Bush Is Back (part 2)!

From a Washington Post article on the same find (I remember the same information being given on the BBC News at the time). IIRC the general conclusion reported at the time was that the shell was very likely left over from the Iran-Iraq war in the '80s. So basically it doesn't prove much.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Personally I've always thought the main reason was the overwhelming industrial capacity of the United States compared to everbody else.Once Pearl Harbor happened there was only ever going to be one outcome to the Second World War, especially after Hitler declared war on the US. In my early teens I did a project on WWII and I remember quoting the figures for the production of tanks, airplanes, ships and all the other weapons and munitions that the US produced for itself and the other allies (even including the Soviet Union) and comparing them to the equivalent German figures. I can't be bothered to try and dig them up again, but I remember the difference was dramatic. As well as the industrial aspect the manpower to use it was - obviously - of major significance.BTW, although I said the outcome was inevitable I don't dispute various aspects of the outcome could have been different. For example if the Normandy landings had been significantly earlier or later the location of the Iron Curtain might have been futher East or West of where it actually fell.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Hi jar. Do I get a prize ? For those of us who don't live in the last best hope of theocracy (paranoid - moi ?) could you confirm you're talking about the Darleen Druyun case ? I'm pretty sure you are but it isn't like Boeing haven't been involved in lots of scandals over the years. Unless defense is exempt from WTO rules (I've no idea either way) then not considering AirBus would probably end up in one of those phoney trade wars that end up in ten years of argument at the WTO and only produces a lot of rich(er) lawyers at the end of it all. I understand your view and agree with it to some extent - but then again if every country took that view there be a lot of unemployed Americans at companies like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Let's consider what sort of major war the US is likely to fight - or rather who it's likely to fight against. I would contend that the combination of the loss of trade and the possibility of MAD means that even the most extreme NeoCon hawks aren't going to go to war with China, Western Europe or (maybe) Russia. After that who is left that you don't have the capability to completely overwhelm ? Keeping control after smashing the current government of a country is another thing altogether - but as Iraq has shown that doesn't seem to figure very high on the NeoCon check list. So basically yes - in the short and near term I think the US could 'win' an overwhelming military against any country it wanted to - and actually possibly even those I listed above as exempt from consideration.Doh ! I just read through your post again in a bit more depth and realised what (I think) you're getting at. You're pointing out that in this era of globalization the industrial base of the US is being shipped abroad (both manufacturing and R&D) - which may be great for the bottom line of corporations (and the renumeration of their executives) but is no way to fight a big war.If this is what your view is then I have to agree with you, but I still stand by my earlier comments. In the short to medium term I can't see anyone being able to stand to up to your military. In the longer term, say a decade or more, I think you're right - but with a 'but'. The 'but' is the nuclear arsenals of the bigger countries in the world. China is the obvious country which you could forsee the US having a major war with where the lack of a manufacturing base might hurt you, but I still think the threat of MAD is going to stop such a war happening.I will admit (before anyone points it out ) that I am ascribing a level of judgement and common sense to the NeoCons that their behaviour so far perhaps doesn't justify. If you attack Iran in the next four years I will agree I was talking out of my backside...

---

Confused ? You will be...

Yes and no from what I remember (I was really into this stuff when I was a teenager in the '70s but I haven't looked at it much since).One of the things to realise is that Hollywood has had a very distorting effect on how people perceive this. You always hear about Tigers and to a lesser extent Panthers in war movies. In reality these were produced in much smaller numbers than the main German tanks, the PzKw III and PzKw IV (the Panther and Tiger were actually V and VI in the series). The main allied tank on the Western front, the Sherman, was no match for a Panther or Tiger but would have had a much better chance against the PzKw III/IV.Another thing to realise is that "quality" can be measured in a variety of ways. One of the main problems of the Tiger was that the reliablity sucked. It's no good having a tank with fantastic armour and a huge gun if it breaks down regularly or is too big to fit on standard rail transport (so you can't get it from the factory to the front easily). Both the Panther and Tiger suffered from being over-designed in some ways, especially when they were exposed to the harsh Russian winter, which meant things on them broke more often than expected. This site has some intersting info on the various tanks (and other weapons) of WWII which from what I recall is pretty accurate.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Great. Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union I felt MAD was a great idea - many people claimed to have nightmares about the forthcoming nuclear holocaust but I thought it was the only thing that had stopped WWIII happening sometime after 1945. Now I'm going to start having nightmares ! Seriously though you make some good points. I'm going to have to do some serious thinking on this one.

---

Confused ? You will be...

I suppose the only good thing about the IBM PC deal is that nowadays IBM only has about 5% of the market it created - if it was Dell or HP/Compaq you would really have something to worry about.As an aside, IBM hasn't actually made any PCs for a while now - but the company they outsourced it to was another American one. This sale is just the end stage of IBM getting out of a market it couldn't compete in.Ultimately though you are articulating a concern that I often discuss with my friends - how can companies in the West survive as Western based companies when all their operations except final point of sale are in the developing world ? If the companies don't survive then eventually the countries they come from also won't survive.

---

Confused ? You will be...

My understanding is that until the first Gulf War (when Saddam played the Islam card to try and rally support in the rest of the Arab world) Iraq was pretty secular. It was an Islamic country in the same sort of way that Britain is a Christian country.In fact the Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was a Christian. I have read that his position owed quite a bit to being both a token non-Muslim and not a member of the Tikriti clan.

---

Confused ? You will be...

I've often thought that Islam as implemented in places like Saudi Arabia bears a strong resemblance to Christianity in Europe back in the Middle Ages. The level of intolerance in England extended to physically expelling all Jews from the country for over 350 years (1290 - 1656). The city where I live was in the news a while back because the charter it was founded on (around 1231) contains the clause : The target of the intolerance may have been different but ultimately it comes down to the same thing.It's seems to me that fundamentalist Islam needs something like the Renaissance or the Reformation (without the centuries of subsequent warfare) to consign sects like the Wahabis in Saudi to the dustbin of history where they belong. Sadly it seems some Christians want to take us back to those same Middle Age outlooks.

---

Confused ? You will be...