What happened to the weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi nukes, biological and chemical weapons? I've already written about how our doomsday pacifists should admit their numerous mistakes, but they weren't alone in getting things wrong. It's time for us hawks to face up to a mistake of our own, following the failure of the American forces to discover any proof that Saddam's Iraq actually posed a nuclear, biological or chemical threat to the rest of the world. We expected proof of this to be uncovered after the war, and so far it hasn't been.

What went wrong, and how important is this failure anyway? To me, this comes down to two things: What the US government knew about Iraqi wmd's, and why it really went to war. Let's take the why's first, ie. what role the fear of wmd's really played in the American decision to go to war. As I see it, there are three possibilities:

1. Nuclear, bio and chem-weapons were not a reason at all for going to war, just an excuse.

2. Nuclear, bio and chem-weapons were one of several important reasons.

3. Nuclear, bio and chem-weapons were the only or primary reason.

In the first two cases, wmd's were selected as the primary justification for war because no other justification would have had any hope of international support, and because it was the best way to ensure maximum support at home. The real or other reasons, then, were more fuzzy, long-term and strategic, and therefore harder to explain.

It seems very likely to me that this war was about a lot more than nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure whether it's 1 or 2, whether nukes were one reason of many, or not one at all.

Then there's the question of what the US government knew, or thought it knew, about wmd research and production in Iraq. Again I can think of 3 possibilities:

1. They knew that Iraq hadn't resumed its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, and made up all the evidence indicating that it had.

2. They had real evidence, but it was sketchy and unconvincing, so they knowingly distorted it to make a better case for war.

3. They thought they knew for certain, and are just as surprised as everyone else that the wmd's have failed to turn up.

I strongly doubt that all the evidence was made up. We can't dismiss this possibility, of course, not without the hard proof we were promised, but I find it difficult to believe that a blatant attempt to manufacture evidence, through a combined effort by independent, democratic institutions, could have been pulled off. I also find it unlikely that they would have needed to, that there did not in fact exist any reason at all to suspect wmd research or production in Iraq.

So it's 2 or 3, then, and again I'm not sure which it is. But if we eliminate the unlikely theories, we're left with a worst-case and a best-case scenario. In the best case, the fear of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons were one of many reasons for going to war, and the US government was perfectly honest about what it knew about this threat. In the worst case, they lied about these weapons being a reason, and they distorted what little evidence they actually had to make the situation sound a lot worse than it really were.

To speak for myself, fear of wmd's, and nukes in particular, were only one reason why I supported this war, (some of the others being the importance of an Arab democracy for the war on terror, and concern for the Iraqi people), and I won't change my mind if the worst case scenario turns out to be true. But I will be offended. I don't like being lied to and manipulated. So I'm still waiting for the proof, Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld, and I expect a good explanation if it fails to show up.

I think you are speaking way too early, just like everyone else who is addressing the topic. The Iraqi scientists that have been detained are still being debriefed. I would imagine the process will take time, as their statements have to be corroborated against other evidence, etc. I also think that the US will eventually provide a report, but one that can withstand comprehensive scrutiny. All of that takes time.

Which brings up a question: very little is being said about those laboratories on wheels that were discovered (which had been hosed down with a bleech-like agent). Now, in my mind that's pretty clear evidence to me: why on earth would anyone want to put laboratories on wheels in the first place? Especially ones that can grow cultures. Can you think of any?

Why is it that anti-Americans can use the flimsiest evidence for their conspiracy theories, while wheels-on-the-ground evidence such as the labs won't suffice for American claims?

Of course I'm speaking early. That's why I'm lining up the possibilities, and trying not to draw conclusions. Iraq is back in slow-history mode, and we may not know the full story of what happened there and in Washington during the last year for a long time, including what did or did not happen with wmd's. But don't you agree that the more weeks that pass without anything being found, the less likely there were much of a threat in the first place? It's a possibility we should consider, and the burden of proof is now on the US government.

Not sure why you dragged anti-Americans into this. Neither of us are, so it's beside the point how they interpret this.

Didn't mean to imply that you're anti-US. It's just that a whole lot of anti-Americans are making a lot of noise about the "lack of evidence".

Yes, it would be good if that report came sooner rather than later. But I just don't see how the media can just ignore those labs-on-wheels. It's so clear as a bell. I mean, what could they have been doing with them? Did they think they needed an early response team if Iraq all of a sudden had an outbreak of mad cow disease? Not even European countries bother to have labs-on-wheels for that purpose...

At what point, specifically, does evidence prove justification? I'm not an expert in WMD, but doesn't terrorist training camps, military-disguised mobile labs, and the hidden hallways of the nuclear facility suggest that Hussein was lying to UN inspectors about WMD and supporting terrorism? I'm not being disingenuous, I am waiting for proof, too.

I'm just curious: what news I should be waiting to hear before I can let Bush off the hook?

I never felt that WMDs were the primary reason to go, so I don't much care if we find them. There was evidence that they existed, and, it is an indisputed fact that the Saddam regime was refusing to comply with efforts to show that they had no such weapons--in contravention of their surrender terms on the last war.

It was the evidence that they were there, and evidence of lack of cooperation, that was used in the U.N. Since the focus was the U.N., then, that was what was concentrated on at the U.N.

That doesn't mean it was the U.S.' only motivation or even main motivation. It was simply what was necessary to argue before the U.N. That's not even cynicism. You don't go before the U.N. to say "we're going to invade because we need to reshape the Middle East."

I'll probably blog more on this in the next day or so.

Bjorn: I'm wondering if there is a major failure in Norway in reporting what HAS been found, or in the way they report these facts. I know that you're on top of things when it comes to American and other foreign news sources, but I tend to think that you might be influenced by that European insistence on the "smoking gun" - that concrete proof that could pass even a jury trial.

As I see it, this demand for jury trial evidence is more of a political manoeuver to get the UN back into the process. Europeans will insist that nothing is proven until the UN says it is so.

Which to me is a lot of B.S. The UN is one of the most corrupt international organizations in the world. And there's plenty of proof for that...

First of all, many Americans did believe the WMD theory, but an equally large number also considered that Hussein supported terrorists. This was pretty well proven when we caught the man responsible for the Achille Loro(I hope I have the right boat).
In addition, no one remembers that Americans also were insensed by Husseins' treatment of his own people. We American are like that, we want to help the suffering and we risk everything to do it in many cases. America almost single handedly freed Europe of the Nazi and Russian occupation.
Be thankful that we are who we are, the most powerful and most generous country ever to exist.
The free flow of oil, and the fact that the CIA et al, knew that the French and the Russians were violating the boycott and oil for food program, by selling information and weapons to Iraq.
Screw the WMD's I and millions of people feel safer because of the collition.

Perhaps, unlike you, Bjørn, I wasn't supportive of the war in Iraq for many different reasons, which I am not going to bore you with.

As you so laconically laid out, there are three possible explanations to each of your posed questions. And I suppose which expalanation you subscribe to will generally depend on your war stance. If you are an eager supporter of the war, you wil see the mobile lab as a "proof" that you were right all along. If you are an opponent of the war, you wil see the mobile lab as insuffient proof of the existence WMD. You may say, "A war over a mobile lab? That's ridicilous!"

It seems though the United States in its presentation of the case to the United Nations cited the WMD as the main reason for protecting its security . Over and over again, we heard "The United States has a right to defend itself" from WMD "before it is too late." If it weren't the main reason, it certainly was one of the major reasons to go to war.

As a side note that is completely irrelevant to the topic (sorry Bjørn), I do have to address Chuck Decarlo of Arizona. Americans were anything but "insensed" by the cruelty of Saddam to "his own people". In fact, the White House downplayed what was taking place in Northern Iraq in 1988 when Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Secondly, I am appalled that you think that Americans "single-handedly" freed Europe of the Nazi and Russian occupation. 20 million my fellow Russians died in that war. All for nothing, right? Historically speaking, The United States didn't join WW2 until 1944 when Russia had already liberated Poland and it looked definately that Russia was going to win the war.

Aleks Tapinsh --

The US joined in the fight in WW2 in 1941, right after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and spent the ensuing years fighting in the Pacific and Italy. We did not, as you so strangely claim, start fighting in 1944, since our involvement didn't begin with the invasion of Normandy in 1944, but culminated in it. If we didn't join in the war until 1944 then I don't know what we were doing in Guadalcanal -- tanning, perhaps? I can see from your post you are anti-war, and possibly anti-American, but it seems foolish to distort history, and the American contribution to WW2, to serve your ideological ends. The Russians were originally allies of the Nazis (remember that part?), and while Russians were certainly brave fighters once they figured out which side to be on, the Nazis were winning until the US joined. That was certainly Churchill's conclusion -- he wrote that when the US declared war, he went to bed in peace, knowing now that the war against Germany had been won. By his own account, he spent a great deal of energy trying to get the US into the war, for this very reason. By the way, do think the Poles felt "liberated" by the Russians? Or don't you think they thought it was the Nazis all over again, only this time lasting for decades? Don't you think the Poles are rather glad (to put it mildly) that their Russian "liberation" is now over? But the biggest laugh I had was your assertion that "it looked definitely like Russia was going to win the war." Russia, I'm afraid, has never "won" any war, not for centuries, since before the Russo-Japanese War, a resounding Japanese victory. It specializes in vast, destructive, high-casualty stalemates like the Siege of Leningrad. The enemy may eventually be worn down and retreat, but that isn't to be confused with proactively "winning" anything. In any case, the Western Front fought by the United States sapped Germany's energies such that Germany couldn't keep fighting on the Eastern Front, so we actually saved you. Unfortunately, the modern example of the Siege of Leningrad is Chechnya, but I doubt the Chechens are going away any time soon.

Well, we certainly seem to have some follow-up by the media. Apropos to our discussion, The New York Times has today finally come up with an article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/worldspecial/21WEAP.html

Here is a printer-friendly format of the same article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/worldspecial/21WEAP.html?pagewanted=print&position=

This comment is very interesting; something that I hadn't thought of:

"American military officers in Iraq said they believe that Iraqi scientists remain reluctant to speak candidly about Mr. Hussein's weapons programs because they fear they could be implicated in possible war crimes..."

Doubtless the final report will be delayed, as I'm sure there will probably be immunity deals made - or at least discussed. I tend to think that immunity should be given, because the information we could get is much more important: how far did they advance in their work? How easy was it? On the other hand, a clear signal should be sent that this kind of activity cannot be tolerated.

This will be drawn out for a long time. Look how long Milosevic's trial has lasted.

I responded to Lisa privately, since it has little to do with the posting.

Aleks Tapinish, you said,

"Secondly, I am appalled that you think that Americans "single-handedly"
freed Europe of the Nazi and Russian occupation. 20 million my fellow
Russians died in that war. All for nothing, right?"

While of course you are right that Americans did not "single-handedly"
defeat the nazis, there are several major aspects missing from your
account.

First it's often forgotten but in 1939 the Soviet Union was the world's
sole military superpower. On paper it had at least ten times the power
of any other nation and just as important people believed that it was
the most powerful army on earth.

World War II would never even have begun, or at least not in that place
and that time, if the Nazis and the Communists had not been allies. The
invasion of Poland was a joint invasion by the germans and the russians
and they met at a agreed upon line and celebrated and further that line
ran through all eastern europe although few knew it at that moment.

It's a curious thing in some ways that Britain and France did not also
declare war on the Soviet Union but looking at that enormous disparity
in power it's clear enough why. It wasn't that the french and english
couldn't see the soviet troops invading but that the choice was whether,
so to speak, to lose before one starts.

In this context speaking of russian liberation of Poland or the rest
of eastern europe seems absurd. Yes, if one deletes the memory
of what happened the year or two before it's a liberation; any longer
perspective and it's all part of the original, unexpectedly turned
complicated, invasion.

As for who deserves credit for the liberation of europe, it seems to me
that first and foremost it goes to Britain and France. If they hadn't
chose to fight the nazis, and they did choose, it would have been over
almost before it began.

Second the credit goes to America because we did choose, we were not
forced to fight the nazis, and because without the americans the russians
would have lost and so would the british. And yes I know this question
of choice was a bit more complicated than that because FDR was re-elected,
by an electorate one-third of which was german, on a promise not to
make war. But FDR lied and the population did unify in a war against the
nazis.

Third the credit goes to the russian people without whom the british and
the americans, assuming they would have got involved, would have lost.

But this third credit tastes bad on a different level because World War II
and the occupation of europe by russian armies was the goal of the communist
party and in fact was to a major extent achieved.

What the americans uniquely deserve credit for is the frustration of
Stalin's intent in 1939 and blocking the absorption of Norway, Sweden,
Finland, France, Denmark, Western Germany, Austria, Switzerland,
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, and Africa
into the Soviet Empire and the avoidance of much of this population
of concentration camps and enslavement and etcetera.

(Lisa Molley claims that the Soviet Union never won a war. Half of
europe and much of the Soviet Union itself sure looks like a 'win'
to me.)

Markku: The failure to find wmd's haven't actually been much of an issue here yet. (This might be because Iraq has drifted off the media radar, and because a non-event is less noticeably than an event.) But I have been confronted about this by people I've discussed the war with. And I just don't think it would be honest of me to say that "Oh, they'll show up - just you wait", when clearly the evidence is at least hard to find. I like Bush, and I approve of his war on terror, but I'm not a believer. I can think of many ways to rationalize a failure to discover nuclear research facilities, based on the assumption that Bush can't do no wrong, but the honest thing to do is to face the possibility that he distorted facts.

The mobile labs are good indications that something was going on, that Iraq violated the UN's resolutions, but that to me isn't the issue. I'm fairly certain that they violated the resolutions, one way or another. The question is how much, and in what way. There is a difference between doing research on bio-weapons and being in the late stages of nuclear weapons development - which we were told they were. The broad term "weapons of mass destruction" shouldn't distract us from what this was primarily about: Nukes.

As for how important it really is if the facts were distorted, it may not change the overall morality of the war, but it does reflect badly on Bush. Weren't there told enough lies by his predecessor?

Bjørn Stærk said: "And I just don't think it would be honest of me to say that "Oh, they'll show up - just you wait", when clearly the evidence is at least hard to find."

I respect this opinion. Your rating in my eyes - though I disagree with you on the war - is increasing in great numbers.

Damn! I'm on another computer now, and I can see that the New York Times link doesn't permit people immediate access without registration. Sorry about that.

I urge everyone to register and log on to the NYT article. The access is free, and the article is very illuminating as to our discussion.

This link doesn't require registration, it's from Google News:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/worldspecial/21WEAP.html?ex=1054094400&en=5f231d7dca90ff6d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

I think it is very likely that more evidence will turn up. But if not, I am also convinced that the behaviour of Iraq prior to the war provides all the justification we need. They certainly behaved like they had something to hide.

In which case this explanation by Jim Lacey in an artice for National Review seems quite plausible to me: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lacey051503.asp

Saddam´s cruel state turned out to be so hollow and brittle that one mighty push from the outside was sufficient to make it all disappear. That push was necessary, however, because the system excelled at intimidation and oppression and might have lasted for a long time. Maybe the WMD program that we know Iraq had in the 90s never got back on track, but nobody would tell the boss? Many dictatorships have practiced self-delusion on a grand scale.

As far as I am concerned, the implication is that the appeasers are doubly wrong. Western countries (all of them) should be more confident in ganging up on the most horrible regimes. But that is just a dream, of course.

Aleks -- Sorry, I don't find it necessary to do private emails. If you didn't think the subject of WW2 belonged on this thread, then you shouldn't have introduced it.

Here's your response, and mine back again:

Lisa: The US joined in the fight in WW2 in 1941, right after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and spent the ensuing years fighting in the Pacific and Italy.

Aleks: While the major battles were taking place on the European continent, right? And don't forget that the US is the only country in the world to use atomic weapons EVER. So much for terrorism, eh?

Lisa2: What major battles took place in Western Europe from, say, 1942 on that the US didn't participate in? We fought in Italy, from Sicily all the way up the boot. We fought in North Africa as well. That was where the major battles in the Western Front took place, prior to the invasion of Normandy. There was actually a difference of opinion on this -- the US wanted to head for Germany right away, but Churchill wanted (for numerous reasons too complex to get into, but mostly having to do with preserving the British empire) to fight elsewhere first. As for the major war taking place in Europe while the US skulked safely in the Pacific -- well, no historian would agree with that. More Allied soldiers were killed in the Pacific than in Europe, the Pacific War took longer to win (victory in Japan coming more than half a year after victory in Europe), and the Pacific was the site of some of the most brutal hand to hand combat in modern history. To dismiss that entire theater of war is Eurocentric -- the Japanese were fully fledged allies of Nazi Germany, were militantly expansionist and espoused a fascistic ideology, and were every bit as dangerous to free countries everywhere. The use of atomic weapons against Japan took place in the context of a brutal war that Japan started -- not just with the attack on Pearl Harbor, but with years before that of brutal invasion and oppression of China and the Philippines, among others -- the Japanese committed terrible atrocities all over Asia (the Rape of Nanjing being just one among many) and were very much prone to fighting to the death, as demonstrated by the use of kamikaze fighters AFTER Japan had lost the crucial battle of Midway, which turned the tide against them in the Pacific. Truman concluded that without nuclear weapons (which, by the way, the US raced to develop because it was well known that the Nazis -- with Heisenberg's help -- were trying to develop them first) the alternative was a land invasion of Japan which would kill many more people, both American and Japanese, than the nukes would. Reasonable people can debate, with the usual 20-20 hindsight, whether Truman was right, but I'll point out 2 things. One, it took 2 nuclear strikes, several days apart, before Japan surrendered -- one wasn't enough to bring the Empire to admit defeat. So Truman may not have been wrong. Second, being Chinese myself, having been born and raised in Asia, I can tell you that this post-game agonizing about Hiroshima is confined to Westerners and unreconstructed Japanese right-wingers -- the vast majority of Asians in countries raped and plundered by the Japanese and old enough to remember it all approve heartily and feel no pity on that score. Terrorism? Japan began the war and prosecuted it with unbelievable ferocity. Not true of the kids periodically blown up in pizza shops and ice cream parlors by actual terrorists.

Lisa: We did not, as you so strangely claim, start fighting in 1944, since our involvement didn't begin with the invasion of Normandy in 1944, but culminated in it.
If we didn't join in the war until 1944 then I don't know what we were doing in Guadalcanal -- tanning, perhaps? I can see from your post you are anti-war, and possibly anti-American, but it seems foolish to distort history, and the American contribution to WW2, to serve your ideological ends.

Aleks: I know I am anti-war, as I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, perhaps, I am anti-American to a certain extent, however, that does not diminish my point. Label me if you like. It doesn't matter to me. But unless you're willing to open your mind just a little bit, we won't get anywhere.

Lisa2: I'm not sure where your little self-defense gets us. It looks like you are the one who needs an open mind.

Lisa: The Russians were originally allies of the Nazis (remember that part?), and while Russians were certainly brave fighters once they figured out which side to be on, the Nazis were winning until the US joined.

Aleks: Would that be what you called "misinterpretation" of history? Yes, Stalin signed the peace pact with Germany. However, that does not mean USSR was on the Nazi side. It wasn't a peace accord. Furthermore, it was Germany that violated that pact by attacking Soviet Union in 1941. At the same token, I can say the United States only joined the war once they figured out who was on the winning side... :)

Lisa2: You call what Stalin signed with Germany a peace pact, but deny it was a peace accord. If a peace pact is not a peace accord, then I don't know what it might be. It was certainly Stalin's
desire to be on good terms with the Germany that was gobbling up the rest of Europe -- he changed his mind when Russia was attacked in its turn (see what happens when you appease?) but prior to that, he certainly had very well-documented hopes of benefiting in power and territory from his arrangement with the Germans. As for the US not joining until it saw who was winning -- well, that's just plain wrong, and there is NO historian, of whatever political stripe, who will agree with you. The US joined the war because it was attacked (repeat: Pearl Harbor Dec 7 1941) on its own soil, without provocation, by one of the 2 principal countries of the Axis. It didn't hold back to see who would win; it joined early on in the war. (If WW2 may be fairly said to have taken place in Europe 1939-1945 - beginning really earlier than that in Asia, perhaps 1936 -- then declaring war in 1941 is pretty early. Prior to Pearl Harbor, there was certainly reluctance to become embroiled in yet another European war, and many Americans, some of German extraction, opposed it, although the US had been providing some aid and support to Britain. Having been attacked however, there were no more choices about it.) At the time the US joined the war, it was very uncertain who would win. France had fallen already and was ruled by collaborators; Britain was under terrible attacks by German fighter planes that had reduced London to rubble. As for the US? It was in complete military disarray -- it hadn't fought a major engagement since WW1, 3 and a half decades previously, had essentially put its military in mothballs, and had not yet emerged from the Great Depression, more than 8 years of debilitating economic desperation and extremely high (at times up to one third of all adult males) unemployment. The idea that we could successfully fight a war under such circumstances struck many as a risible notion. Facing these fractured allies were Germany and Japan (oh yes, and Italy, keep forgetting) -- countries which had spent the preceding decade arming themselves to the teeth, placing their economies on a wartime footing, and invading other countries and setting up puppet regimes. Churchill may have been sure that the US would win, but very few Americans and Europeans were. Indeed, years of very hard fighting, terrible losses, and lost battles lay ahead, before it became clear who would ultimately prevail. The US lost hundreds of thousands of fighting men (actually, I think the number is in the millions, but since I don't have it at hand I'll be conservative) over the course of 4 years of very hard fighting, including some significant lost battles, so I don't think anyone (other than Winston) coolly picked out the winning side and just went with it.

Lisa: That was certainly Churchill's conclusion -- he wrote that when the US declared war, he went to bed in peace, knowing now that the war against Germany had been won.

Aleks: Churchill, though a smart man that he was, was terrified of communism. And since communist was at the strong force on the Eastern front, he had to ask for help to prevent communist take over Europe.

Lisa2: How does this answer what I've said? I doubt Churchill was "terrified" of anything -- he certainly recognized Communism to be the next great threat to freedom. I don't see how that disqualifies his assessment. I mean, he may have been wrong in being so certain, but I'm not sure his fear of communism had anything to do with it.

Lisa: By his own account, he spent a great deal of energy trying to get the US into the war, for this very reason.

Aleks: See above.

Lisa2: See above.

Lisa: By the way, do think the Poles felt "liberated" by the Russians? Or don't you think they thought it was the Nazis all over again, only this time lasting for decades?

Aleks: By Russian liberation I do not mean the Moscow puppet government installed in Warsaw. Rather, I mean liberation of Poland from Nazi regime.

Lisa2: Nice of you to say so. But do you think the Poles make that distinction?

Lisa: Don't you think the Poles are rather glad (to put it mildly) that their Russian "liberation" is now over? But the biggest laugh I had was your assertion that "it looked definitely like Russia was going to win the war." Russia, I'm afraid, has never "won" any war, not for centuries, since before the Russo-Japanese War, a resounding Japanese victory.

Aleks: I would have to disagree. Unless of course, you're one of those who think anyone who is "anti-American" never won any kind of war: e.g.. France and Germany. It looked like Russia was going to win the war after the battle of Stalingrad in 1942 when the front line was moved west for the first time since Hitler attacked USSR in 1941. This is the basis for my assertion.

Lisa2: On the contrary, anti-Americans win all sorts of wars. The Vietnamese, for example, fought the war successfully. Unfortunately, they fought it for communism, and they won communism, which is why they spend a great deal of time now bartering for dollars (just go visit and you'll see what I mean) and angling for US investment. As for your reason why you think it looked at the time that Russia would win the war, see below. I can assure you that I have never read anywhere, in any history or memoir or recollection (not even by Russians) that anyone was sure in 1942 that Russia would win.

Lisa: It specializes in vast, destructive, high-casualty stalemates like the Siege of Leningrad. The enemy may eventually be worn down and retreat, but that isn't to be confused with proactively "winning" anything. In any case, the Western Front fought by the United States sapped Germany's energies such that Germany couldn't keep fighting on the Eastern Front, so we actually saved you. Unfortunately, the modern example of the Siege of Leningrad is Chechnya, but I doubt the Chechens are going away any time soon.

Aleks: Rather, the United States opened the second front only in 1944, when Soviet Army was approaching eastern German border. So much for the help!

Lisa2: One more time for fun. The US joined the war in late 1941, although properly speaking I think it's fair to say it didn't "fight" per se until 1942. (Hmm, 1942 -- the year you say the front line in Russia was moved west for the first time since the Germans attacked in 1941. Could these 2 things be connected? Take a wild guess, dear.) When you insist on claiming that the US opened a Western front only in 1944, all you are saying is that the US, with the invasion of Normandy, actually began a drive to Germany itself in 1944. True enough, but not because we were waiting around until the Russians won (in which case we would still be waiting) but because (1) Churchill, as mentioned above, had his own reasons for delaying a drive to Germany itself, and wanted to drive the Germans out of other places in the globe first -- Eisenhower and the American generals vehemently opposed this, but Roosevelt gave Churchill his head on the matter; and (2) the Normandy invasion took a heck of a long time to plan -- years in fact. IN THE MEANTIME, from 1942-1944, the US armed forces were all over the globe, including all over Europe and North Africa, fighting Nazis.

I will add one thing, in reply to Mark Amerman. You are right, dominating half of Europe against its will for half a century does indeed look like a win. It's a cheap win, since the Russians could only control Eastern Europe after the Nazis had basically turned it into a vast graveyard. But it's a win.

Lisa: It's an interesting subject, but no, it doesn't belong in this thread. A few off-topic posts are ok, but not when they drown out the on-topic ones. I'd appreciate if the thread is moved back to e-mail.

Reguarding WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, supposedly the original reason for going to war with Iraq. Nothing can make me believe the U.S, Government or it's military forces have any interest in recovering or limiting the spread or use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We and the Soviets and China and India ans Pakistan ETC. have extensive arsonals of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Our friends in N. Korea have shown great interest in WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, likewise our loving neighbors in Iran are taking up the hobby. We don't care.

Iraq had little or nothing that should have worried us either. The UN people pretty much determined that Saddom's War Programs were kinda demolished in that first conflict. We have video footage of that event I believe. Of course the terrorist magnet that"s been created there now is bringing an influx of weaponry Iraq hasn't seen in a long time.

It makes one wonder what terrorist groups might be capable of coming up with in the way of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, given enough interest and financing. We should be especially concerned that our trash is another's treasure. Example: 40 years ago a fusion warhead was lost during a training mission just off the coast of Savannah, Georgia. Of course our military has no interest in recovering WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Who does these days anyway?

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/221