[RD] You might argue that Germany’s fate was sealed the day they decide to invade Russia – yes, from that point on they would be condemned to totalitarian, KGB-riddled servitude courtesy of Mother Russia – but I don’t think any serious person argues that Germany was actually defeated on that day – not even you I hope. Correct?

Correct. I sometimes forget that bloggers are painfully literal.

They have eyes, but they do not read…

That the bolded prediction did NOT come to pass – and France did not become yet another depraved vassal-state beholden to Stalin – was only because the U.S. rescued them from Russian “liberation”. (Oh yeah I forgot, Russia & France were “allies”…)

What my stats suggest for WWI is that the US did not rescue France in this conflict.

Your casualty figures – I even hesitate to call them stats – don’t suggest anything one way or the other.

And why should we be troubled by that anyhow? Who cares? We have enough better historical data we can use to draw conclusions.

For what it’s worth, I’m mum on who saved France during 1; it’s 2 I’m more concerned about. Specifically, your bogus inference that France was “saved” the moment the Russians started fighting the Germans. Who says the Russians weren’t an even greater threat to France than Germany? (Except on the Jewish Question of course…)

You might argue that Germany’s fate was sealed the day they decide to invade Russia – yes, from that point on they would be condemned to totalitarian, KGB-riddled servitude courtesy of Mother Russia – but I don’t think any serious person argues that Germany was actually defeated on that day – not even you I hope. Correct?

Correct. I sometimes forget that bloggers are painfully literal.

You have a habit of equating # of deaths with the role played in a victory or defeat. I think that’s a logical fallacy on your part, and a dangerous one at that. Isn’t the best form of victory one that is achieved without significant casualties? I don’t think a fighting force necessarily establishes its bona fides by pissing men away, but rather by how well it fights and wins the war in question. Your statistic by itself can just as easily suggest that the U.S. was a superior fighting force as it suggests that the U.S. was not involved.

(I’m not stipulating one or the other – I’m only suggesting your argument is bogus.)

What my stats suggest for WWI is that the US did not rescue France in this conflict. This assumes the reader has some knowledge of the extent of that war and the date the US entered it. The larger issue (which seems also anathema to many people on this blog) is that the idea that the French have always been pacifists and waited to be rescued is pretty much contradicted by any cursory exam of WWI.

Are we gonna have to rescue France like we did in WW1&2?

Kini on October 23, 2006 at 2:37 PM

WWII, read your history: Germany was defeated the day Hitler decided to invade Russia. True, the US made an enormous contribution, the high water mark of which in the ETO was D-Day, but that “we saved France bit” is pretty much hyperbole IMO. You never hear the Brits talk like that, they have too much real national pride.

You might argue that Germany’s fate was sealed the day they decide to invade Russia – yes, from that point on they would be condemned to totalitarian, KGB-riddled servitude courtesy of Mother Russia – but I don’t think any serious person argues that Germany was actually defeated on that day – not even you I hope. Correct?

As to “saving France” being hyperbole: making this argument requires speculation, in that it asks what would have happened had the U.S. not been involved. All right, let’s speculate. What would have happened, and how? Red from Cornwall to Vladivostok? Or are you arguing that Russia was just strong enough to degrade the German war machine, thus drawing the Nazis out of their occupied lands, but not strong enough to succeed in their own campaign to conquer the rest of Europe?

Just for the sake of accuracy: WWI 117,000 US dead; 1.4 million French dead. So it’s a question of who really saved whom.

You have a habit of equating # of deaths with the role played in a victory or defeat. I think that’s a logical fallacy on your part, and a dangerous one at that. Isn’t the best form of victory one that is achieved without significant casualties? I don’t think a fighting force necessarily establishes its bona fides by pissing men away, but rather by how well it fights and wins the war in question. Your statistic by itself can just as easily suggest that the U.S. was a superior fighting force as it suggests that the U.S. was not involved.

(I’m not stipulating one or the other – I’m only suggesting your argument is bogus.)

Why are you trying to get us into yet another argument about the Iraq front of the GWOIT (Global War in Islamist Terror) on a thread about the Muslim “youth” intifada in France?

Jen the Neocon on October 24, 2006 at 1:28 PM

What’s it to you? Are you the content police? Here’s a suggestion: you don’t want to talk about things I’m talking about, don’t.

Now, seriously, it’s amazing that you would even state something like that and then come out guns blazing against us in what we are trying to accomplish today in Iraq. You realize that our biggest hurdle in accomplishing our goals there is the constant barrage of criticism by people like you

What I realize is that you’re already trying to build the case that the fiasco that is Iraq is the fault of anyone but the people who actually insisted that this was a viable strategy. So if it works (whatever that means) it’s a win for Bush and the neocons, and if it doesn’t, it’s a win for Bush and the neocons.

Golly, it is hard to argue with that logic. The buck stops where? Pitiful.

Building a free society from diverse elements; building an enviable standard of living for the majority of people; leading the world in technology and philantrophy; and less tangible things, like innovation and initiative and community.

Now, seriously, it’s amazing that you would even state something like that and then come out guns blazing against us in what we are trying to accomplish today in Iraq. You realize that our biggest hurdle in accomplishing our goals there is the constant barrage of criticism by people like you. Kind of goes against what you stated you were “proud” of above – don’t ya think?

As for Japan, go back and read some history books, and then we’ll have a serious discussion (you are liberalizing facts right now).

honora, dear, you’re practicing sophistry with your Japan arguments;
the key thing we did by dropping the a-bombs and occupying the country was to get them off the cult of Shintoism, WWII’s equivalent to IslamoFascism now.

I really think you kids need to learn a new logic term. Here’s one based on the above: non sequitor.

As for the Cowboys, the last thing Parcells would do is slap the sh*t out of Jones.
The last time a coach tried to tell Jones off, he was so fired it was unbelievable.

Ah yes, but wouldn’t it be worth it???

Who knows what happened to Bledsoe, but if you’re a Giants fan, enjoy.

I’m not a Giants or a Cowboys fan, I’m a Steelers fan(though we catch some Jets game when we’re in New York) So I have my own QB worries, though Batch is more than capable. Now if we could only stop the outbreak of butterfingers……

As for the Cowboys, the last thing Parcells would do is slap the sh*t out of Jones.
The last time a coach tried to tell Jones off, he was so fired it was unbelievable.
Noone criticizes Jerry Jones, because he is the real coach of the Cowboys and not just its owner.
Who knows what happened to Bledsoe, but if you’re a Giants fan, enjoy.

The point being, these French qualities are a formula for inaction in the face of a significant threat.

honora,

You said diverse elements – Japan was not a very friendly environment at the end of WWII. In fact, there was a large number of Koreans, Chinese (and other Asians) stuck there as part of the slave trade. The Japanese government collapsed and many officials were tried – leaving a vacuum that the US had to fill (and did). Not to mention, the US had been the enemy, and was now in charge of the government. In any event, I don’t think this is the issue – if you really want to get into this argument, we can.

Rick on October 23, 2006 at 5:30 PM

What I said in answer to a question was that one of the things I most admire about the US is how it has built a free nation with diverse elements. Yopur reply:

Oh yeah, didn’t we do that in Japan also?

No we didn’t. Japan is arguably the least diverse developed country in the world. Less than 5% of the population is not ethnically Japanese. Your comment re POWs is silly. Oh yeah? Yeah.

I was wrong on one thing though. Eli wasn’t the quarterback you had to watch out for. Hell, he wasn’t even the second quarterback you had to watch out for. I do envy you Dallas fans though, when my team stinks up the place, like the Cowboys did last night, I really have little reason to keep watching the game. You folks on the other hand always have that sub-plot of “is today the day Parcells decides to slap the living shit out of Jones?”

What’s French for “You’re screwed!”?

Tu es complètement encoulé(e), je pense.

What’s French for “You’re screwed!”?

Tourne vue?

I’ll keep my gun anyway, but thanks for the load of nonsense.

The violence continues on an upsurge, and this has been going on for weeks now. We’re fast approaching the one-year anniversary of the massive riots around Paris that resulted in nearly hundreds injured, hundreds of thugs arrested (and nearly all you….

Of course, it goes without saying that Sarkozy would be perfectly at home in the Democratic party.

The fun part is, he’s the tough law-and-order opposition to the likes of de Villepin.

France reminds me of Bizarro-Earth.

Sarkozy (via Citizen Duck):the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

What’s French for “You’re screwed!”?

Of course, it goes without saying that Sarkozy would be perfectly at home in the Democratic party.

Let them eat cake.

As long as it’s halal.