[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I was referring mostly to the relation between Stalin and Mao Zedong. Many communist ideals suggested by Mao were based on Stalin's model of the USSR. Evn this conflict wasn't that great compared to worldwide conflicts. Those were nothing more than a series of small scale battles which didn't last for a year. It happens, but not more often than democratic-led conflicts. The point I'm making is that democracy as it exists in reality isn't so much different except for the fact it is more subtle and deceptive.

You claimed, "the USSR and Communist China were actually in very good terms with each other because they shared the same beliefs. There was conflict between dictatorships and democracies, but not between two dictatorships" The fact is there were tensions between the Soviet Union and China that resulted in conflict. In fact the tensions between the two where the reason Nixon tried to improve relations with China.

Of course the allies could not stop Germany from taking Poland, Austria or Czecoslovakia. In all those cases, they would have had to cross German broders, which would've inevitably caused severe damage to their military forces. And in the case of Poland, allied interference would've incited Stalin to retaliate as well, and nobody wanted to get on his bad side at the time. If allied forces tried to do something about them, they'd have been surrounded by Germany and the USSR. It was a no win situation then. However, Hitler still did not have sufficient forces to tackle the allies when he took the Rhineland, when the UK and France could've easily stopped Hitler. That was appeasement as it was breaching the Varsailles treaty. Yet France did nothing to stop this and they were to later pay the price for this.

France couldn't do anything then either without starting another war. All you're doing is suggesting the allies start the war sooner, but they are't exactly in a great position for it either at the time. You are also seriously underestimating the effect things like the Battle of the Somme had on people who went though it. It was something political leaders in Britain and France wanted to avoid again if at all possible.

How was it justified? What did Osama have there that was so dangerous? Weapons of mass destruction? The only thing there is over there that's of any real value is oil. That's what the Soviets wanted in the old days, and what Bush wanted during his presidency. There was nothing else there that posed a threat to the Bush administration.

Afghanistan does not have a large oil industry. It's believed there might be oil there, but at present it hasn't been found and estimate put it at 3.6 billion barrels, which is less than estimates for the amount of oil in ANWR. So no, you're wrong about oil being a primary reason in either case. You're also forgetting that the US was attacked by terrorists operating from there. Three thousand dead civilians is a pretty good justification for war, don't you think?