Posted on 08/07/2006 6:30:32 AM PDT by spartagroup
What about the "Werewolves" the Nazi resistance which operated for a few years after the war ended?
By all acounts, they were nothing more than a nusance to the occupying forces. When compared to the "resistence" movements, and defiance from the general population, we face in Iraq they were a relatively small and infenctual group.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accurate." Most of these bombs were considered "on target" if they hit within one-half mile of where they were supposed to hit.
FMCDH(BITS)
My point is that the Allies chose to intentionally attack cities as such rather than military targets within those cities. The civilian casualties that resulted were not collateral damage that was a byproduct of attacks on military targets, which were inevitable given the highly limited accuracy of the munitions of the time.
Causing the maximum number of civilian casualties was the purpose of this particular strategy. America has largely chosen to forget about this aspect of our past.
My point is that the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel, intended to cause civilian casualties, are not different in type from tactics we used ourselves in WWII. IOW, we cannot credibly denounce this method unless we are willing to admit that we ourselves used terroristic methods in the past and denounce them equally.
It is entirely possible to make a case, one that I happen to agree with, that the cause in which such methods are employed makes sufficient difference that our methods were at least partially justified, whereas those of Hezbollah are not.
But that is an argument about goals, not about methods.
A work of art! If it wasn't so accurate, it would be funny.
This is Restorer's point, not that other crap he's spewing.
bttt
Absolutely that is one of my points.
We can comfort ourselves by self-righteously denouncing our enemies methods, while ignoring the inconvenient fact that we have ourselves used similar methods in the past.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to convince our enemies or neutrals, as they are all perfectly well aware of our past history and how it clashes with our present position that such methods are never acceptable.
Or we can recognize the facts of our past and attempt to demonstrate why our use of somewhat similar methods was appropriate, give the situation at the time, and those of our enemies today are not acceptable. This alternative has at least some chance of changing other's minds.
The alternative has no chance of doing so. Pretending that everything America has done is beyond criticism may make us feel better about ourselves, but it will certainly not convince anyone else that what we are doing now is right.
What I am talking about is that most Americans today seem to fall into one of two camps: 1. America is and always has been wrong in everything it does; 2. America is and always has been right in everything it does.
Since that is the position, nobody seems to want to discuss particular policies, as minds are already made up in advance.
I am attempting to argue for a middle position. America has been on net a very positive influence in the world. Which does not mean that many of our policies and the methods we have used were not wrong, on occasion.
I believe the most effective approach to making us an even more positive influence is to recognize our past missteps and misdeeds as the most efficient way to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. This approach is a balancing act, and carried too far it leads directly into the Clinton approach of traveling all over the world and apologizing for everything we have ever done (or not done).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
However, we live in a time when putting ladies underwear on a terrorist's head is considered an "atrocity." With a media that is all to happy to accentuate the bad things America may have done it is unlikely any of the "nuetrals" are going to see the positives of the U.S.
Your assertion that our enemies or neutrals are "well aware of our past history and how it clashes with our present position" is very wrong. What they know is what their socialist/liberal media tell them. To be an apoligist for things that happened 6 decades ago when real terrorists are cutting off heads of innocent civilians now is rather insensitive of you imo.
My point is this. Americans are sick and tired of changing minds and convincing others that "what we are doing now is right." War is hell. You screw with America (flying planes into buildings), you threaten the world (Saddam), your going to get your ass kicked. Longing for some of us to be sorrowful over bombing civilians 60 years ago is just living in the past. It happened, it is regretful, it isn't happening now, but the media and the enemy are only too happy to see people like you dredging it up as if it happened yesterday. These are different times my friend.
You should study history a little bit more. The Nazis had not been training the Hitler Youth to be a Drill and Ceremony unit. Some of them needed killin' too. Many Germans were not Nazis, but a vast number of them were. Nazi holdouts continued to fight and kill just like the Iraqi terrorists for months after the end of the war. Look into the history of a town in Germany that had its entire local government executed by the Nazis for coopterating too soon with the Allies.
http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/volkssturm/volks_5.jpg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.