If you’ll go to the comments section to Jeff’s post on Saddam’s execution, you’ll find a bunch of posts from people (by which I mean trolls) who know who we are and what we represent. You may be as surprised as Jeff was to discover that he’s an advocate for the deaths of even greater numbers of Iraqi civilians, and that at some point in the past he apparently squandered what little credibility he may have had with Atrios fans by suggesting that more dumb bombs be dropped on Iraqis. I don’t recall it, and neither does Jeff, but it is seared, seared into the memory of one of the commenters.
A couple of days ago, I was listening to someone, I think on NPR, holding forth about Christian sectarianism and how we resemble the 71 or so sects of Islam. He opined that when you get right down to it, each of us believes that our practice and only our practice is correct, and that in the afterlife everyone who practices differently from us will perish in perfidy, and we will congratulate ourselves on trying to have told them so. It’s a lie, of course, but he stated it with magisterial self-satisfaction. It demonstrated his broad-mindedness at having struck us where we really live, what we must know in our hearts is true. The only problem is, it is still a lie.
I don’t believe it, and never have. I’m certain that I’ve met such people, but they don’t constitute any part of my personal community. And it’s simply too tedious to try and respond to this and similar slanders. It’s a bit like conversing at a cocktail party with a stranger who gives you a nudge and a wink and vouchsafes that he likes to crap in the bathtub, as, let’s face it, nudge nudge, wink wink, who doesn’t? I hope you trolls will be able to apply this observation to your conduct here.
UPDATED: A Note about Malkin
With Jeff’s various posts and the coming of the New Year, and some consideration of Wiki and what it might be that PW has contributed to the blogosphere, and, let us hope, will continue so to do, I need to say this right out: Malkin is a mensch. She stood by Jeff during the unfortunate incident, she has mentioned his situation on occasion, publicly recognized his influence on her blogging, and has bothered to link to his latest, excellent, piece, despite his having been on hiatus, mostly, for quite a long time.
I would not care to read between the lines of some of the comments that Jeff has made on the prospect of resuming, but I will say that if anyone is looking for an example of loyalty and appreciation, they need look no further than Malkin. So. I have said.
burn in hell, Dan Collins! burn in hell. I’m on to you!
Happy New Year to you, too, maggie
Well, yeah, of course… as I’ve been told so many times by the Leftists I know, all religions are the same and they’re responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
The fact is that the two godless religions, the collectivist sects known as Communism and Fascism have killed a remarkable number in only 100 years compared to the thousands of years it took those regular religions. One of the collectivist high holy men, a Joseph Stalin, even coined the reason they can kill so many: a single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic.
… well, unless those deaths are politically useful and exploitable.
Dan, you know I meant that in the most loving way possible. because I care. ;D
oh, and Happy New Year to you, too.
Just remember:
The myriad reports, over the years, of the startling brutality of Saddam’s regime, along with the hundreds of thousands of deaths he either ordered or set in motion? Myths. Never happened. Ten, maybe twenty people died in Iraq over the last three decades, and half of those were from old age or from sheer happiness.
The Orlando Sentinel managed to say the following (front page, above the fold):
“Iraqis riveted by hanging
Attacks claim 80 across a nation stunned by the execution as the U.S. death toll nears 3,000.”
(They note, after the jump, that the violence wasn’t particularly bad for Iraq.)
…Don’t forget the few poor tykes who died in freak kite-flying accidents.
So that’s why kites were banned by the Taliban.
Okay, for the sake of argument lets stipulate that all Judeo-Christian religious sects think that believers in all the the other sects are not following the right belief systems, etc and will all rot in hell for eternity. Get back to me when one of these sects declares war on all the rest and and every other religion and start hacking off heads.
And spare me stupid references to the Inquistion, etc. That was then and this is now. The brutality of the Inquisition was not too terribly out of line with the daily brutality visited on people during that era of human social evolution for just about any reason as well as religious beliefs.
I’d like to avoid the religious part of the post and move to the trolls.
All one has to do is google the phrase “Jeff Goldstein turn the smart bombs off” and it leads directly to the post where JG says there are times we should “turn the smart bombs off.” For Dan’s benefit the link is https://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20249/
It’s in reference to a Shelby Steele essay in the WSJ.
I wouldn’t defend too many of the comments from yesterday’s visitors, but JG has called for different tactics in Iraq (as have many of the PW commentators). Many of the comments leeft by readers also favor changing the rules of engagement (many of those people feel the rules of engagement are just too stringent).
To people who oppose the war, turning off the smart bombs means more innocent Iraqis die; to people who favor changing the rules, turning off the smart bombs would kill more civilian complicit in the insurgency and intimidate the rest into not being complicit.
Personally, I have to agree with the former position. Cruelty to non-combatants, whether accidental or intentional, has not worked since the Mongols tried it.
I think JG and Dan and most everyone else would argue that the intent of that idea was not to kill a bunch of women and children, but that is what the visitors are responding to.
Have a gret New Year’s Eve, folks.
WTF is that supposed to mean? I mean, if not:
Asshole.
david
You were the kid in grade school who was the bully’s toady, right? The one who was able to keep his lunch money because you ratted out others to the bully to keep be being the victim?
Cuz you moralize just like such a toady.
The idiocy of those who want to protect civilians from the effects of war is that they think we are not at war with the civilians too. They believe that the civilians are uninvolved in what is being done by the soldiers and leaders of the country. The opposite is the case. The soldiers and leaders reflect the mood and philosophy of the people. Ultimately, you cannot change the former without changing the latter. You can defeat the soldiers, and hang the leaders, but as soon as you turn your back, the people will act on their philosophy, and install the same sort of leaders with armies of the same sort of soldiers. You have to defeat the people, and you have to do it completely enough to make them give up the desire for war against your country.
In spite of the ease with which we rolled up the Iraqi army, in spite of the success we have had in killing members of the insurgency and Al Qaeda in Iraq, in spite of hanging Saddam and gunning down his sons, we are going to lose Iraq, because we never defeated the civilians.
TimmyB claims that making war on civilians hasn’t worked since the Mongols, but that is precisely what we did in WWII. We defeated Germany and Japan by leveling their cities. It was brutal, but it won us the war. When we occupied those countries, there was no insurgency, because the civilians no longer had any stomach for war. By sparing the civilians when we invaded Iraq, we left the insurgency a base from which they could attack our soldiers.
By establishing rules of engagement that put our soldiers at a disadvantage against non-uniformed attackers, we handed the Iraqis a potent weapon that they continue to utilize against us. Those who insist on those rules of engagement are sacrifing US soldiers to protect enemy civilians. I reject their moral condemnation of those who object to this perversion, and throw it back at them. They are the ones who are morally corrupt.
There seem to be a lot of people who view any deaths in war as wrong. If it’s civilian (innocent or not) deaths,
we’re callous, we’re women and baby killers. If the deaths are insurgents, then they should have been brought to trial or we should have made more of an effort to understand their ‘cause’. In any case, death seems to be unacceptable.
Period.
I hate it when innocent people die. But I also know this in inevitable in war. Period. People are going to die. It’s a horrible thing. But long lasting, positive change can also be brought about.
The model these people would seem to want is the UN Peacekeeping model. Forget that there’s no real peace to keep, or that they leave when things turn ugly. Forget how many people need to die before the UN goes in.
I’ll believe in the UN model when they have achieved more long term successes in troubled regions before other nations step up. The world needs some cleaning up and press conferences and UN resolutions just don’t cut it.
And on a lighter note, Happy New Year everyone! Be safe.
David —
What that is supposed to mean is clear from the context of the original post. If insurgents know we are reluctant to go into civilian areas, they will engage us from civilian areas, or hospitals, or schools, etc.
Incidentally, turning off the smart bombs does not mean indiscriminate killing of civilians, nor does it mean (as some have suggested) carpet bombing or “dumb bombs” (though I have no problem with the latter; the former, however, is not even something our modern military is capable of, really.)
Let me put it this way: Bill Maher got in trouble with the Bushies for talking about the lack of “bravery” in lobbing smart cruise missiles at aspirin factories (vs. suicide missions) and I defended him, because I understood his sentiment. There are times when such “surgical” strikes are feckless, and make us look unserious about fighting a war—whereas being willing to die for your cause, however twisted, gives the impression that you cannot be stopped. Turning off the smart bombs to for instance engage in close quarter firefights or destroy entire neighborhoods (after warning people to evacuate), therefore, is the kind of thing that shows seriousness, disinterest in political considerations, miltary professionalism (if and when the situation calls for it) and saps the will of the enemy.
But be that as it may, any honest reading of my post suggests that what I was saying is that we have become too risk-averse, and that we have become risk-averse because we are worried about how we will be perceived. I pegged this impulse to the acceptance and insinuation into our daily consciousness of certain linguistic ideas. And I stand by the analysis, though I expect, even to this day, the kinds of simplistic and misleading summaries of my post by people like david, and beetroot, and Mona, and Glenn Greenwald, et al.
They see me as a cartoon, so they proceed in their analyses from that premise, and then work their way backwards. It’s rather intellectually lazy, but then, I expect no different, to be honest.
My point was that political considerations aimed at gaining “international support” (read: nods of approval from the French, or Kofi Annan) can at times (and I stressed that different situations called for different responses, which to me is completely common-sensical) result in more long-term casualties, and a prolongation of the war effort.
And my assertion was that we shouldn’t let the fear of being labeled barbaric force us to take options off the table—nor should we sacrifice any of our soldiers to such political expediency.
I also noted that I understood the importance of winning hearts and minds—which is why an increase in the use of force is not always advisable. But then, neither is preemptively hamstringing your military to appease those who are, let’s face it, unappeasable.
As many people noted in the original comment thread, if, for instance, we say we are going to respect mosques as no fire zones, then insurgents will use mosques as sniper nests—because to them, our multiculturalist impulses are a convenient aid to their cause, and a sign of our weakness. Like the Ramadan “ceasefires” (where much of Muslim fighting occurs), it is just a ruse to use our own sense of moral superiority against us.
But I’d argue that it is far more moral to save lives in the long run by forcing the enemy to admit defeat in the short term. And I advocate we do that any way we have to within the laws of warfare.
Because eventually, we are going to have to either take sniper casualties from mosques, or else fire back upon them under rules of engagement. The longer we wait to do so, the more likely it is we will lose soldiers, and the more likely it is we will have to kill more insurgents in mosques—in the process, destroying more mosques.
david can call me an asshole and suggest that I’m a thuggish, bloodthirsty warmonger. But again, that just plays to my point: he is trying to cow me by showing me to be “insensitive”; which won’t work, because my entire point is that we shouldn’t be constrained by the culturally-suicidal impulses that have turned tolerance into a death wish.
Anyway, I’m off to a party. Happy New Year’s, all—even though the Broncos amazingly found a way to miss the playoffs.
Oh. And fuck yourself, david.
Whew. I thought I was going to have to explain that.
Google “khanate.” You’ll find that the Mongols conquered China and most of the rest of Asia. They even ruled Iraq for a while.
A lot longer than we hope to, in fact.
So, your definition of “has not worked” may be non-standard.
Two things: First, McGehee, I said it hadn’t worked since the Mongol invasions. I didn’t say it didn’t work for them, since they conquered the largest land empire in world history. Almost every conflict I can remember since then which featured mass atrocities resulted in a loss for the occupying force: the Spanish in the Netherlands, the English in America, the French in Algeria, the Austrians in Serbia, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Indonesians in East Timor, and, especially, the Nazis and Japanese in World War 2. Brutal occupations don’t pacify populations; they enrage them.
Which brings uis to Ardgaine’s incredibly silly point. We didn’t do any good by flattening German and Japanese cities until the atomic bombs were dropped. Industrial production of war material for Germany (much like the later bombed North Vietnamese) went up in 1943 and again in 1944 and was reaching a peak until the US took the Ruhr Valley.
Indiscrimate bombing was not the reason there was not an insurgency. The reason was highly related to the millions of foreign troops on every corner of Japan and Germany, cultures in which guns were not readily available, the immediate economic assistance provided by the Allies for rebuilding, and the fact that all the young men were dead or in POW camps.
The Russians in 1945 caused the greatest humanitarian migration/tragedy in history when they raped and murdered their way through millions in East Prussia. They didn’t face an insugency either. Anyone want to advocte their tactics?
Just when I thought that his new identity had conferred a degree of sanity on timmy.
Not sure your memory is too good, timmy.
Remind me. What was that mass atrocity? And don’t say Little Big Horn.
How is it going with the Indonesians in West Papua, in Aceh, in Sulawesi, in Ambon and everywhere else the West has not come in and stamped on their bloody hands, timmy?
Ardsgaine is more than capable of swatting away your impertinence so I will leave that to him.
Which is undoubtedly why the Germans had surrendered prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. And why there were zero US troops in Japan when they surrendered. There were a number of reasons strategic bombing was less effective at the outset in WWII: lack of decent targeting technology, existing underuse of German production capacity, etc. In toto, it can never be known what German war production would have been without the raids. There is also the psychological effect, i.e., the demoralization of the Germans and the perceived need to prop up British morale with retaliatory raids.
timmy’s final question, however, is interesting (quite aside from the fact that the USSR successfully occupied a lot of land for a long time precisely because of its mass atrocities) in light of the fact that he attributes the lack of meaningful insurgencies post-WWII to “the fact that all the young men were dead or in POW camps.” He apparently does not realize that he is giving examples of brutal tactics that were succuessful. He notes that the Nazis and Japanese were unsuccessful with their brutal occupations, ignoring that the US went on to successfully occupy both nations following what many of the Left consider to be “mass atrocities,” including strategic bombing and the use of WMDs. (Had the troop strength been the key factor, Algeria and Vietnam would not have turned out as they did.) He’s also making Jeff’s point, which is that the West has taken much less brutal tactics off the table, likely to our detriment.
And timmy’s “memory” clearly does not extend to the Malayan Emergency or the Philippine-American War.
Then you are not counting the massive civilian casualties caused by Allied bombing in Germany and Japan to be atrocities? Good. Then you would also agree that had we “turned off the smart bombs” during the invasion of Iraq, that would not have been an atrocity either.
You say this, and then point to industrial production figures as evidence of “not doing any good.” I didn’t say that we affected industrial production, though, I said we broke the enemy’s will to fight. My point still stands, and it is heightened by the evidence of Japan. The Japanese considered surrender dishonorable, yet we brought down upon them a destruction so terrible that they were forced to do the unthinkable. They had to completely reconsider their values. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki effected a sea change in the culture. That was what was required in order for them to stay beaten.
We needed more troops in Iraq. Sending in fewer troops was all part of the plan to go easy on the civilians, and minimize the impact of the invasion. We wanted it to be a surgical strike on the regime that left the civilians in control of the country based on the misguided premise that the civilians would be our natural allies, rather than our blood enemies.
Now who’s being silly? Are you really claiming that the Japanese didn’t have enough guns to carry on an insurgency?
Immediate? Are you joking? The Marshall Plan was enacted two years after the end of the war. Rebuilding a defeated enemy was a brand new idea at that time. The usual way of doing things was to make the defeated country pay reparations to the victors, while footing the bill for its own rebuilding as well. We went into Iraq from the beginning with the intention of rebuilding the country, and devoted money to that purpose immediately. To the Iraqis, that was just another sign of our moral weakness. We were trying to buy their hearts and minds.
No, I would be satisfied with the tactics we used in that war. Prior to the occupation, we waged a devastating war on the entire country. In doing so, we achieved a complete victory. Victory has eluded us in Iraq because we have tried to fight half of a war.
Don’t say you weren’t warned, timmy.
Timmy— Why would one need to search to find the post in question? I linked it myself in the Saddam Husseined entry, along with its follow-up, where the discussion continued.
Those of you who really wish to understand the post will note the conditionals I placed around turning off the smart bombs—not the same as “more dumb bombs” or carpetbombing, etc.—as well as that the focus of the piece itself was about a willingness to keep options open (I argued the same thing after Tom Tancredo’s remarks about a willingness to nuke Mecca, though I don’t think it would ever—or even should ever—happen), a willingness we no longer seem to have thanks, in my opinion, to built in linguistic assumptions that lead inevitably to a kind of feel-good relativism and to a decline in intellectualism.
That a few people spent the entire time trying to turn the focus onto me wishing to kill more brown people is not surprising. I suppose I would agree that we, as a country engaged in military use of force, should be willing to kill more brown people, or at least let those brown people believe we are willing to do so, because in my moral calculus, if such a thing ends up saving lives, it is a far greater moral choice than to sit back and pat yourself on the back for how much you care—even as it is obvious you only care about your own self-aggrandizement.
The main point is to fight war with enough resolve that you can reduce casualties and end hostilities with a quick win. That’s all. It’s no biggie.
Oh, david, I see you’re still incontinent. Better get that taken care of.
If I can split a hair with you, I think the main point is to fight war with enough resolve to win, regardless of enemy casualties. It may or may not have the happy result of reducing the overall number of enemy civilians who die in the long term, but it should always aim at the result of reducing our casualties, because, morally, that is what our leaders should care about. What is certain is that failing to fight with resolve will only prolong the conflict and increase our casualties.
Industrial production of war material for Germany (much like the later bombed North Vietnamese) went up in 1943 and again in 1944 and was reaching a peak until the US took the Ruhr Valley.
Well. You’re right about aircraft and tank production anyway. But there were no railroads to transport anything thanks to air bombing and there was no fuel for the same reason.Germany quit launching V2 rockets at England and Holland when the RAF and USAF bombed the hell out of Peenemunde.
McArther landed and took over Japan with just his staff. Troops weren’t brought in till some time later.
Ardy, my pal, your lack of knowledge about other cultures is impressive. Here’s an entire article discussing the history of gun control in Japan “http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html” You will find that civilians in Japan do not now and did not then own guns.
If you would read, for example, the book “The Band of Brothers” you will discover that soon after May 8, 1945, American troops were actively repairing roads, bridges, electrical facilities, etc. And that was long before the Marshall Plan came into play.
Further, in Cornwallis’s march to the North, where he was trapped at Yorktown, he had difficulty with supplies. His subordinate Bloody Tarleton had so enraged the good people of the Carolinas the whole region was one giant mass of guerilla militias. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_theater_of_the_American_Revolutionary_War
If you want something even more simple, rent The Patriot
Finally, air attacks, short of the atom bomb, have NEVER convinced any nation to give up. We destroyed every German city and they didn’t surrender until Hitler died as the Russians took Berlin (on the ground). Mass bombing, which, yes, I consider an atrocity, failed to break the will of the Germans, the fire-bombing of Tokyo (which killed 100,000 people) did not cause the Japanese surrender, the destruction of North Vietnam, where more tonnage was dropped than on Germany and Japan combined, failed to break their will for combat.
Hell, it didn’t work in Rotterdam or Guernica either. Are you the only person who doesn’t know that? Are you Curtis LeMay’s grandson?
Mass atrocities do not break a people’s will. If they did, Muqtada al-Sadr would be the undisputed emir of Baghdad. Frankly, it disgusts me to have the conversation. If we are going to continue to be a positive force in the world, then we should play our rules for God’s sake. We are supposed to be good and that means you kill as few kids as possible when you free people.
Oh, and furriskey, my kidney pie eating compatriot, after the siege of Boston, prior to the Declaration of Independence, the English Navy trolled up and down the Massachusetts and Rhode Island coasts, setting fire to villages and stealing anything they could their hands on. Sort of pushed most of the Northern states in the direction of Adams and the independence folks.
Further, check out Blood Tarleton and the reason Cornwallis couldn’t leave Virginia. Or, hell, go rent The Patriot.
I like the cannon ball scene. The ponytails? Not so much.
If you want something even more simple, rent The Patriot
Yep, you’re definitely a troll. If you were really this stupid you wouldn’t be literate.
Hint: go to dictionary.com and explore the definition of “fiction”.
I’m sure it’ll come as an immense surprise to you to learn that there aren’t really hordes of mutants wandering the Outback in search of gasoline.
In other news, William Wallace didn’t get to bang Isabella of France after painting his schlong blue with woad.
Really!
David,
It seems like you are seriously, desperately, gravely, recklessly, deliriously, crazily, frantically, furiously, frenziedly, psychotically, intensely want to prove that Jeff supports killing innocent civilians so that you can express moral outrage.
You sir, as with all the other Kos Kidz and leftists who try to pull this crap, are mentally deranged. You are unhinged. You are nuts. It is impossible for me to express any further the profundity of the abberation that is your worldview.
Thucydides, you boring old bastard, learn how to take a joke.
Further, learn what is real is what isn’t real. Gibson’s chjaracter was based upon very real American militia commanders. It was historical fiction, but I doubt furriskey has access to tomes regarding Cornwallis and the Battle of Cowpens, which was depicted in the movie pretty accurately. If he does, then bully for him.
I would suggest you double the pills so you can relax. Or rent a Monty Python movie, as you might develop a sense of humor. Godspeed on your journey.
Jegg, I hated the ponytails, the idea we needed an Aussie to save us (everyone knows we needed the French), and the way his slaves adored him so. Then again, as our Greek philosopher/historian friend has demonstrated, Mel likes to license the truth.
Have you seen his latest?
Thucydides, you boring old bastard, learn how to take a joke.
Further, learn what is real is what isn’t real. Gibson’s character was based upon very real American militia commanders. It was historical fiction, but I doubt furriskey has access to tomes regarding Cornwallis and the Battle of Cowpens, which was depicted in the movie pretty accurately. If he does, then bully for him.
I would suggest you double the pills so you can relax. Or rent a Monty Python movie, as you might develop a sense of humor. Godspeed on your journey.
Jeff, I hated the ponytails, the idea we needed an Aussie to save us (everyone knows we needed the French), and the way his slaves seemed to adore him so. Then again, as our Greek philosopher/historian friend has demonstrated, Mel likes to license the truth.
Have you seen his latest?
PS If this posted twice, I apologize. I hit the wrong key when I went to spell check my poor typing.
So your worldview is founded on a B movie starring an anti-semitic drunk.
Why does that not surprise me, timmy?
Have yet to see Apocalypto. Will probably pick it up on DVD.
Or have david buy it for me. Because he knows how I love the slaughter of brown people—indiscriminately, if at all possible.
It’s brown people slaughtering other brown people. Feh, just not the same……
Thucydides, you boring old bastard, learn how to take a joke.
Translation: you got pwned. Hard.
Sorry.
Maybe next time you can regale us with the zany antics of Riggs and Murtaugh—there really are black police officers in Los Angeles, so clearly Lethal Weapon was “based on very real” people.
Right?
Heh.
Jeff, how do you like your slaughter done? Do you like taking out families with laser-guided missiles, or do you prefer shooting into big crowds Kent-state style?
Not the English Navy, you ignoramus. Try to get some ‘facts’ right, in your sad Hollywood mind. Nor am I your compatriot. Look it up.
Just a couple of general points.
While it is true that the Japanese had no access to guns on a regular basis it is also true that the military was arming Jap civilians in the months before the dropping of the bombs in anticipation of the American Invasion. Theirs was a particular cultural affectation that would have fought to the death if ordered. Their ensuing resistance would have made the insurgents in Iraq look like Mouseketeers. Fortunately the Emperor prevailed upon the military to accept the unacceptable and several million people were saved.
There was a small, ineffective insurgency in Germany known as the Werewolves made up of elite SS officers and some older Hitler youth. They did manage to cause some minor problems through bombings and assasinations (including, allegedly, the killing of the Soviet Commander, although the Russians have never confirmed this.) The combination of large numbers of Allied troops and a populous that was tired of war allowed for no blueprint other than annoyance, although there were incidents up until 1952.
The Bush Administration back in 2005 made a comparison with the Werewolves with regards to Iraq. There was some justification for that as die hard Baathists (with their own Nazi Heritage) continued to create problems. However, the weak analogy with Iraq faded as the shift in strategy towards formenting sectarian violence took hold. No such equivalent comparison exists today.
In conclusion an insurgency did exist in Germany consisting of diehard SS types and operated sporadically for several years but never had the support of the populous or enough bodies to overcome the number of troops. The Japanese were ordered to surrender and by the tenets of that peculiar culture no insurgency would have been possible (although there are stories of a few of the harder cases fleeing to the mountains and living like Jeremiah Johnson for years.)
Timmy B. Mel Gibson’s character was loosely based upon Francis Marion, The Swamp Fox. Tarleton was brutal but not nearly the butcher that was portrayed in the movie. Despite some coastal degradations there were no large scale atrocities commited by the British Army during the great rebellion. Also, Ardsgaine is correct about European post war financing. The infrastructure repairs that were being done in Germany before The Marshall plan were mainly for the tranportation and communication use of the Allied troops. The fact that they might have benefited the German people is mitigated by the fact that the only fuel available for years was the exclusive property of the conquerers. Germans suffered greatly until the Plan began to pour money in that country several years after the surrender.
Off to work! *sigh*
Although I disagree with aprts of your historical analysis, NJ, I can so sympathize with the “Off to work! *sigh*” That is truly a sad state of affairs.
Anyway, I think we’re done with this, except I will ask our git from the Merry Land of Blair to explain if he would like me, in commenting on comments on a freakin’ blog, to use the formal “The Royal Navy of the United Kingdom” the time I refer to the 1776-1777 of New Englans coastal towns. I didn’t mean to be informal, furriskey, I know how you chaps like your manners.
Oh, furriskey, if you haven’t figured it out yet, I called you a compatriot to denote my general view that all humans are my brothers and sisters (I refuse to let an accident of birth detract us from our common humanity). And, as an added benefit, it pissed you off. Works both ways.
PS There is no proof Gibson is a drunk, just an anti-Semite. Some of my best friends are drunks and I won’t have you slander them.