Only Blood Brings Freedom

[Black Dog]

Because I'm a rational human being, you mean, unlike the Lebanese?

No. Because you're sitting on your can pontificating about it, far from danger and far from the specific context of the situation.

No, it was based upon the idea the Lebanese are sane and, at least to a degree, rational. I'll agree that if the Lebanese are moronic imbeciles it was a poor strategy.

No: it was based on a completely moronic set of ideas about the coercive power of force. The Germans initiated the Blitz in World War 2 based on the assumption that they could break England's will and force it to surrender. The Allies bombed Germany's cities with the same idea in mind. In both cases, the strategy failed.

[geoffrey]

Also, I thought all the non-Shiite Lebanese were too busy eating ice cream in their quiet, untouched neighbourhoods to care about what's going on.

Those neighbourhoods are untouched, according to the BBC.

Uh huh. Let's bomb all the bridges and highways around your house and measure your quality of living afterwards.

I don't think I ever disagreed with the suggestion that power plants and roads were, in part, being destroyed to teach the other Lebanese that they need to control Hezbollah.

Man, I really wish Britian bombed your neighbourhood to teach your sorry ass a lesson in controlling the FLQ when they kidnapped British nationals. I know you've answered you were too young to care, as was I, about the FLQ, but you must agree those Brits were so stupid in not blowing up all of Canada's powerplants, roadways and bridges. How will we ever learn? I mean, all those Lebanese kids have as much to do with Hezbollah as you did with the FLQ, but they are fair game and you weren't.

You see, Argus doesn't like the reality when it's pointed back at him. The 90% of Lebanon represented by other than Hezbollah has nothing to do with this war, much like how your family wasn't responsible for the kidnapping of James Cross, or allowing his captors to escape.

EDIT: Oh and Argus... just in case you needed to know... Israel's strategy didn't work. Hezbollah has more funding now then before, and now actually have support of many in southern Lebanon. So congrats Israel for making Hezbollah stronger. Maybe we'll try a rational strategy to deal with the terrorists next time.

[cybercoma]

Latest poll shows 87% of Lebanese support Hezbollah. That makes the Lebanese about as innocent as the Germans in WW2 who supported the Nazis.

Support for Hizbullah across Lebanese society jumped only after Israel began its campaign.

so?

that must mean it's Israel's fault that morons support terrorism?

[cybercoma]

I think the crux of the issue can be found in the fact that the majority of the Muslim world still does not read and write and depends on its religious clerical figures to tell it how to think.

DING! DING! DING!

"Faith is the surrender of the mind, the surrender of free thought, the surrender of that which makes us different from animals."

Faith, it's a wonderful thing....isn't it?

[Black Dog]

so?

that must mean it's Israel's fault that morons support terrorism?

For all the dispargement of the Lebanese people's intellect, it's funny that the real dummies here is the Israeli leadership who set a course from Day One that was bound to fail. The rallying of support for Hizbullah among non-Shiite Lebanese was not a unforseeable turn of events. Faced with a choice between an outside agressor and a homegrown, grassroots organization like Hizbullah, the result wa sno surprise. What's more, be destabalizing the Lebanese government, Israel has vaulted Hizbullah into the top spot in Lebanon's politics just as other groups were starting to work their way out from under Syria's thumb. That will make any political settlement with the elected government of Lebanon that much harder for Israel. Nor is Israel going to get much help from those Arab states (as Rue mentioned) who were relying on it to check the growing influence of Iran's Shias. Even more damaging for Israel is the fact that its reputation for invincibility has been tarnished. By virtue of just survining, Hizbullah can claim victory, which in turn makes Israel that much less secure. So, whatever the initial objectives were at the start of the campaign (destroying Hizbullah, nulifying its rocket capabilities, capitalizing on the social/politican divisions in Lebanon), Israel's leadership has acheived the opposite. No wonder the knives are coming out for Olmert.

[ceemes]

Only blood brings freedom? What about Martin Luther King, and Martin Luther before him? What about Rosa Parks?

Andrew

Martin Luther, Malcom X and many others paid the price in their own blood. Sometimes it does not take the blood of your oppressor to win your own freedom, but often it does take the spilling of your own blood.

[geoffrey]

I think the crux of the issue can be found in the fact that the majority of the Muslim world still does not read and write and depends on its religious clerical figures to tell it how to think.

DING! DING! DING!

"Faith is the surrender of the mind, the surrender of free thought, the surrender of that which makes us different from animals."

Faith, it's a wonderful thing....isn't it?

And bombing them will make them read and write and cut the shackles that bind them to their ignorance... right.

Martin Luther, Malcom X and many others paid the price in their own blood. Sometimes it does not take the blood of your oppressor to win your own freedom, but often it does take the spilling of your own blood.

Well said, but I don't think it applies to Israel. Martydom is hardly an efficient practice. Israel does have an inherent right to defend itself from terrorism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

The Germans initiated the Blitz in World War 2 based on the assumption that they could break England's will and force it to surrender. The Allies bombed Germany's cities with the same idea in mind. In both cases, the strategy failed.

Actually, the 'Blitz' was pretty much started by accident. During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was focusing on the airfields and fuel facilities of the RAF. London was forbidden as a target for fear of reprisal attacks on German cities. However, when german bomber pilots were ordered to bomb at night as well as 'business hours', one group of He111 bombers got lost (on their way to bomb aircraft factories at Rochester and Kingston and oil refineries at Thames Haven) and accidentally ended up bombing London. Britain bombed Berlin in reprisal. Then Germany shifted from bombing the RAF to bombing cities, and it changed the outcome of the war. The RAF was nearly finished. (Goering left the Battle of Britain to take an extended leave, and Hitler ordered the continued bombing of British cities, which may have been the greatest mistake of the war)

source: "The World at War": The Reader's Digest Illustrated History Of WWII (1989)

Argus,

The point of this story is that, generally, history shows that attacks on civilians, or their infrastructure, only stiffens their resolve to fight against perceived aggressors. The British (and I'll make no comparisons of what the British stood for, and against, versus the Lebanese or the German civilians) civilians had but one thought during the Blitz, "We're all in it now". They didn't blame the gov't for not surrendering. Neither did the German civilians, nor the Japanese, nor the Americans.

[Argus]

Because I'm a rational human being, you mean, unlike the Lebanese?

No. Because you're sitting on your can pontificating about it, far from danger and far from the specific context of the situation.

As are we all. But that has no relevence.

No, it was based upon the idea the Lebanese are sane and, at least to a degree, rational. I'll agree that if the Lebanese are moronic imbeciles it was a poor strategy.

No: it was based on a completely moronic set of ideas about the coercive power of force.

I'm not talking about the "coercive power of force" I'm talking about absolutely predictable actions which cause me damage. It is predictable that if you park a rocket launcher in the middle of a town and fire at Israel the Israelis are going to pound that village. And Hezbollah did this routinely, even holding villagers hostage, refusing to let them leave in hopes there would be a good civilian casualty count for the international media.

The Germans initiated the Blitz in World War 2 based on the assumption that they could break England's will and force it to surrender. The Allies bombed Germany's cities with the same idea in mind. In both cases, the strategy failed.

In the first case, the alternative was seen as Nazi occupation. In the second case I don't think the German people had any choice in the matter once the war had reached that stage.

[Black Dog]

I'm not talking about the "coercive power of force" I'm talking about absolutely predictable actions which cause me damage. It is predictable that if you park a rocket launcher in the middle of a town and fire at Israel the Israelis are going to pound that village. And Hezbollah did this routinely, even holding villagers hostage, refusing to let them leave in hopes there would be a good civilian casualty count for the international media.

And you're saying that Israel's use or threat of force is what should have turned Lebanese people against them. Thus: "the coercive power of force".

In the first case, the alternative was seen as Nazi occupation. In the second case I don't think the German people had any choice in the matter once the war had reached that stage.

I disagree. England could have negotiated with the Nazis to leave them be. An invasion of England was never likely to acheive success. As for the German's why didn't they do something about the Nazis?

[AndrewL]

Only blood brings freedom? What about Martin Luther King, and Martin Luther before him? What about Rosa Parks?

Andrew

Martin Luther, Malcom X and many others paid the price in their own blood. Sometimes it does not take the blood of your oppressor to win your own freedom, but often it does take the spilling of your own blood.

But the point about MLK is that he rallied people and made change using words, civil disobedience, and law. He was assasinated because he was succesful at non-violence.

note: i do realize that non-violence is not always possible. Ever read the story of George Elser? He was 'that close' to blowing up Hitler, a few minutes and history would have been different, for the better. I dont think Hitler could ever have been persuaded, only killed.

Andrew

[Wilber]

I disagree. England could have negotiated with the Nazis to leave them be. An invasion of England was never likely to acheive success. As for the German's why didn't they do something about the Nazis?

Thelonius is correct, the RAF was on its heels until the Germans switched to bombing cities. If they could have established air superiority they could have made it very difficult for the Royal Navy to stop an invasion fleet. The British Army had left almost all of its heavy weapons at Dunkirk and was in no shape to repel an invasion. It would have had a very good chance of succeeding if the Germans could have got their army across the channel.

England probably could have negotiated with Hitler but as he never made a treaty he didn't eventually break, there wouldn't be much point. Morally, there was no way they could negotiate.

Bombing certainly didn't break the will of either side but Allied bombing did divert a million Germans to air defense instead taking part in the ground war.

Some Germans did try to do something about the Nazis but the answer is the same as to the question of why didn't Iraqis do something about Saddam?

[Black Dog]

Thelonius is correct, the RAF was on its heels until the Germans switched to bombing cities. If they could have established air superiority they could have made it very difficult for the Royal Navy to stop an invasion fleet. The British Army had left almost all of its heavy weapons at Dunkirk and was in no shape to repel an invasion. It would have had a very good chance of succeeding if the Germans could have got their army across the channel.

The Royal Navy, air superiority or no, still enjoyed a tremendous advantage over the Kreigsmarine (something like 10 to 1 in capital ships). That alone would have been enough to severely hamper an invasion fleet. And even if they landed a force, resupply would have been very difficult. Most experts agree that a German invasion's prospects for success werre quite dim.

Bombing certainly didn't break the will of either side but Allied bombing did divert a million Germans to air defense instead taking part in the ground war.

if you took those Germans from their airdefense roles and put them into combat, the outcome of the war would not have changed. Only the cost would be higher. But all of that is beside the point, which you handily make for me:

Some Germans did try to do something about the Nazis but the answer is the same as to the question of why didn't Iraqis do something about Saddam?

or the Lebanese about Hizbullah? Ding!

[Wilber]

One only needs to look at Pearl Harbor, Midway, Leyte and the fate of Prince of Wales and Repulse off the coast of Malaya to see what air power can do to capital ships with no air support. The British home fleet was based at Scapa Flow in the Orkney's (a long way from the English Channel) for two reasons, to block German access to the North Atlantic and to keep it out of range of bombers with fighter escort. If the RAF had been defeated they would have been subject to air attack anywhere they could have been based which would have given them a chance of meeting an invasion, not just while the invasion was in progress.

Hitler and Saddam were the government of Germany and Iraq. Hezbollah is not the government of Lebanon.

[Law and Order Forever]

Only blood brings freedom: didn't Mussolini say that?

Leave your flippant remarks at the door and offer a solution then.

Explain how negotiating with religious fanatics is possible? They don't believe in reason, they believe in faith. Help those who don't understand how diplomacy can work to understand.

It is not diplomacy they or us need to understand. It is each other we need to understand. Untill then, people are going to get killed. Today the notion of 'live and let live' is dead.

A religion that espouses the destruction of a whole race is not worthy of the designation and the respect that is generally accorded any Faith. There is no peace until much more blood is spilt. Hate will seek to destroy those who by their very existence show them for what they really are,Evil and Hopeless Men.Hezbollah supposedly means'' Party Of God''They are Devils in human skin.

[geoffrey]

A religion that espouses the destruction of a whole race is not worthy of the designation and the respect that is generally accorded any Faith. There is no peace until much more blood is spilt. Hate will seek to destroy those who by their very existence show them for what they really are,Evil and Hopeless Men.Hezbollah supposedly means'' Party Of God''They are Devils in human skin.

So lets kill more of a religion to protect those of another religion? Come on man, too much genocide talk going on in these forums.

I'm all for killing the Hezbollah terrorists, but this spilling muslim blood for the hell of it is just a little over the top no?

We're better than the terrorists because we won't sink to their level. People like you show that many of us already have.

Israels strategy didn't work, the PM admitted it wasn't the best strategy, they didn't catch or kill any considerable number of Hezbollah. Obviously, it's a failure. So lets try a reasonable idea next time.

[Law and Order Forever]

A religion that espouses the destruction of a whole race is not worthy of the designation and the respect that is generally accorded any Faith. There is no peace until much more blood is spilt. Hate will seek to destroy those who by their very existence show them for what they really are,Evil and Hopeless Men.Hezbollah supposedly means'' Party Of God''They are Devils in human skin.

So lets kill more of a religion to protect those of another religion? Come on man, too much genocide talk going on in these forums.

I'm all for killing the Hezbollah terrorists, but this spilling muslim blood for the hell of it is just a little over the top no?

We're better than the terrorists because we won't sink to their level. People like you show that many of us already have.

Israels strategy didn't work, the PM admitted it wasn't the best strategy, they didn't catch or kill any considerable number of Hezbollah. Obviously, it's a failure. So lets try a reasonable idea next time.

That's Great,I'm trying to say that Hezbollah deserves to be wiped out,you're trying to say I want all Muslims gone, thanks for deliberately misunderstanding me.

[Black Dog]

One only needs to look at Pearl Harbor, Midway, Leyte and the fate of Prince of Wales and Repulse off the coast of Malaya to see what air power can do to capital ships with no air support. The British home fleet was based at Scapa Flow in the Orkney's (a long way from the English Channel) for two reasons, to block German access to the North Atlantic and to keep it out of range of bombers with fighter escort. If the RAF had been defeated they would have been subject to air attack anywhere they could have been based which would have given them a chance of meeting an invasion, not just while the invasion was in progress.

The air arm of the Japanese Navy and Luftwaffe were different creatures, I don't think it's valid to ascribe the former's capabilities and successes to the latter. The Luftwaffe's main task (and greatest successes) was in providing close support to ground operations.

Hitler and Saddam were the government of Germany and Iraq. Hezbollah is not the government of Lebanon.

So?

[Wilber]

The air arm of the Japanese Navy and Luftwaffe were different creatures, I don't think it's valid to ascribe the former's capabilities and successes to the latter. The Luftwaffe's main task (and greatest successes) was in providing close support to ground operations.

True but if the British fleet had no air support it wouldn't matter. If they stayed in port where they were in position to stop an invasion, Luftwaffe bombers could pound them to pieces at their leasure. Their dive bombers were deadly accurate if they had no air opposition. If the navy put to sea to stay out of range (something they could not do indefinately) they would not be in a position to stop an invasion and would be open to air attack for hundreds of miles before they were in a position to do so.

The Washington Naval Treaty placed restrictions on the total tonnage for capital ships which affected the size and number of capital ships the navy could have. It also restricted the number and size of carriers. For instance the British needed a larger number of cruisers than other countries because of their far flung empire, which resulted in them having to build more light cruisers at the expence of heavier ships which other countries were building. The treaty gave parity to the US and allowed Japan to get closer to parity. After 1936 Japan renounced the treaty and Nazi Germany did what it wanted. Britain did not have the overwhelming naval superiority it had enjoyed for the previous 130 years.

[Black Dog]

True but if the British fleet had no air support it wouldn't matter. If they stayed in port where they were in position to stop an invasion, Luftwaffe bombers could pound them to pieces at their leasure. Their dive bombers were deadly accurate if they had no air opposition. If the navy put to sea to stay out of range (something they could not do indefinately) they would not be in a position to stop an invasion and would be open to air attack for hundreds of miles before they were in a position to do so.

They wouldn't have stayed in port and even under air attack, the RN was probably powerful enough to impede an invasion force. An amphibious assault would have been a high risk operation and even a small disruption would have been enough to delay it or irrevocably damage its prospects. But there's on;y one way to settle this: Axis and Allies!!!

[Wilber]

True but if the British fleet had no air support it wouldn't matter. If they stayed in port where they were in position to stop an invasion, Luftwaffe bombers could pound them to pieces at their leasure. Their dive bombers were deadly accurate if they had no air opposition. If the navy put to sea to stay out of range (something they could not do indefinately) they would not be in a position to stop an invasion and would be open to air attack for hundreds of miles before they were in a position to do so.

They wouldn't have stayed in port and even under air attack, the RN was probably powerful enough to impede an invasion force. An amphibious assault would have been a high risk operation and even a small disruption would have been enough to delay it or irrevocably damage its prospects. But there's on;y one way to settle this: Axis and Allies!!!

OK but the Allies have no airforce.

[Army Guy]

I think your giving to much credit to the actual damage that the luftwaffe had done to the airforce.

britain still had well over 1000 a/c and pilots in the north. That fact played a big part in defeating the Nazi's in the bombing of the cities...has to say something. As for airfields all they needed was rolling fields, theres plenty of them. which could be used as forward bases for the A/F..

The radar chain although damaged was still in tact,any large luftwaffe gathering would have been spoted, Any naval floatila that was launched would have been noticed, by spies, air recon or resistance and reported.

The Nazi's amb forces were made up of mostly towed barges, that would need perfect weather to make a chanel crossing. not to mention where would they land, certainly not on the cliffs of dover...

So even if they had perfect weather, suitable landing sites, the odds were stack again'st them..even more so than D-day landings and those were a robust amb force for it's day.

I think the british would have been better off actually if the invasion had gone off, what would that have done to hilters plans if he had lost 2 or 3 div's to the chanal, a larger chunk of his air fleet, not to mention his naval forces..How would that effected the rest of the allied coalition, and thier involvment in the war. would have the US gotten involved more heavily, what about Canada, or the other british common wealth what would have been thier reaction..

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

I think the british would have been better off actually if the invasion had gone off, what would that have done to hilters plans if he had lost 2 or 3 div's to the chanal, a larger chunk of his air fleet, not to mention his naval forces..How would that effected the rest of the allied coalition, and thier involvment in the war. would have the US gotten involved more heavily, what about Canada, or the other british common wealth what would have been thier reaction..

A large portion of any Sealion force would have been paratroopers, with ships (or barges) transporting mostly armour.

I think your giving to much credit to the actual damage that the luftwaffe had done to the airforce.

... As for airfields all they needed was rolling fields, theres plenty of them. which could be used as forward bases for the A/F..

On 'Battle of Britain Day', Sept 15, 1940, Britain gambled virtually all of their available fighters. From "The World At War: The Reader's Digest Illustrated History of WWII (1989) pg. 54...

{Air Vice Marshal Kieth] Park asked Leigh-Mallory for three of No12 Group's squadrons to be put at his disposal, and when Churchill asked him 'What other reserves have we?' Park replied, 'There are none'.

'The odds were great,' Churchill wrote, 'our margins small; the stakes infinite.'

As to the use of airfields, certainly they could use a field for take-offs and landings, but fuel, ammunition and repair equipment were not so mobile.

[Black Dog]

A large portion of any Sealion force would have been paratroopers, with ships (or barges) transporting mostly armour.

I'll wager an invasion force that relied on airborne trops would have fared even worse than an amphibious assault. Look at the losses the Germans took invading Crete in 1941, now imagine what would have resulted from a larger scale operation against a far more determined foe on his own turf.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

You are right, the German Paras took a sh#t-kicking on Crete, for the Airborne it was virtually a phyrric victory. Still, it was a victory.

However, it would have been easier to land in the UK (provided the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain) because one can see the coasts from each other. No 'scattered (and dispersed) forces', as recon could have taken place in 'real time' and the drop planes could have made several sorties in a day.

Mind you, I'll agree that the Brits would have fought tooth and nail, and they are tough.

Had Britain been invaded and then surrendered, the war may well have been lost. Hitler's atomic ambitions might not have been sabotaged so easily.