Zo Re...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.
Nah, not even close. For one. look at the maps. Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, all lie on a mostly north south line, only about 15% of the way into Russia. Stalin had moved his manufacturing plants beyond the ural mts. which are at least again as far from Russia's border. To take Russia, Germany had to at least defeat the areas containing the war man. plants; and the Urals stood in their way. In addition, Germany was too brutal to last long. Germany could have had friends in Ukrane, Georgia etc, but the Germans brutalized them, making Stalin look like the better bargain, causing a lot of resistance.
Not ALL the leftists say that. I certainly don't.
I think I will plagarize a word here and piss Ted off at the same time and say PISH. Thats all the left wants to talk about is the cost of the war, and the costs of rebuilding Iraq. No one, except Gw, wants to talk about the costs of doing nothing.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of the question.
The relevance is, are you objection to the plans or the person doing it.
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.
Aren't we forgetting that people a lot smarter than me or you, know about that theorem, looked at the evidence from the CIA etc. and said go for it. Even the top dems. in the race who have seen the evidence, all agree that Iraq must be taken care of. Even Hillary agrees for christ sake. How much more evidence than that do you need. |
