer aggressors and were in retreat on the Eastern Front. That was in Feburary 1943 well over a year before the Normandy invasion. The primary reason for the Normandy invasion was to draw of German forces opposing the USSR on the Eastern Front. Throughout the European theater the USSR faced the bulk of the Germany and not the US/British forces in the Western campaign. The US/British efforts certainly supplemented and were significant to Russian offensive but even without it Russian forces were advancing in the East on Germany.

The war against Japan is another matter and certainly the US lead that effort but even there the USSR was advancing against the Japanese in Manchuria. The dropping of the atom bomb had as much to do with stopping the Russian military advance in Asia as it did about ending the war. Even then Truman and Churchill had realized that they might be sleeping with the enemy (Stalin).

If`s and buts are rather important when viewing WW2 IF the RAF had not won the Battle of Britain in 1940 stopping the Invasion of the UK there would have been no Normandy, no convoys to Russia and all the Divisions and Squadrons based in France waiting to invade Britain and the Afrika Korps fighting the British in North Africa would have been free to join the Attack on Russia... considering how close the Germans came to defeating Russia (outskirts of Moscow ) this IF is rather significant .

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

The Vatican. The US is just the gun and the Vatican is the hand that uses the gun (US military) for its purposes.

__________________
"Good intentions are a noble thing, but you have to look at the end result to see if those intentions are well placed."
-- LessGovMrPrez

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The whole world was conqured with one act of love. god was ask how much do you love them.....He opened his arms and said........this much, and died on the cross.



QUOTE=Dutch_Delight;130899]The war in Iraq was one big mistake for example. But my point is that if america says the opposite of the entire international community the americans still do what they think is good.

How many democratic chosen governments were overthrown the last 50 years in South America?

The entire world is taking measures to prevent climate change, the us doesnt want it because youre economy would grow slower.

That is what I mean with america thinks they are always right.


You can't take over the world with firepower, you can only change who has the power. See what is happening in Iraq, they have thrown over their government but did they take over Iraq? Afghanistan same story, in Kabul it is save but in the rest of the country the Taliban still rule. Vietnam, well, lets dont even mention that one.

To take over a country you need the people to support you, it is not that the one with the biggest gun is automatically the leader.


Guatemala, Chile, Panama.




I expected this one. The reason why it worked in Europe was because the people wanted you there. The us military was welcomed into our cities. But that happened 60 years ago and we are still very greatfull for that but that does not mean that you can do everything you want and expect from us to shut up.

I think, and many people with me, that the us picks up weapons to soon while there are still other options. The reason for that type of behaviour lies in the fact that the us havent had a war for a long time on their own soil. You have been involved in many wars but after the fighting you could always return to the us where everything was the same as you left it. Here we still have traces of the war left. We still find german bombs in the ground, the city where I live was completely destroyed. We don't have an old city centre anymore. Almost every building is less than 70 years old. A few kilometres from my house is still a piece of a brick wall with barbed wire on top. On it is a plaque which states: Behind this wall Jews were kept and made ready for transport to Auschwiz.

All this brings a historical believe about the war that Americans dont have, and I think that is the main reason why americans want to go to war when europeans say lets try to talk.[/quote]

It was a joint effort, the USSR could not have ended the war without us and we could not have ended it without them.

So was Africa, so was Italy, so was D-Day, so was Midway, so was Guadalcanal, there were LOTS of turning points.

And had the US and the UK not attacked and began to drive them back on the southern and western fronts the USSR would not have been able to drive them back very far.

But not Africa, and Hitler had to commit forces to his western front.

Hardly, although it was a result. It was to take back France, Belgium and the other western countries cut off his shipping lanes in the west, take back the Rhur and force him to fight on two fronts. They went hand in hand.

So what? With out the joint allied effort and the sacrifices the US made they would have been defeated.
An advance that would not have been possible first without all the aid and equipment we supplied them, second without the western front we attacked. And let's not forget the US took on the Japanese virtually alone while ALSO fighting the Germans.

And we were SUCCESSFUL as opposed to other assertions.

It was certainly a consideration at the time, but the USSR would not have been advancing on them had we not already destroyed the Japanese ability to withstand them, in fact it would have been just the opposite.

It was a joint effort all around, and it was a success.

Obviously it was a joint effort and speculation about what might have been is purely that. I would note though that the importance of the Russian efforts in WW II go largely ignored in American schools. While we talk about Normandy or Iwo Jima we talk about casualties in the thousands as if they were major engagements, and to us they were, but when you talk about the Russian-German battles on the Eastern Front the casualties were in the 100's of thousands to over 1.5 million in the battle of Stalingrad alone. In the European theater all of the major battles really occurred on the Eastern front.

The battles in N Africa were predominately insignificant. There were relatively few Axis forces there. The battles in N Africa did not result in a troop movement of German soldiers and did not provide a diverson for German troops from the Eastern Front. Our only intent was to make the invasion of Italy and, eventually, Southern France possible. Once again both of these were predominately to provide a diversion to relieve the Russian army which was facing the vast majority of German forces.

Could Russia have defeated the Germans without these diversions. There is no way of knowing for sure but between about August 1942 and Febuary 1943 the Russians went from the defensive to the offensive. Could they have sustained that offense without the US/British diversions in Western and Southern Europe is pure speculation either way but they were on the offensive.

Interesting history though and, of course, for half of Europe they merely traded one tyrannical dictator (Hitler) for another (Stalin) and it could be argued that Stalin was actually worse. So even the assumption that US involvement in WW II helped the people of Europe is only 1/2 right.

WW2 is largely ignored in public schools. But when I went the Russian effort was not ignored.

They were both major engagements. Casualties is not the measure.

Hardly, there were major operations and battles all over the world and all over Europe. And let's not forget the USSR had little regard for casusalites and would willing sacrifice thousands in massive human wave attacks. Tactics we never adopted.

They were quite significant in closing the Med the Axis forces and the resources in Africa which they badly needed. It enabled us to invade the underbelly of the Nazi empire which was, as Churchill made clear, the key to defeating them on in the West.

Africa was lost because Hitler could not fight both at the same time and certainly those operations and resources used up, some would say wasted, in Africa were forces and resources not available in Russia.

Sorry but your whole premise that it was "just a diversion" is factully incorrect. Without those fronts, the USSR would not have been able to defeat Hitler. Just as without the Eastern front the US and UK could not have done it on the western front.

No.

And it was a success.

Are you referring to my post? Well I have other IFs also! IF there wouldn't have been these nationalism, militarism and revanchism there wouldn't have been war at all!

The court in Munich in 1923 didn't judge Hitler after the coup against the republic as it was usual. Most courts were on the side of the military because they wanted the monarchy back. Hitler got accused on high treason and high treason was judged with the deportation of foreigners what the judge declined. Because Hitler was - according to the court's decision - a man who thought and felt so "german" that the law couldn't get applied on him. In fact the court favoured Hitler's fight against the limitation of Germany's military.

IF they would have listened to pacifists and antimilitarists there wouldn't have been any remilitarization of Germany -> no war.
IF speaking against war wouldn't have been punished with the death sentence more people would have tried to stop it.
It is estimated that the Nazis imposed more than 30 000 death sentences,
22 000 against deserters.
It is fact that the Third Reich was build upon militarism.
It is fact that militarism caused the Holocaust and 57 million dead humans.
It is fact that followers of every ideology, except militarists get persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, murdered. Except the militarists cause it are the militarists who kill the followers of every other ideology!
IF there wouldn't have been a peaceful national strike in Holland they would have deported Hundreds of Jews. There were several such actions and many of them worked even though they had to be organized very fast.

I tried to find an alternative of fighting the German Reich and WW2 and IF civil defence would have been known and if it would have been prepared as they prepare(d) the military and use(d) it, it would have worked.
IF there wouldn't be any military, any weapons, any soldiers there wouldn't be war. Militarism is the cause of war.