Federation Foreign Policy

[USS KG5]

Fortunately, Kirk did the right thing. He entered the Neutral Zone, and beat the heck outta the Bird-of-prey. With this sufficient show of force, the Romulans were deterred.

Oh quite agreed, and Picard would likely have done the same.

Which is why I was puzzled by you accusing the Feds of "appeasement" - surely to contradictory points of view?

Except for this: he SHOULD have known that Hitler was building up his army--and that Hitler was ranting and raving about the establishment of a Third Reich, etc.

He DID know, EVERYONE knew at this point. That does not mean that everyone agreed what to do about it.

Chamberlain basically tried a last ditch effort for a peaceful solution to avoid a repeat of WW1, ultimately it made no difference to either side. Britain and France were in no position to fight Germany in 1938 and though an extremely strong response MIGHT have delayed Hitler for a while, the end result would have been the same.

Sadly the only way to stop Hitler in the end was the total destruction of the military forces defending his regime at the cost of millions of lives. This could never, ever be a preferable option when anything else (short of surrender) was still on the table.

Churchill, BTW, warned England about the consequences of appeasement. Chamberlain couldn't say they had no way of seeing it coming.

I'm not quite sure of your point here - I already explained that Churchill and Chamberlain had the same information. In fact it shows both's weaknesses the way they dealt with it.

Churchill was often way too much of a hawk, a great war leader and probably the greatest ever Briton but there was virtually no way Britain or France could back up their threats in 1938, to make them would simply be bluff, and Hitler was often a master at this as well, look at how he handled the Soviets.

When Britain and France did go to war in 1939 they were still massively unprepared, and the war was so nearly lost by the end of 1940, and could easily have been lost in both 1941 and 1942 (though hopefully eventually the US would somehow have freed Europe, we would however still be recovering NOW).

The build-up to WW2 was not as cut-and-dried as you are stating it, nor is it to any other war, and back on topic neither would it be in the trek universe.

He was human. He made mistakes. But he was the leader Britain need--and, fortunately, got.

Well yes and by that logic so was Chamberlain, the only difference being he was the leader Britain didn't need in 1940, and was replaced by Churchill!

It is hard to understate just what a great war leader Churchill was, and how perfectly from day one he knew how things should pan out strategically if Britain was to survive.

If Churchill had been in charge in 1938 could he have saved Czechoslovakia? Maybe, depends if Hitler would call his bluff about war, because Britain and France were NOT ready to fight.

 

[Training]

I always found the Federation reaction to the Dominion very naive and stupid. They expected to travel around the Gamma Quadrant and building colonies despite being warned by a hostile power not to do so. Yet when that hostile power does the same thing. A state of cold war ensues and it ends with the UFP blocking the wormhole knowing that it would cause the Dominion to attack them and then sending fleets into Dominion territory in AQ to attack Dominion shipyards. Oh and the hostility towards any power that didn't want to have a war with the Dominion.


@At the guys debating appeasement.
In my opinion Churchill was a complete and utter dickhead. It's a travesty that people abroad seem to worship him. He's been corned to the upper and higher middle class English here in the UK.

The man was lucky and only got the job because the previous PM lost his position because Churchill screwed up invading an innocent nation just to hurt the Germans. Not

There is also nothing wrong with appeasement. Providing your doing it to someone who will respond to it positively. If people like Churchill were muzzled maybe the UK government could have actually had the political strength to stop the French from making the lives of Post WW1 Germans a misery and feeding the nationalistic and right wing factions like NSDAP.

 

[Rush Limborg]

"Highly beligerant rhetoric"? Indeed.

So...you going to honestly tell me that Limbaugh doesn't engage in this. Because I'm betting I can do a search which brings up examples within seconds.

...Indeed, don't let hero worship blind you to the reality of matters.

On that same field, don't let disdain for a man's personality blind you to the possible validity of his ideas.

If you, like Rush, backed the Iraq war, you sure as hell contested it.

Oh, I shouldn't think so.

When have you seen a Federation representative present this as offcial policy of their government?

Read the OP.

Please don't equate war with morality. It is sometimes necessary, even just, but never say that killing, especially en masse, is a "moral" thing. It never is. And win or lose, right or wrong, no matter where you are on that continuum, war costs, materially, morally, spiritually.

Frankly, sir, if justice is to be at times considered immoral, I should think the moral code one lives by should be called into question.

How has the Federation "backed up and retreated"? They just haven't used every provocation as a reason to exercise all out war.

Again, read the OP.

 

[USS KG5]

@At the guys debating appeasement.
In my opinion Churchill was a complete and utter dickhead. It's a travesty that people abroad seem to worship him. He's been corned to the upper and higher middle class English here in the UK.

The man was lucky and only got the job because the previous PM lost his position because Churchill screwed up invading an innocent nation just to hurt the Germans. Not

There is also nothing wrong with appeasement. Providing your doing it to someone who will respond to it positively. If people like Churchill were muzzled maybe the UK government could have actually had the political strength to stop the French from making the lives of Post WW1 Germans a misery and feeding the nationalistic and right wing factions like NSDAP.

WOW - seriously dude I can see you are new here but which points are you debating? That was almost a rant, I disagree with Rush over some of his points but he at least did quote me point by point!

I'm guessing you are making some kind of point here about Norway? I agree that actually the involvement of British forces even if successful against the Germans could still have led to conflict with Russia.

You could argue that one of Churchill's weaknesses was that he never trusted the Soviets, but SERIOUSLY wasn't he ultimately right? Churchill really believed in democracy for Eastern Europe and simply had no say when the Russians took everything over.

As for post-WW1, the Versailles treaty was too harsh, and the USA made sure the same mistakes were not made at the end of WW2. Churchill however had bugger all to do with it!

Churchill, as already discussed, was a superb war leader and strategist, a man with weaknesses but genuinely a great man. YES Gallipoli was partly his fault, YES he advocated the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, YES he was a bigot over India. None of this in any way takes away from the fact that his leadership, arguably I admit, saved the world from decades of tyranny.

I would love to see more people join the debate, as while a bit off topic it shows that there is "colour" to history that when applied to Trek events like the Dominion War makes them more interesting to discuss.

 

[Training]

WOW - seriously dude I can see you are new here but which points are you debating? That was almost a rant, I disagree with Rush over some of his points but he at least did quote me point by point!

It probably was. I'm kind of sick of people hero worshiping him. I just skimmed the discussion and responsed with a broadside. I don't even know whos arguing what.

I'm guessing you are making some kind of point here about Norway? I agree that actually the involvement of British forces even if successful against the Germans could still have led to conflict with Russia.

I actually think the whole invasion of Norway was wrong. Especially the premise of the invasion and what happened after it. Even using the titanic struggle Finland had with the USSR has an excuse to invade countries that don't want to be part of the war.

You could argue that one of Churchill's weaknesses was that he never trusted the Soviets, but SERIOUSLY wasn't he ultimately right? Churchill really believed in democracy for Eastern Europe and simply had no say when the Russians took everything over.

No. A man who planned one of the biggest ethnic cleansing in the world (Post WW2 East Germany) and then dared to complain after he had no power to do anything. That to me leaves a bitter aftertase in my mouth.

As for post-WW1, the Versailles treaty was too harsh, and the USA made sure the same mistakes were not made at the end of WW2. Churchill however had bugger all to do with it!

I personally find the treatment the Axis got after WW2 to be even worse. Ethnic expulsions,partitions, reparations,loss of freedoms oh and a 60 year occupation for Germany. The only difference is the shame of the holocaust for the germans and the fact that there was a massive occupation army that made sure nothing could happen.

 

[Penta]

Uh, 60 year occupation?

Legally even, it didn't last much past 50.

As a practical matter, it couldn't be said to have lasted past 1955 (In the FRG, anyway).

 

[Admiral Shran]

No, I'm not. In fact, part of why I'd argue that it's a disproportionate response to launch a full-scale war in retaliation for the invasion of a single, small colony, is that the relative smallness of the target indicates to me that the enemy is not as dedicated to capturing it. If the enemy targets a major population center or homeworld, it has by definition adopted a "total war" mindset; if, on the other hand, the enemy has chosen a less prominent target, that indicates that the enemy is probably less bold and less dedicated to the idea of gaining the territory, and that, as such, smaller measures are all that is required to reclaim the territory and ensure that future such violations won't happen again.

In other words -- if the enemy is bold enough to try to capture Trill, then that means they're in it to win, they've put all their chips on the table, and a full-scale war is necessary to prevent them from keeping up that behavior. If, on the other hand, the enemy is targeting a minor colony, the enemy is probably considerably less bold, has devoted considerably fewer resources to the acts of aggression, and the enemy can most probably be deterred by re-capture and re-enforcement of existing border defenses.

And, yes, I absolutely reject the idea that the endangerment of the lives of a small population center automatically warrants the certain deaths of millions or billions.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. For me, a nation MUST view the endangerment of the lives of any of its citizens as an act of war. Especially so when those lives are lost or endangered during an invasion and occupation of said nation's own terrority.

I see an invasion like the ones the Cardassians planned as more important than just a minor border dispute. If the Federation isn't willing to go to "full scale war" over a small colony this time, what's to stop the Cardassians (or any other Alpha Quadrant power) from doing it again? If the Federation doesn't protect that small colony with all the force it has at its disposal, what's to stop the enemy from believing they can launch a full-scale invasion of the entire UFP, and try to conquer "important" worlds like Trill, Betazed, Berengaria, or the Federation Core Worlds?

 

[stonester1]

Frankly, sir, if justice is to be at times considered immoral, I should think the moral code one lives by should be called into question.

War isn't about justice. War, when it's right, is about defense. When it's wrong, it's about revenge, or even worse, profiteering.

But it's never about justice.

When the scale of things is taken into consideration, and you consider the effects of events as they go forth on the individual lives of all affected, I for one have trouble calling it "justice".

But then, it's easy for someone (Limbaugh) to use those terms when he has never seen it up close for himself.

He wants to feel GOOD about the use of military force. It's not enough for it to be necessary.

And that, sir, among all the other reasons stated, is why I'm quite comfortable with dismissing his "ideas" on the subject.

From where I sit, an American who does serve, he's full of shit.

The Iraq War being an underline of my views on him and his "ideas".

 

[USS KG5]

It probably was. I'm kind of sick of people hero worshiping him. I just skimmed the discussion and responsed with a broadside. I don't even know whos arguing what.

Well bonus points for honesty I guess.

I actually think the whole invasion of Norway was wrong. Especially the premise of the invasion and what happened after it. Even using the titanic struggle Finland had with the USSR has an excuse to invade countries that don't want to be part of the war.

That is quite probably fair.

No. A man who planned one of the biggest ethnic cleansing in the world (Post WW2 East Germany) and then dared to complain after he had no power to do anything. That to me leaves a bitter aftertase in my mouth.

You will need to come up with some serious evidence to say that Churchill planned to ethnically cleanse East Germany, beyond some daft off-the-cuff comment he made, which he made many of.
EDIT: Oh you mean kicking all the Germans out of modern day Poland? Well, they shouldn't have started the war, sorry, price to be paid. It was tragic that the cost was so high but it did finally resolve the problems of intermingled German populations.

I personally find the treatment the Axis got after WW2 to be even worse. Ethnic expulsions,partitions, reparations,loss of freedoms oh and a 60 year occupation for Germany. The only difference is the shame of the holocaust for the germans and the fact that there was a massive occupation army that made sure nothing could happen.

You are kidding right? Look at the list of the world's most powerful economies, right up there are Germany and Japan, rebuilt with a new future by the allies. If you attack dozens of countries, commit genocide and generally piss the world off you can hardly complain to be harshly treated if occupied, and the USA invested trillions in rebuilding post-war Europe.

Now sure, the Germans suffered at the hands of the Russians but not half as bad as the Russians suffered at their hands.

Germany and Japan were the aggressors and they paid the price, you can't bleat about it.

 

[siskokid888]

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Huh? What?

Who said either of them were supposed to be that?

No one. I was satirizing the idea that "accomodation" is a legitimate means of maintaining the peace, as Robert DeSoto maintained.

And Sci, your clip actually proves my point. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But a superpower MUST be prepared to use force against those who attack it. Both Leo and Bartlett agree in that vid that force was completely neccesary against the enemy in question.

NO ONE is defending using full-scale war as the catchall answer--simply the necessity to back your words up with the fact that you are willing to defend yourself as far as is neccesary and proper.

I think your last point is obvious vis a vis the Federation. You all seem to think that these "hostile powers" think that Federation conquest would be a cakewalk. On the contrary, the Fed is pretty formidible and has kicked ass time and again. The Fed is aware of this, as is their adversaries. The adversaries test the waters, the Fed first tries diplomacy to avoid the loss of billions of lives in a full scale war. The Fed has shown the willingness to go the the mat, they just are trying to do the "humane" thing and avoid the horrors of war. And that may mean occasionally giving in (something we Americans, with our ridiculous egos, can't grasp). But there is a line that can't be crossed, and both sides know this.

 

[stonester1]

Huh? What?

Who said either of them were supposed to be that?

No one. I was satirizing the idea that "accomodation" is a legitimate means of maintaining the peace, as Robert DeSoto maintained.

And Sci, your clip actually proves my point. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But a superpower MUST be prepared to use force against those who attack it. Both Leo and Bartlett agree in that vid that force was completely neccesary against the enemy in question.

NO ONE is defending using full-scale war as the catchall answer--simply the necessity to back your words up with the fact that you are willing to defend yourself as far as is neccesary and proper.

I think your last point is obvious vis a vis the Federation. You all seem to think that these "hostile powers" think that Federation conquest would be a cakewalk. On the contrary, the Fed is pretty formidible and has kicked ass time and again. The Fed is aware of this, as is their adversaries. The adversaries test the waters, the Fed first tries diplomacy to avoid the loss of billions of lives in a full scale war. The Fed has shown the willingness to go the the mat, they just are trying to do the "humane" thing and avoid the horrors of war. And that may mean occasionally giving in (something we Americans, with our ridiculous egos, can't grasp). But there is a line that can't be crossed, and both sides know this.

Well said.

 

[Rush Limborg]

War isn't about justice. War, when it's right, is about defense. When it's wrong, it's about revenge, or even worse, profiteering.

But it's never about justice.

When the scale of things is taken into consideration, and you consider the effects of events as they go forth on the individual lives of all affected, I for one have trouble calling it "justice".

Hmm. And yet you said:

Please don't equate war with morality. It is sometimes necessary, even just, but never say that killing, especially en masse, is a "moral" thing. It never is. And win or lose, right or wrong, no matter where you are on that continuum, war costs, materially, morally, spiritually.

But then, it's easy for someone (Limbaugh) to use those terms when he has never seen it up close for himself.

He wants to feel GOOD about the use of military force. It's not enough for it to be necessary.

And that, sir, among all the other reasons stated, is why I'm quite comfortable with dismissing his "ideas" on the subject.

From where I sit, an American who does serve, he's full of shit.

My dear sir, with all due respect--and yes, I DO respect you for serving, and I am very grateful for the dedication and devotion all of you have shown in defense of our nation--whether you have served or not is never a blank check on the acceptance of your views as inherently valid. Logic alone determines validity. Anything else is mere hypothesis--and to declare it otherwise is, quite frankly, mere arrogance.

The Iraq War being an underline of my views on him and his "ideas".

Many a soldier DOES suport the Iraq War. I have spoken with many such men and women personally. Many oppose it, and I have encountered examples of that, as well.

If you want to feel reluctant about the use of military force, that's fine--but do not bash another for feeling differently.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Huh? What?

Who said either of them were supposed to be that?

No one. I was satirizing the idea that "accomodation" is a legitimate means of maintaining the peace, as Robert DeSoto maintained.

And Sci, your clip actually proves my point. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But a superpower MUST be prepared to use force against those who attack it. Both Leo and Bartlett agree in that vid that force was completely neccesary against the enemy in question.

NO ONE is defending using full-scale war as the catchall answer--simply the necessity to back your words up with the fact that you are willing to defend yourself as far as is neccesary and proper.

I think your last point is obvious vis a vis the Federation. You all seem to think that these "hostile powers" think that Federation conquest would be a cakewalk. On the contrary, the Fed is pretty formidible and has kicked ass time and again. The Fed is aware of this, as is their adversaries. The adversaries test the waters, the Fed first tries diplomacy to avoid the loss of billions of lives in a full scale war. The Fed has shown the willingness to go the the mat, they just are trying to do the "humane" thing and avoid the horrors of war. And that may mean occasionally giving in (something we Americans, with our ridiculous egos, can't grasp). But there is a line that can't be crossed, and both sides know this.

And where do you draw the line, exactly?

You say the Federation is pretty formidible. And yet their adversaries have an annoying tendency to attack over and over--in the hopes that they will get what they want at the negotiation table.

When the Federation allows this to continue, this simply serves as an incentive for adversaried to continue--and, indeed, for new adversaries to try their own hand at said game.

 

[Anwar]

You say the Federation is pretty formidible. And yet their adversaries have an annoying tendency to attack over and over--in the hopes that they will get what they want at the negotiation table.

That says more about the stupidity and/or courage/arrogance of their enemies than the Federation themselves.

When the Federation allows this to continue, this simply serves as an incentive for adversaried to continue--and, indeed, for new adversaries to try their own hand at said game.

And in the end, the Federation endures while most of their enemies do NOT or at least back off.

 

[Admiral Shran]

No one. I was satirizing the idea that "accomodation" is a legitimate means of maintaining the peace, as Robert DeSoto maintained.

And Sci, your clip actually proves my point. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But a superpower MUST be prepared to use force against those who attack it. Both Leo and Bartlett agree in that vid that force was completely neccesary against the enemy in question.

NO ONE is defending using full-scale war as the catchall answer--simply the necessity to back your words up with the fact that you are willing to defend yourself as far as is neccesary and proper.

I think your last point is obvious vis a vis the Federation. You all seem to think that these "hostile powers" think that Federation conquest would be a cakewalk. On the contrary, the Fed is pretty formidible and has kicked ass time and again. The Fed is aware of this, as is their adversaries. The adversaries test the waters, the Fed first tries diplomacy to avoid the loss of billions of lives in a full scale war. The Fed has shown the willingness to go the the mat, they just are trying to do the "humane" thing and avoid the horrors of war. And that may mean occasionally giving in (something we Americans, with our ridiculous egos, can't grasp). But there is a line that can't be crossed, and both sides know this.

And where do you draw the line, exactly?

You say the Federation is pretty formidible. And yet their adversaries have an annoying tendency to attack over and over--in the hopes that they will get what they want at the negotiation table.

When the Federation allows this to continue, this simply serves as an incentive for adversaried to continue--and, indeed, for new adversaries to try their own hand at said game.

Well said.

And, siskokid888, what is the point you're trying to make? That if the Cardassians attacked Minos Korva the Federation should just say something like this to the colonists there....?

"Oh well, you're just a 20,000 person colony. Your lives aren't as valuable as those other Federation citizens who would be killed liberating you. We're not going to risk our lives for your protection. Have fun living under Cardassian occupation. We all know the Bajorans love it so much."

 

[Xerxes1979]

And, siskokid888, what is the point you're trying to make? That if the Cardassians attacked Minos Korva the Federation should just say something like this to the colonists there....?

"Oh well, you're just a 20,000 person colony. Your lives aren't as valuable as those other Federation citizens who would be killed liberating you. We're not going to risk our lives for your protection. Have fun living under Cardassian occupation. We all know the Bajorans love it so much."

There are other ethical possibilities including evacuation of Minos Korva or destruction of any habitable planets or the star itself. You act as if the Federation is painted into some sort of Kobyashi Maru scenario. I can think of countless outcomes other than large scale warfare.

 

[stonester1]

Many a soldier DOES suport the Iraq War. I have spoken with many such men and women personally. Many oppose it, and I have encountered examples of that, as well.

If you want to feel reluctant about the use of military force, that's fine--but do not bash another for feeling differently.

Yes, some soldiers do, and I never said otherwise. But I guarantee you, far less of them do now than they did at the start. Because they trusted their leaders and time found said leaders wanting.

And you damn right I want our leaders to feel reluctant about the use of force. War is the way it is, and you better be one THOUSAND percent sure it is the correct course of action before you send good men and women to die. These are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends who won't be returning to their loved ones.

I don't "bash" Rush for feeling differently. I bash Rush for his hypocrisy on this issue, both on military matters themselves and how he judges them, to his own conduct in relation to service and how he uses a different yardstick to judge others. He is more than willing to be judgemental of others, yet unwilling to turn the same spotlight of judgement of himself. Yet, when others do, both he and many of his supporters (illustrated by you, for example), cry foul.

Bottom line, if you talk the talk, for the sake of credibility, you should walk the walk.

War is not a football game. It is the most serious of business. When we talk about it, it should not be in the tone of a pep rally.

 

[neozeks]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. For me, a nation MUST view the endangerment of the lives of any of its citizens as an act of war. Especially so when those lives are lost or endangered during an invasion and occupation of said nation's own terrority.

I see an invasion like the ones the Cardassians planned as more important than just a minor border dispute. If the Federation isn't willing to go to "full scale war" over a small colony this time, what's to stop the Cardassians (or any other Alpha Quadrant power) from doing it again? If the Federation doesn't protect that small colony with all the force it has at its disposal, what's to stop the enemy from believing they can launch a full-scale invasion of the entire UFP, and try to conquer "important" worlds like Trill, Betazed, Berengaria, or the Federation Core Worlds?

But WHY go to full-scale war if a more limited military operation can achieve the desired effect? Why would the Cardies attempt a new incursion if the first time they tried it they got stopped by only a small fraction of Starfleet power? Wouldn't the fact that they got defeated even in a small-scale battle make it completely clear to them that they had no chance what-so-ever in a full-scale war with the UFP (without the need for the UFP to actually go to full-scale war)? Should the Brits and NATO have ocuppied Argentina and completely destroyed it's military in response to the Argentinian ocuppation of the Falklands?

 

[Rush Limborg]

You say the Federation is pretty formidible. And yet their adversaries have an annoying tendency to attack over and over--in the hopes that they will get what they want at the negotiation table.

That says more about the stupidity and/or courage/arrogance of their enemies than the Federation themselves.

Granted. However...logic, indeed, as well as a respect for the lives of the citizens of one's own nation/state, should demand that deterrence is an absolute nessecity.

And what, more than anything else, is the greatest detriment to attack?

As Sun Tzu said,

"What causes opponents to come of their own accord is the prospect of gain. What discourages opponents from coming is the prospect of harm."

And,

"If you can strike few with many, you will thus minimize the number of those with whom you do battle."

And, siskokid888, what is the point you're trying to make? That if the Cardassians attacked Minos Korva the Federation should just say something like this to the colonists there....?

"Oh well, you're just a 20,000 person colony. Your lives aren't as valuable as those other Federation citizens who would be killed liberating you. We're not going to risk our lives for your protection. Have fun living under Cardassian occupation. We all know the Bajorans love it so much."

There are other ethical possibilities including evacuation of Minos Korva or destruction of any habitable planets or the star itself. You act as if the Federation is painted into some sort of Kobyashi Maru scenario. I can think of countless outcomes other than large scale warfare.

Once again--no one is advocating full-scale war.

What we are advocating is the use of force to invariably defend the citizens within the border of a power.

Many a soldier DOES suport the Iraq War. I have spoken with many such men and women personally. Many oppose it, and I have encountered examples of that, as well.

If you want to feel reluctant about the use of military force, that's fine--but do not bash another for feeling differently.

Yes, some soldiers do, and I never said otherwise. But I guarantee you, far less of them do now than they did at the start. Because they trusted their leaders and time found said leaders wanting.

And you damn right I want our leaders to feel reluctant about the use of force. War is the way it is, and you better be one THOUSAND percent sure it is the correct course of action before you send good men and women to die. These are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends who won't be returning to their loved ones.

No one contests that, sir, not I, and NOT my namesake.

I don't "bash" Rush for feeling differently. I bash Rush for his hypocrisy on this issue, both on military matters themselves and how he judges them, to his own conduct in relation to service and how he uses a different yardstick to judge others. He is more than willing to be judgemental of others, yet unwilling to turn the same spotlight of judgement of himself. Yet, when others do, both he and many of his supporters (illustrated by you, for example), cry foul.

Bottom line, if you talk the talk, for the sake of credibility, you should walk the walk.

War is not a football game. It is the most serious of business. When we talk about it, it should not be in the tone of a pep rally.

Sir, did it ever occur to you that--assuming, of course, you accusation is valid--that he actually regrets what happened?

Let me put it this way: If a former alcoholic were to condemn the actions of a current alcoholic, and tell him to shape up, would you call him a hypochrite?

Somehow...I doubt it.

BTW...for all the fun you seem to have bashing Rush for Undeniable Truth number six, calling him a "beligerent chickenhawk"...I refer you to number nineteen:

War itself is an atrocity.

 

[Training]

You will need to come up with some serious evidence to say that Churchill planned to ethnically cleanse East Germany, beyond some daft off-the-cuff comment he made, which he made many of.
EDIT: Oh you mean kicking all the Germans out of modern day Poland? Well, they shouldn't have started the war, sorry, price to be paid. It was tragic that the cost was so high but it did finally resolve the problems of intermingled German populations.

See this is the kind of issue I have with people. Has a guy who was forced to leave the place he was born in because of war. Let me tell you something. It's not fun. You can't just sit there and say oh well it's our fault when you had nothing to do with. Ethnic cleansing for what ever reason is a war crime. It was a crime before WWII and became an even bigger one after it. That kind of reasoning doesn't fly.

You are kidding right? Look at the list of the world's most powerful economies, right up there are Germany and Japan, rebuilt with a new future by the allies. If you attack dozens of countries, commit genocide and generally piss the world off you can hardly complain to be harshly treated if occupied, and the USA invested trillions in rebuilding post-war Europe.

hmm? Germany since it was united became was always an economic giant. In fact that is probably what saved it from ending up the way the Allies probably wanted it. Factories were taken apart. The french were given a chance to steal a part of Germany and were given competitive advantage. It was only after they realised that they couldn't replace the position Germany had before the war when the restrictions were relaxed. Oh and also the fact that the Cold War started and both side tried to impress the Germans. Just imagine what would have happened otherwise.

Germany and Japan were the aggressors and they paid the price, you can't bleat about it.

Am I the only one who can see the difference between punishing the military and political structure of a tyrannical nation and punishing civilians who didn't even live in a democratic society. I'm pretty sure it's easy for you to write this has we live in a comfortable modern day world of the European Union. But if we had people dying right now across the channel? Would you have this smug opinion and congratulate the PM?