Not all of your American cousins are total idiots. The polls show that the majority of Americans support the impeachment of President Bush. The reason you won’t find that in our news media is that the media, like Congress and the White House (and now, I am afraid, the judiciary as a result of the appointments of the above) are owned by big business. Only 6 different companies control the majority of the news outlets in this country. Most Americans have absolutely no idea what is really going on in this world. They do not realize that this under this president our nation is fast becoming a fascist one. The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the law itself, much less basic human rights, mean nothing to these people. Our only hope here is that people have finally wised up enough to elect a Democratic majority to the House and Senate so they can seriously begin the process of removing Bush and Cheney from office; the Republicans that control our government now will never do it. The damage they’ve done to this country at every level (except to the upper classes’ pocketbooks and big business, of course) will take years to fix, not to mention the damage they’ve done to this country throughout the rest of the world. Frankly, it has me scared to death.
Posted by maxiemom at February 20, 2006 05:38 PM
Didn’t U.S. Supreme Court justice and über-Republican Antonin Scalia recently write that “people who think the (United States) Constitution is a living document are idiots” - he meant something different, but it is amusing in the context of “freedom of speech” rights enshrined within, and how our governments scheme to make these rights smaller and smaller through legislative authority. Amusing is the wrong word… maybe scary is better. To think that in many countries people lose their lives in the fight for free speech, and here we are …just giving it away.
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at February 21, 2006 08:57 AM
Eric writes:
Question: why were the Red Chinese poking around France’s great line of 1930’s fortifications?
And I say:
They went there to have a laugh.
And would you please stop calling them “Red”? They may be communist, but you make it seem like they’ve got some kind of skin rash.
Posted by Rampart at February 21, 2006 02:31 PM
rampart you’re rimpart who is an expert of ‘rimming’ and seek rimjob on the streets, have no knowledge of world-history just do rampart/rimpart Rimming.Which is your dynasty notorious work.gotcha?
Posted by Salamscion at February 22, 2006 08:56 AM
Whatever Salamscion you are again speaking out of your arse.
Now, the Chinese vistied the Maginot Line probably for historical and touristic purposes. And then again it was not very effective since the Germans overran it pretty quickly. The Chinese would be stupid to try to build one of their own…to stop who, the Mongols? Those lines can’t really stop modern armies
Posted by theking01 at February 22, 2006 10:58 AM
“The Long March had an average of one halt for every 114 miles of marching. The mean daily stage covered was 71 li, or nearly 24 miles, a phenomenal pace for great army and its transport to average over some of the most hazardous terrain on earth. Altogether the Reds crossed 18 mountain ranges, five of which were perennially snow capped, and they crossed 24 rivers. They passed through 12 different provinces, occupied 62 cities, and broke through enveloping armies of 10 different provincial warlords, besides defeating, eluding, or outmaneuvering the various forces of Central Government troops sent against them. They entered and successfully crossed six different aboriginal districts, and penetrated areas through which no Chinese army had gone for scores of years. However one may feel about the Reds and what they represent politically (and there is plenty of room for argument!), it is impossible to deny recognition of military history. In Asia only the Mongols have surpassed it.”
Few lines from Edgar Snow book the Red Star over China.
Posted by Peace at February 22, 2006 05:46 PM
theking01,
The main German attack bypassed the Maginot Line by moving through the Ardennes (the French foolishly believed the Ardennes impassible for armored vehicles, and were expecting the attack to come through Flanders as in WWI).
The Germans did penetrate the Maginot Line eventually, but since they did not attack it in the first place until France was already doomed, it is understandable that the French defenders didn’t put up much of a fight. Even so, the southern arm of the Line, attacked by the Italians in similar circumstances, actually held them back.
Posted by George Carty at February 23, 2006 06:27 AM
It was attacked by Italians….. LOL. Of course, they couldn’t break through.
To lousy Indian Harami-Hindoo, also known as Salamscion :
Hi. How are you? How is girl-friend? How are mommy-daddy?
OK now? I gave you some attention.
Posted by Rampart at February 23, 2006 06:38 AM
The Chinese can copy the maginot line if they want… the stupidest example of perimeter defense ever devised. It shows the French generals had no concept of modern warfare - Napoleon must have rolled over in his grave.
The German attack on the Line from behind after encirclement is a good illustration of why defense in depth works. It is further amusing that the Nazis understood this when launching mobile armour on the Red Army, but Hitler forced perimeter defense on both the Eastern Front and on Fortress Europe later on. Hitler still could have won, or had his eternal slavic war, if he had listened to his theatre commanders. Funny, Hitler was actually a fair strategist (politically and militarily), but became a little unbalanced.
to “theking01” => Julius Caesar equalled or surpassed that on a regular basis - sometimes on roads, sometimes over mountains and snow. Thereafter Roman armies were notorious for the speed of legionary marches. It is an amazing pace of campaigning nevertheless.
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at February 23, 2006 10:33 AM
The French Army was of the belief that the defense was superior to the offense (World War I did have that effect on their thinking). Another weakness that they suffered is that they hadn’t prepared to fight a mobile war. They had expected to be fighting a static action on the eastern borders of France and Belgium, but the Belgians spoiled things by clinging obstinately to their neutrality such that the French could not enter Belgium until after it had been invaded by the Germans.
I once wondered if the Maginot Line might have been better built on the Belgian border instead of the German one. Fortifications made sense for France because of its numerical inferiority relative to Germany (because so many men who would have fathered the WWII generation were killed in WWI), but why not build the fortification facing Belgium (to block any treacherous German attack through that country), while placing the main bulk of their army in Alsace ready to attack into Germany?
Posted by George Carty at February 24, 2006 02:01 PM
It probably never occured to them - that is an interesting question.
The senior French staff were not subscribers to defense in depth and counterattack… but the SS was, until Hitler ordered otherwise later. …except for that political weasel Rommel who was too happy to operate a perimeter defense around Europe against the Allies.
German timing was exquisite anyway, as France had just started to produce superior armour to Germans (whose tanks etc were skirting obsolescence, even if they were the only military force with operational numbers of tanks). Heck,even through 1945 the horse was the most important German military vehicle. The French just didn’t have a critical mass of modern armour to do just what you suggested, I would suspect. I haven’t read about that in a long time…now I have a motivation!
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at February 24, 2006 02:26 PM
The discussion here on the “ineffectiveness” of the Maiginot line misses at least one vital point.
From military, military engineeering and political perspectives the Maiginot Line performed exactly as intended. The Maiginot line was built to force a German army to intrude into Belgium and Holland before attacking France. This was intended to bring Holland and Brussels, along with their allies, into the war on the side of the French, and to cause delay. In other words, the French (unlike the Americans in the idiotic “war against terror”) being fully aware that the advantage is always with the attacker, as a defender has to protect every possible point (and all of the impossible one’s too), while the attacker has only to find a single chink in the armour to achieve victory the line had a political objective rather than a military one. The French were not attempting to “defend from the center” - they only made sure that an attack would be extremely expensive from a political perspective - and would give them time to bring their reserves and their allies into action.
These functions were all achieved.
Posted by Hermit at February 26, 2006 07:42 PM
Actually the function wasn’t achieved. It didn’t make it more expensive politically or militarily. The Allies were already technically at war with Hitler (Holland and Belgium were never a strategic threat), and it certainly didn’t give them any time to mobilise active forces or reserves. It didn’t make Hitler delay or move forward his intended invasion of France, nor did the breakthrough happen via a third country because of the Maginot Line. Hitler knew that he would be required to create a Fortress Europe to guard his rear as he made his prime movement to the East - which would always include the Low Countries. The Maginot Line was in fact a complete failure…as was the Great Wall. …and like the Great Wall, it was only impressive as a feat of engineering and expenditure.
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at February 27, 2006 06:19 AM
Why are you guys discussing history instead of discussing Eric’s article about Tony Blair’s attempt at creating a fascist police state?
Posted by hedagem at February 28, 2006 04:22 AM
Why? Because I changed the direction the comments were taking.
Change it back if you like. Anything important you would like to say?
I was making a point by showing an apathetic attitude towards Toady Blair and anything connected to him. I find him BORING as hell.
History is a far more interesting subject, comparatively.
Posted by Rampart at February 28, 2006 02:51 PM
Actually hedagem,
I read Margolis’s articles regularly, but stopped contributing to the commentary because of all the senseless banter; this potentially interesting forum is consistently hijacked by the same unintelligable and easily angered individuals(not all of you, but most you) who insist on fixating upon the most insignificant aspects of Eric’s article (if an aspect at all).
It is good to read for a good laugh now and then!
Cheers
Posted by Joshua at March 2, 2006 01:17 AM
Joshua, please tell us all what we should think, and what we should talk about.
If Eric prints it, then it’s fair game for discussion here…even if it eventually digresses a bit. I’m sure Eric has this forum here to promote free expression of ideas (unpleasant/uninteresting or not) because it is something he believes in…not because he really needs our input into his columns. If some people speak with anger or bias (or gibberish), so be it. Like I always tell my child, the world doesn’t exist to give you what you want.
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at March 3, 2006 06:51 AM
I am not telling anyone what to think and enjoy debate myself. If people use personal attacks, red herrings, racist or disciminatory remarks and the like in their argument, then any credibility their argument or opinion may have had is completley compromised. Another effect is that hurtful ideas are perpetuated and real solutions are not pursued. Of course, people may write what they like, but it would be more constructive if personal attacks or discriminatroy language were left out of it and the focus remained on the issues alone.
Your response, for example, is critical of me, but you did nither insulted me, nor chastised me; it was a fair comment.
Cheers,
Joshua
Posted by Joshua at March 3, 2006 10:47 AM
Re: Terrorism
Two things I agree with in this article
`terrorism is a tactic, not a definable enemy.’
No cause, however noble, justifies targeting civilians.
Eric then states that:
“The very term `terrorism’ has become a propaganda tool. To preserve the status quo, the Great Powers decided to brand all armed struggles against oppression and injustice as `terrorism.’ “
Here then is the illogic. Erice has now defined what terrorism isn’t - It isn’t an armed struggle against oppression.
If it is a tatic - and repugnant evil tactic at that, then that should be the end of it.
Clearly - under his moral scheme - one need only define oneself as oppressed - and the tactic of terror becomes legitimized. And if it’s legitimate how can he then say thoses employing the tactic need be Jailed in the UK?
Posted by Americanjustice at March 3, 2006 11:02 AM
Joshua: Fair enough. You are right, the quality of response determines whether or not people take the opinion seriously. …and excessive red herring harvests do make me tune out too!
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at March 6, 2006 06:20 AM