"What would've been the outcome of the Cold War if we had not occupied Germany after Nazi defeat in WW2?

Stalin would've marched his troops acrossed Europe and filled the vacuum of power left by absence of Nazi's. He would've conquered England, and with access to the Atlantic, would've invaded the U.S.A. The Cuban Missile Crisis would've happened almost twenty years earlier."

This is rhetoric. There are significant differences between Europe in 1945 and Iraq in 2006. Most notably, the Germans wanted us there and cooperated with the occupying armies.

It is not reasonable to assume the Soviet Union could have invaded and held Western Europe after WWII, if the allies had not been in Germany. Germany and the rest of the signatories of NATO, (even though there may not have been a NATO at the time), as well as the US, were there and would have opposed the invasion. Given that the Soviet economy was never been able to compete with the economies of western nations, they couldn't have afforded to invade and occupy Western Europe. This doesn't even address the fact that Stalin engaged in pogroms that killed off most of his general staff after WWII, his persecution of various minority groups and his well documented psychosis.

The Soviet had no amphibious capabilities to invade England with, (the Germans had no amphibious capabilities, which kept them out of England during WWII, the same problems would have faced a planned Soviet invasion of England prior to the development of large transport aircraft).

Even with England as a base, the USSR would have faced impossible logistical problems invading North America. They had no power base in Cuba, (Castro didn't take over until 1959), nor did they have the pseudo-client states that later developed in Central America, (see "Red Dawn" for an interesting, but impossible account of how the Soviets would have used their client states in the new world.).

As far as harkening the Cuba missile crisis, I doubt, very seriously that the Baptiste regime would have been willing to host Soviet nuclear missiles - particularly in the time frame you cite. "...almost twenty years earlier" was 1942 and the Soviets didn't develop nuclear weapons until after WWII, much less ballistic launch vehicles. The only people with cruise/ballistic missiles in 1942 were the Nazis. Even at the height of its development, the range of the V2 was less than two hundred miles, which would have limited the threat to an area made up of, approximately, 100 miles of south Florida.

There are no similarities between what happened in Germany at the end of WWII and Iraq. After WWII, we prosecuted the Nazis for "pre-emptively" invading countries to protect their interests. It was called "waging aggressive war" and it is a crime in the Nuremberg charter. Germany was not a nation torn apart by sectarian factions, Iraq is. No matter what happens in Iraq, the contention between the ethnic and religious groups will continue. They have been fighting each other throughout history and it takes the worst kind of hubris to assume we can end it in three years or thirty years of occupation.

In your first paragraph, "It is not reasonable to assume the Soviet Union could have invaded and held Western Europe after WWII, if the allies had not been in Germany. Germany and the rest of the signatories of NATO, (even though there may not have been a NATO at the time), as well as the US, were there and would have opposed the invasion." You make my point precisely. Because an opposition force was in place, the advance of Communist Russia was halted. We must maintain the same type of opposition force in Iraq.

You say the Nazi's were not in England. Check your history. Hitler was in full swing implementing his plans to invade England in 1940. Go research Battle of Britain.

My statement about the Cuban Missile Crisis is symbolic of Communist Russian desire to invade the U.S. I'm making no claims as to the ability of Russia to deploy specific types of weapons in any particular region in 1942. Since they had the desire, they would've found a way.

And to your last point, I contend our purpose in Iraq is not to hinder or otherwise participate in sectarian violence. Our purpose, simply, is to set up a base of operations in the tumultuous, terrorist-infested middle east.

We aren't there for the protection of Iraqis. We aren't there for the protection of Israel. We're there for the protection of the United States from the ever increasing threat of Islamo-fascism.

You say that Germany was in England in 1940. They were busy invading France, Belgium and the low countries in the 1940. Operation Barbarrossa kicked off in June 1941. It would be overstating to say that Hitler was too stupid to wage war on two fronts, he wasn't. If he had earnestly planned on invading Britain, he would have done it.

Did the Germans have plans to invade England from the sea? Yes, Operation Sea Lion, the German invasion of England, was being planned starting in 1940 and wasn't abandoned totally until 1943. However, Hitler choose to listen to Herman Goering and allow the Luftwaffe to "subdue" the English in perparation for an invasion. The plan then changed to bombing the English into submission, forcing them to capitulate, therefore negating the need for a seaborne invastion.

Whatever the "plan," there never was a set date for jump off that the Germans would have invaded Britain. This is diametrically opposed to Hitler's almost fanatical planning and well established jump off days for all his other invasions/annexations. The Kreigsmarine was not equipped to move the planned number of men across the English Channel and get them ashore in England. The best they ever managed was barges, which had no amphibious capabilities, they simply would have moved the men across the channel without the capability of landing them - very slowly and very vulnerable to allied air and sea power. The plan was never practical. However, probably the real reason that Hitler never invaded England is that he didn't want to. I realize this is controversial, but I think it is supported by adequate evidence.

The sovs had no amphibious capabilities during this period. They had difficulty getting troops across rivers and into Stalingrad.

Neither the USSR nor Germany are truly maritime nations. Certainly not like Japan or Britain. The Japanese had amphibious capabilities. The Germans could have copied them, (technology interchange between the two countries was carried out during the war), but never did. Result, in my humble opinion - all the way through a Ph.D. in Modern European History - is that Hitler never intended to invade England. Although, I realize this conclusion may not be suported by everyone.

If we are not in Iraq to protect Iraqis, why does the President continuously say we are there to stabilize Iraq and establish a "stable democracy"? It seems like this is protecting Iraqis. If we aren't interested in stopping sectarian violence, then how come we keep putting American troops in the middle of sectarian violence? Even Bush has admitted that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. In historical context, I can't imagine that Hussein would have tolerated a "two party" state - the Baathists and Al Qaeda. He was pretty much a one party guy-it was all about him. How is stirring up hatred for the US by invading a Muslim country protecting the US from the "increasing threat of Islamo-fascism"?

You asked, "How is stirring up hatred for the US by invading a Muslim country protecting the US from the "increasing threat of Islamo-fascism"?

Protection of the U.S. is not related to our amicability. The amount of hatred that exists for us is unrelated how threatened we are. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims everywhere to hate us...as long as they do not have the ability to act upon that hate. We are in Iraq to limit the ability of rogue nations in the middle east to inflict physical harm on us and our allies. The first of these was Saddam's Iraq.

Don't forget that both Democrats and Republicans spoke out about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his desire for WMD's. [ Here's a refresher: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/15/video-when-believing-saddam-had-wmds-was-cool/ ] The same thing is now happening in Iran, and has already happened in North Korea.

Our politicians believed Saddam posed a grave threat, and, in a post-9/11 world, we were not willing to wait until we are attacked to respond. Therefore, we ousted Saddam, removed the imminent threat of WMD's, and, this is my opinion, we should remain so that we can deal with the same threat posed by Iran and other nations.

Do you know of a non-military way of thwarting an imminent physical threat (perceived or otherwise)?

You are right, "Protection of the U.S. is not related to our amicability." However, terrorist attacks against the US have arise from animus towards the US. So, if we increase the animus, it is logical to assume that more "Islamo-fascists." (whatever an Islamo-fascist is, it seems to me that fascism needs a cogent national identity to be viable as a political philosophy. "Fascism, used this way is the mother of all dysphemisms.), will act on their animus and attack the US.

Of course, there is no empirical data to support either position, because, outside of our involvement in Iraq, there has been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11. All there has been is the current administration crying wolf in order to strip away our civil rights to "protect" us from a danger that is, largely, a figment of their imagination...

Do, do you advocate the invasion of other nations that "we" (the US) perceive as threats? ["We are in Iraq to limit the ability of rogue nations in the middle east to inflict physical harm on us and our allies. The first of these was Saddam's Iraq."] Once we subdue Iraq, are we going to move on to subdue the next middle eastern country that we perceive as being able to "inflict harm on us and our allies"? Doesn't Saudi Arabia fit this definition? If our allies aren't interested in doing this, why is it our responsibility to do it for them?

Why limit our efforts just to the middle east? [It has nothing to do with the fact that a large part of the world's supply of crude oil lies lies under the middle east, I suppose] North Korea is, at least, as much a threat to us as Bush said Iraq was at the beginning of the war - after all, we have objective evidence they have nuclear weapons and Kim Jong Il and his cohorts make threats all the time about using them against us.

There are no "good" choices in iraq, unfortunately. The easiest answer would have been to never have invaded it. Since, at the time of our invasion, Iraq possessed no present ability to "inflict harm on us and our allies," according to your standard, there was no reason to invade it. [The Bush administration has admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction nor a terrorism connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists.]

Nixon campaigned on a "get the US out of Vietnam" platform, then turned right around and expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia. So, perhaps it is the republicans' belief that we can "win" (or, at least, get a positive outcome) in Iraq if we invade Syria and Iran. [Members of the current administration, quoted anonymously in the Guardian, have intimated that the current administration is going to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq in a "last push" before January, so maybe this is will happen]

There will be no good solution in Iraq, no matter what we do. Terrorism is a criminal act, perpetrated by stateless individuals with no set agenda, other than to terrorize people. It is, therefore, a law enforcement problem and not in the perview of the Departments of State and Defense. Invading and controlling, or not controlling, one country in the middle east isn't going to change that. [In the past, terrorism was defined as an action that killed the fewest possible number of people in order to aid a clearly established political goal - like establishment of the Palestinian state. Now, terrorism is the killing of as many people as possible, without any clearly established political goal, just for the sake of killing.] At this point, we will have to begin a phased withdrawal of US troops in Iraq, letting the Iraqis find their own path, (sort of like what the French did with the nanescent US after the Revolutionary War). Another republican president called this strategy "peace with honor." It isn't, but it is the best we can accomplish. Either that, or we can leave 144,000 troops in a place where they are fighting and dying without a clear and well thought out "goal" forever.

So, what do you think will be gained by continuing the war in Iraq? When does it end? How do we know when we have "won" or achieved a "good" outcome? How does an Iraqi civil war threaten the US? If Saudi Arabia deteriorated into a state of civil war, would you advocate invading it in order to establish a "stable" democracy? When, and under what circumstances, would you withdraw from Iraq, or do you advocate US occupation of Iraq indefinitely? Do you believe the Bush administration has a clear and cogent strategy to prevail in Iraq sometime within the current decade? [I am not being sarcastic about the time frame.] If so, what is it?

Why the barrage?

For being such a pacifist, your method of debate is awfully aggressive.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to accomodate you. But please, in your response, please try to stay focused.

If we do this right, we can learn from each other. I can learn from you, and you from me. We'll both be better off. Your hammering on the keyboard, however, will only make that difficult.

Here we go...

Do, do you advocate the invasion of other nations that "we" (the US) perceive as threats?

Without hesitation.

Once we subdue Iraq, are we going to move on to subdue the next middle eastern country that we perceive as being able to "inflict harm on us and our allies"?

We should start before we subdue Iraq.

Doesn't Saudi Arabia fit this definition?

No. Will X Ability = Threat. The Saudis don't have the diplomatic will. They're not willing to damage their foreign trade relationship with us.

If our allies aren't interested in doing this, why is it our responsibility to do it for them?

The answer is fairly complex. It relates to the objectives of each nation, the definition of the word "allies," and who you are including in the list.

Why limit our efforts just to the middle east?

We shouldn't.

There are no "good" choices in iraq, unfortunately. The easiest answer would have been to never have invaded it. Since, at the time of our invasion, Iraq possessed no present ability to "inflict harm on us and our allies," according to your standard, there was no reason to invade it.

You're wrong. Saddam was actively in the process of developing nuclear weapons. The fact that there was no present ability upon our invasion was due to the fact that we invaded. It is reasonable to believe incriminating materials would've been moved or destroyed by the regime, or don't you believe in shredding documents? Rumsfeld showed everyone on national television satellite images of trucks transporting something out of Iraq.

So, what do you think will be gained by continuing the war in Iraq?

I already told you.

When does it end?

"It" never ends. The principles of this situation are truisms. We must maintain the "peace through strength" strategy forever because it is the only correct foreign policy.

How do we know when we have "won" or achieved a "good" outcome?

We already have. We stopped Saddam's marched toward nuclear weapons. We've tied up Al Qaeda and given radical Islam something to focus on instead of our homeland.

How does an Iraqi civil war threaten the US?

A civil war in Iraq does not threaten the U.S.

If Saudi Arabia deteriorated into a state of civil war, would you advocate invading it in order to establish a "stable" democracy?

Not based solely on that fact.

When, and under what circumstances, would you withdraw from Iraq, or do you advocate US occupation of Iraq indefinitely?

I advocate US maintaining military installations in Iraq indefinitely.

Do you believe the Bush administration has a clear and cogent strategy to prevail in Iraq sometime within the current decade?

I think the Bush administration HAD a clear and cogent strategy to prevail in Iraq, but they executed that plan too quickly. In my opinion, the U.S. should've maintained transitional authority long enough to develop the economy of Iraq (think MacArthur).

If so, what is it?

It WAS 1) Military control, 2) Installation of transitional authority, 3) Election of National Assembly 4) Ratification of Constitution/return sovereignty to Iraqis.

and how is keeping thousands of our troops in a country that never wanted them there in the first place helpful to us? didn't we as a people learn from the crusades? you ignored the fact that increasing religious animosity from fundmental islamists is what causes islamic terrorism. since 9/11 we have been playing into their strategy. they knew we would lash out at the middle east with iraq being the most likely target. in my opinion, the best strategy would have been to rebuild the WTC exactly as it was. what could be the biggest f-you to the terrorists than that? they wanted us to be afraid of them and that is exactly where we are still today.

i agree, saddam should have been removed from power. but it was the u.s. that put him in power in the first place.any wmd's he actually had we gave to him. the best way to stop people like this is to not help them even when they serve our interests at the time. there is no such thing as a means to an end, the means ARE the end. when we help murderous dictators, we become murderous dictators.