|
Curt,
Just a couple of clarifications on your assertions about the Swiss and the Swedes re WW2.
With a certain respect to your knowledge from your other posts it hurts me to say you are more than little incorrect about the role of the US in maintaining their freedom.
As a review of the time line of WW2 will show both nations were 'encircled' for want of a better word long before the US formally entered the war.
They 'remained' neutral becuase to put it bluntly, it served all parties well that they should do so.
Especially the Third Reich and the relevant countries. It is well known that the communications routes thro Switzerland from Germany to Italy were well used by the Nazis to move men and materiel from one to another. Why was this allowed, with quid pro quo was 'don't invade and we won't blow the tunnels'.
The Military advantage this gave the Reich was more than enough to offset the lack of domination. It also provided good ground for meetings between the Allies and the Nazis at anytime, to say nothing of Ford and General Motors Executives meeting 'their' Nazi employees.
The rather important issue of gold also comes into it. Again the Nazis benefitted from the 'hideaway' and the Swiss agreed not to bury the stuff.
Switzerland was until very recently well equipped to cut the major artificial communication links going thro it, bridges, tunnels etc. Whilst this would not stop and invasion it would render the resultant aquisition rather useless.
Similarly Sweden, provider of the very high quality steel, especially ball bearings needed by both sides in the conflict was a neutral territory becuase it suited both sides.
At any time the Nazis could have decided enough was enough and suffered the consequences with little or no gain and plenty of pain. It just wasn't worth their while.
As to wealth of both.
Switzerland has relatively lower taxes than most of Europe, at least on the formal scales. What is not referenced in those tables are the local tax variations form State to State and the other obligatory expenses needed to live within the Society. I refer to our beloved Health Insurance which now, when taken as a percentage of income raises the overall tax base another 5%. Admittedly one can opt to not pay it but there is no safety net, no Medicaid or Medicare...They will come after you for the money....BTDT.
Sweden, whilst burdened by very high taxes has a fantastic health service, great child and elderly care facilities, education facilites which most of us can only dream of and a great Social inclusion which means a whole multitude of societal probelms are avoided, further reducing basic spending.
It may not suit everyone but it works for them. I would say that their average 'quality' of life is generally far higher many including the US but they do not have the discretionary finances which the US enjoys with its own connotations of 'quality' of life and freedom of choice.
The real reason these two nations are relatively envied but do not have the same reaction from people in other geographical areas and cultures is that they are relatively absent from the World stage. They do not overtly provide support to one party or another. Its not to say they do nothing but they prefer to act without the profile.
Back to the topic.
9/11 was avoidable. But by the time it was being planned and the parties being trained an attack on the US was not avoidable.
Its reasons belong far further in the past, before the current generation of politicians and government were in place.
I would support the idea that the information in hand was not clear or sufficient to link together at the time to pin point it to the day and places.
I would also support the idea that a new incoming administration would not have the same priorities and agenda as an out going one, especially as the change in political colour was more drastic than usual.
Airline seciruty would have delayed or altered the nature of the attack but not that there was one. The overall stances adopted by the US and its enemies means conflict remains the most effective method. Not always the best or the worst but the one which; 'gets this done'; 'gets on with it' ;'shows we are serious'.
It goes in both directions BTW, and nobody emerges unscathed.
As with many of these political issues, the truth, whatever that might be is what one side or other presents as all the avliable evidence. At this level impartiality is almost impossible as the stakes are too high for those involved. After even if GW does know he made a mistake he's hardly likely to stand down from a job he really wants, any more then BC stood down after the Monica affair. That was a mistake, and it seriously called into question his judgement yet it was not enough to get him out office.
I hardly think that bar, a taped conversationof GW clearly saying ignore the Al' Queda treat go after Saddam at all costs, this mistake would casue a resignation. May cause him to lose the election to the Democrats (!) but that's politics.
I'd be interested to know if the voices who say the Spanish gave in would say the same to te Democrati victory in November?
|