RE: How much security does $1 trillion buy?

["Alex Eckelberry" <AlexE () sunbelt-software com>]

It's worth noting that Chamberlin vastly overstated the abilities of the
Third Reich and had MPs literally cowering in their seats, buttressing
the argument for appeasement.  It's kind of what happened in the Bush
administration, but as a converse -- the power of Germany was overstated
in order to argue for appeasement, instead of war. 

(The truth was that Hitler's Germany was not nearly as powerful as
everyone thought and that the Czechoslovak army was at a complement,
strength and morale exceeding the German army.  But the European powers
sabotaged the ability of the Czechoslovak government to fight through
the Sudetenland arrangements made between France, Italy, Germany and the
UK  -- the Munich Agreement/Dictate.  Etc., etc., long historical
discussion could follow but I'm on a short leash time-wise)  

Sadly, overstating the strength of a foreign power is not entirely
uncommon.  And it's never been a very good idea in the long-run.  Iraq,
a tattered, run-down nation, with a mad dictator who himself hated
Al-Qaeda.  One truly wonders. 

Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
On Behalf Of Drsolly
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:01 PM
To: Brian Loe
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] How much security does $1 trillion buy?

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Brian Loe wrote:

> On 8/1/07, Rick Wesson <wessorh () ar com> wrote:
>
> > the point is... as a nation we had a choice to go to war.
>
> We have the choice to continue letting the blood run on the streets or

> ban motor vehicles.
>
> We have the choice to ban all tobacco products.
>
> We have the choice to refuse medical services to those who can not 
> afford it, emergency or otherwise, or who are suffering from 
> self-inflicted injuries or sicknesses.
>
> We have the choice to defend innocence, wherever it may be found, 
> facing the brutality of evil regimes wherever they may be found. Yes, 
> this generally means going to war.
>
> So I have to join Dennis in asking, whats the point?
>
> Question: If England had went to war with Germany when Churchill FIRST

> called for it, way before England was attacked and just after Poland 
> was invaded, would you complain about the costs of that war?

Your grasp of history is breathtaking.  That's exactly when we did go to
war against Germany - a couple of days after the invasion of Poland.  I
thought everyone knew that. Evidently there's at least one American who
doesn't.

> Did it
> cost more to go to war later rather than sooner? Hard to say, but just

> in lives lost and and the damage done to London I would have to 
> believe Churchill was trying to save some money...

Since yout assumption about when England went to war is historically
incorrect, your question doesn't arise.

If you want to be taken seriously as an analyst of events, you have to
get those events correct.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.