>What makes you think most of the battles weren't fought during the summer. Germany didn't have the strength to finish off Russia in one summer; 1941, and had to spend a lot of the summer of 42 regaining the personel and ground lost during the winter of 41.
We're both nitpicking here, I think, but I'll let my original point stand- a couple of changes to strategy or in luck, and the Germans could've defeated the Soviets, and if they had, they could've kept moving.
>But you do agree, contrary to what all the leftist want to say, there are costs.
Not ALL the leftists say that. I certainly don't.
>And by not answering the question, do you also agree that France, if put in our shoes, wouldn't be pushing for a quick resolution of the Saddam problem. In fact, if the shoes was on the other foot, and Chirac was the one calling for regime change, and GW was resisting it, would you back GW or Chirac. Pick your poison.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of the question.
>if you don't believe it, why repeat it.
I agree there.
>Isn't that like saying you don't want to take chemotherapy, because it might kill you. You are dead either way. The chemo is the only one, which has a chance of a positive outcome. We know leaving Saddam in power will create problems.
Are you familiar with Baye's Theorem (I think that's what it's) called? Basically, when making a decision, you (in most cases, unconsciously) plug the following figures into an equation:
1. Probablility of a positive outcome if you do the action in question
2. On a scale, how positive the outcome is
3. Probability of a negative outcome if you do the action in question
4. How negative that outcome is
5. Probability of a positive outcome if you do nothing
6. How positive it is
7. Probability of a negative outcome if you do nothing
8. How negative it is
Basically, you and I are just subconsciously plugging in different numbers into each of those items, so we're getting different results- I'm thinking we shouldn't go to war and you think we should.
-Z |
