Is there any possibility that some Germans were different from other Germans?
Or that the same Germans behaved differently in different situations? I believe the WWII German Army was not synonymous with the SA and SS and the Nazi Party. Any relevance here? \brad mccormick Mike Hollinshead wrote: > > Karen, > > The Allies bombed the monastery to rubble. That was one reason why > it was so hard to attack - the rubble sheltered the Germans. > > The Germans were appalled that we did this. They initially > stayed out of the monastery itself, in order to save the monastery and > its priceless manuscript library from destruction and only entered it > when it was reduced to rubble. > > Strange people the Germans - they killed millions of civilians in > Russia and millions of Jews and gypsies - but they protected ancient > monuments. > > Mike > > ---------- > >From: Karen Watters Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Keith Hudson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Failed Middle East hypothesis > >Date: Sat, Sep 21, 2002, 2:53 PM > > > > > Your story added a nice touch, Harry, to our speculations and online > > posturing. > > > > Although I've been reading on the Bush 'We're #1 and Plan to stay that way' > > Doctrine and the congressional resolution he sent up for Congress to fall > > over, I'm going to highlight some additional To War or Not commentary that > > some may already have come across, but others may not: > > > > EJ Dionne Motivations for War @ > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42096-2002Sept19.html > > excerpt: > > "Though Bush denied yesterday that he is seeking a congressional blank > > check, he is asking Democrats who would support a war under the RIGHT > > conditions to give him authority to wage war under ANY conditions. This > > could eventually push Congress out of the essential debates: What is the > > best way to wage this war? How long will the US need to occupy Iraq? How > > serious are we about building a democratic - or at least, more democratic - > > post-Hussein regime? Will even asking such questions become politically > > dangerous now that the president has simplified the choice to being either > > with him or against him?" > > > > On of the biggest fist-clinching frustrations for many Democrat hawks and > > their Republican friends in the US is that they have been arguing for a war > > to tackle SH for many years, but now a new President comes along and botches > > the takeoff - and who knows? maybe also the delivery. You know Bob the > > Builder? Well, it's going to be George the Bulldozer. > > > > IF Bush has learned anything from those trying to reach through the dense > > walls of his inner circle, he should realize the potential for using the UN > > as leverage to bring the allies to the bandwagon: play the string for all > > its worth, don't jump the gun too soon, let the new Public Enemy #1 hang > > himself on his own track record and strategic misfires, and then move > > forward with the posse in line, well-prepared, after the midterm elections > > so that no one accuses you of listening more to Gen. Rove than Gen. Franks. > > > > Hoaglund Brinkmanship with Baghdad @ > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42097-2002Sept19.html > > excerpt: > > "The two-track Bush policy of applying pressure through diplomacy while > > continuing to push forward with intelligence and military options is > > yielding results....they must continue as a package. The Iraqi National > > Congress....can identify 1,200 nuclear scientists, aides and other personnel > > involved in the nuclear weapons program. These Iraqi officials and their > > families must be guaranteed protection if the nuclear inspectors are to have > > any chance of success." > > > > I noted somewhere this AM that the UK has suggested a quick "test" > > inspection of a presidential palace, for example, on short notice, to > > determine if SH can be trusted...since those sites have been specifically > > out of bounds in the past, it's unlikely to be accepted. And that's the > > point, isn't it? > > > > Lest we forget, OPEC has concluded it's session in Osaka, Japan with US > > Energy Top Lap Dog Abraham (he had no energy experience before being named > > to the DOE by Bush) complaining that they did not agree to increase output, > > and the OPEC president responding that the current $30/barrel price is > > political, artificially high out of fear that the US will attack Iraq. > > (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Global-Energy.html) > > > > It's irritating to me that more hasn't been made of the slow but increasing > > and successful efforts to round up terrorists using good old fashioned > > police and spy work, rather than full speed ahead warfare. Spain, > > Singapore, Pakistan, Germany just in the last four weeks, I think. Which > > raises the question of why we are in such a hurry to bomb Baghdad, instead > > of where we know Al Qaeda are hiding, like Pakistan and Iran? Just because > > Donald Rumsfeld says that Hussein is hiding them doesn't mean he has shown > > proof of it, and as a Watergate baby I still don't automatically believe > > everything my government tells me, and neither should the US public jury > > being served an aggressive but circumstantial prosecution. Do it the right > > way, Mr. President. > > > > In a juicy bit of spying, the CIA and Pentagon are battling over the > > veracity of some info served up by a Greek woman claiming to be one of > > Hussein's past mistresses (over 30 years) who can document that the > > mustached Evil One met with the Is he dead or not? bearded Evil One and gave > > him money. After all of this, we are still fighting over information > > provided by mistresses? > > Karen > > Harry wrote: Meantime, to get SH to allow real and complete inspections, it > > is imperative that he believes the Texas Cowboys are raring to come in > > shooting. However, as I said several weeks ago, this assumes an American > > policy of misdirection - for which they are not noted. > > > > (One recalls the Marines coming up off the beaches of Somalia to find - more > > reporters and photographers than there were Marines.) > > > > One doesn't give an enemy 6 months notice you are going to attack him - > > unless supreme arrogance holds sway (which might also be true). Of course > > air power is supposed to be the determining factor, but wars are won on the > > ground by occupation of the enemy's homeland. > > > > One remembers Monte Cassino, center of one of the most momentous battles of > > WW2 as the allies advanced through Italy. The monastery itself was left > > alone but its surroundings were subjected to the most horrendous bombing and > > shelling one can imagine over a period of 4 months. Thousands of planes and > > guns pounded Monte Cassino. > > > > Yet the German parachutists not only held the position, but they were > > undefeated. They left when they were ordered back because of the crumbling > > front. In case anyone might think this was a little backwater operation, it > > was the battle that opened up the path to Rome and relieved the Anzio > > Beachhead - probably as ill-conceived a venture as one can imagine. Though > > that's for heated debate over many beers. > > > > Some 118,000 allied soldiers lost their lives (107,000 of them American). > > It was the Battle for Italy. > > > > Of course we would never get into a situation like that again. Would we? > > Naaaah! > > > > Of course, I hope no-one notices the mixture of hope and fear in my words. > > Harry > > > > -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
