Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

iraq report is in, let the spinn beginFollow

#177 Oct 04 2007 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Dread Lord Rimesume wrote:
**** Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around. They did it on their own accord and were not forced to do it by any means.


And now we're right back around the circle again...

The existence of a state of war is irrelevant. We were *also* at a state of war with Iraq. The point is that Germany had no plans, nor had taken any actions towards an attack/invasion of US soil, yet we chose to push forward with a plan to engage them militarily. So saying that Iraq had not done so either does not invalidate our choice to engage *them* militarily either.

See how that works?

Quote:
So you're telling me **** Germany declared war on the US for fucks and fun? The **** regime while bastards by every sense of the word, however they weren't stupid. They wouldn't have declared war on the US if they didn't actually plan to do anything about it.


History disagrees with you. Perhaps you should learn it first?

Here's the letter delivered by the German Ambassador to the US at the time:

Quote:
MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP.



Not exactly a "we're going to crush you like a bug" message, is it? There's no indication of any desire for war, and certainly no indication of a desire or intent to attack the US itself. In fact, the Germans considered the US's actions to be a de-facto declaration of war already and were simply formalizing the matter (and state as much in the letter).

So yeah. It's quite possible that they "declared war", but had no intention on ever actually attacking the US itself, but only acting against US forces interfering in an existing conflict. As far as any historian I've read can tell, the only thing the intended to do about it was fight against US intervention, not actually attack the US itself.

But hey! Why learn about history when you can just make it up, I suppose...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Oct 04 2007 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:

But hey! Why learn about history when you can just make it up, I suppose...


Which is exactly what you've been doing this entire thread, fuckass. But please, go ahead and make a 15 paragraph post trying to explain your ignorance, all the while changing the point. It's always worked for you before.
#179 Oct 04 2007 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
So, while I think that Gbajis' examination of the 'positives' and 'negatives' of the (illegal) invasion of a sovereign country that wasn't a threat to either the US or its neighbours,

resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees,

the trashing of the US's image abroad, the general de-stabilaizing of an already volatile region,

the rise and rise of AlQaeda and the continued liberty of OBl,

not to mention the world becoming a MORE dangerous place due to terrorism, and the loss of personal liberty (from air travel restrictions to govt spying on the books you borrow from the library),

....is severly fucking retarded in his conclusion that invading said country was a 'good' idea,

I have got to agree with him when he says that Maccy D's is a shite place to eat.

So there, stick with EQ and fast food dude, and you will be this years most ace poster in my books.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#180 Oct 05 2007 at 1:16 AM Rating: Good
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
I have got to agree with him when he says that Maccy D's is a shite place to eat.


Yeah, I agreed with the fast-food bit too. I don't play EQ though, so that's all I can come up with in 3 years of reading this board...

Quote:
If you'd care to come up with some other positive for the US engaging militarily with Germany during WW2 that can't be said to apply to Iraq, I'd love to hear it


See, you're back to trying to compare the two.

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no "positives" for the US to engage with Germany, than can't be said about Iraq?

Quote:
So far, I've shot down every single one.


Oh right, I must've missed that. Smiley: oyvey

Still, well done, top gun!
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#181 Oct 05 2007 at 5:05 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Edited, Oct 4th 2007 6:05pm by Smasharoo

Edited, Oct 4th 2007 6:06pm by Smasharoo


So how about those tests I gave you, any interest in displaying your objectivity?
#182 Oct 05 2007 at 5:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Off topic, and I'm drinking my coffee here, but I consistantly read your posting name as Platipus. I thought you'd like to know.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#183 Oct 05 2007 at 5:20 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Me too. Smiley: smile
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#184 Oct 05 2007 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
Thanks for letting me know, Xena and Tear
#185 Oct 05 2007 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Palpitus wrote:
Thanks for letting me know, Xena and Tear


I am a warrior princess and Tear is my sidekick. Watch out, she'll make you cry Platipus.

xNexax
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#186 Oct 05 2007 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
silly gbaji, don't you learn anything about researching your so call facts?

Forget the basic history textbook, hhat you had in school. I don't expect an IT worker, to have taken advance courses in world history. Actually neither have I taken any advance courses, but my mother was an history major at Arizona State during WWII. Growing up, she often would go deeper into the background of history, we watch on TV and read in book about about the war, growing up. I then got into war gaming and while I mainly focus on medieval history of Europe, you can't be around other war gamers without learning more about the Army's and battles of WWII.

Hitler did have plans to invade the USA and had soldiers that were train to run territories in the US, according to the accounts of at least one infantryman in Ken Burns documentary The War. I don't have the time or patience to look up supporting documents, but he made care that one of the German soldiers he capture, knew facts about his home town that few outside of natives would know.

Also there is the matter of trying to get major cities along the coast to adhere to the Blackout. Ken Burn show archival film, which look like it was taken by German U-boats, of ships they torpedo in NY City and Boston Harbors.

I want to get the book that goes with the PBS series, to add to our collection of Military History. Jonwin knows far more then I do, but then he also reads Military History for fun, which got him his last 2 jobs.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#187 Oct 05 2007 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Quote:
If you'd care to come up with some other positive for the US engaging militarily with Germany during WW2 that can't be said to apply to Iraq, I'd love to hear it


See, you're back to trying to compare the two.

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no "positives" for the US to engage with Germany, than can't be said about Iraq?



Well. I'm waiting for you (or someone) to list them. So far, the only person to do so listed three points, all of which *also* exist similarly in the framework of the Iraq war. Um... Let's also not forget that listing the positives wasn't really the point I was going after (although it's a valid direction to go).

The starting point of all of this was that I was calling into question the method being used to declare the Iraq war unjustified. I observed that almost without fail whenever someone makes a case against the decision to invade Iraq, they simply rattle off a list of negatives involved. I countered that if all you do is rattle off negatives, you would conclude the same thing for just about any proposed action. To prove this, I contended that if all you did was list off the negatives surrounding the decision of the US to get involved militarily in Europe during WW2 you would also conclude it wasn't worth it.


I argued that you need to weigh the negatives and the positives, and challenged you guys to explain to me what positives justified the negatives of our involvement in Europe during WW2 (arguably much higher cost and loss of lives), and show that similar positives simply didn't exist (or didn't exist in sufficient quantities) with regard to Iraq.

No one has come even remotely close to doing that. What I got instead was a handful of posters continually trying to list off stuff about Germany and insisting that nothing similar exists in Iraq (like the whole "We were defending our shores from invasion" argument), and the remainder simply insisting that it's somehow wrong to compare the Iraq war to WW2 (without really explaining why). In this context, it's perfectly correct to make this comparison. I'm not saying the two conflicts are identical. I'm simply taking a conflict that we all agree was "necessary" for the US to fight, and challenging those of you insisting that Iraq is unnecessary to show why one was and the other isn't. And not via some hopped up rhetoric. I want actual analysis. So far, I haven't gotten much of that. Most of the attempts seem to just be folks restating the same assumptions over and over.


But I keep trying. Maybe someday people around here will make their minds about something by actually looking at the facts of the situation rather then just repeating whatever position they heard on TV and insisting that it must be correct no matter what.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Oct 05 2007 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Well. I'm waiting for you (or someone) to list them.
Germany had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq didn't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 Oct 05 2007 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Gbaji said

Quote:
I want actual analysis.


Pesonnaly I think you need a brain transplant...

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#190 Oct 06 2007 at 1:38 AM Rating: Decent
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Gbaji said

Quote:
I want actual analysis.


Pesonnaly I think you need a brain...



Fixed, that should have been made apparent for as long as he has been parroting Bush.
#191 Oct 08 2007 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Well. I'm waiting for you (or someone) to list them.
Germany had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq didn't.


I'm sorry? We went to war with Germany to destroy their WMDs? Who woulda thunk?


And the bit about Iraq is pure strawman. At the risk of restating a point I've made on at least a dozen different occasions on this board, we didn't go to war with Iraq because Iraq "possessed stockpiles of WMDs", as that link suggests (via negation anyway, ie: "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003"

I'll again point to the linked resolution earlier in this thread. Find me which of the 22 facts stated by Congress in that resolution states that Iraq possesses stockpiles of WMDs? It's not there. It was not a reason why we went to war. It's a strawman hyped by the anti-war folks. Nothing more.


It also ignores the point. What positives were there for the US as a result of invading Germany? Show that those same positives don't exist (in similar quanities) with regard to Iraq. List *real* positives. Not bogus ones.

What you're all tap dancing around is that at the time we choose to get involved in Europe during WW2 there were very few tangible immediate positive reasons to do so. FDR essentially made a decision that what Germany was doing was wrong and that the world would be a better place if they did not succeed at what they were trying to do. He was right. GWB made a decision that what Iraq was doing was wrong and that the world would be a better place if they did not succeed at what they were tying to do. We don't know yet if he was right. Of course, we'll never find out if we fail in Iraq...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Oct 08 2007 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
if we fail in Iraq...


You are completely fucking hatstand!

If you fail....hahahahahahahahahahah../deep breath...hahahahahahah!


Why dont you list for the un-enlightened out here in 'mainstream-media-land' what the 'positives' are that have come from the invasion of Iraq so far? Hmmm?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#193 Oct 08 2007 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Why dont you list for the un-enlightened out here in 'mainstream-media-land' what the 'positives' are that have come from the invasion of Iraq so far? Hmmm?


I'd say roughly the same as the "positives" from invading mainland Europe during WW2 when we were still in the process of doing it.

What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#194 Oct 08 2007 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
No. Really....

Why don't you actually list them, rather than continuing to compare WWII to this sordid little enterprise in the ME??

Should be a fascinating read.....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#195 Oct 08 2007 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
No. Really....

Why don't you actually list them, rather than continuing to compare WWII to this sordid little enterprise in the ME??

Should be a fascinating read.....


Let's see...

Bringing about change in the middle east via introduction of a working democracy (more on this in a minute)

Making it harder for terrorists to obtain weapons with which to kill people around the globe by removing one of the prime potential sources for said weapons.

Stabilize the region by removing from power a government that seemed hell bent on killing and/or invading anyone around or inside their country that they didn't agree with.

Perhaps creating an example for the rest of the region. Maybe if Iraq can build a government in which it's not ruled by pure power and fear, it'll rub off on the rest of the people in the ME. They'll look across the border at Iraq and wonder why their leaders don't allow them the same freedoms.

Put a nation in the region that's friendly to the west instead of antagonistic. Currently, every single regime in that region came to power as a result of being placed in power by foreigners. If our process allows the Iraqi's to decide (even if it's a painful process), they'll know that the result is their own choice. That's a pretty big thing, and something that we in the west tend to take for granted.

Heck. Removal of Saddam from power. He was a pretty horrific guy, even by ME standards.

On a more direct note:

More US influence in the region.

The ability to project force into the area from a friendly point (Iraq). Given the rise of terrorism from that part of the world, and the number of states that either directly or indirectly support said terrorism, this might be a good thing.


I could probably list a dozen more, but that's a pretty good start. You'll note that all of these are forward looking. But then the same was true with Germany in WW2. We gained *nothing* during the fight. We stood to gain a heck of a lot if the fight was won. Interestingly enough, many of the positives that exist for Iraq *didn't* exist for Germany (there was already democracy in the country and in the region as a whole). Mostly, the US gained influence and power as a result (bases in the region and friendly nations to operate out of and in conjunction with). One could argue that while Germany was a bigger military threat at the time, the gains to the US for defeating them were *smaller* then the potential gains to the US (and the world as a whole) for success in Iraq.


We have an opportunity to reverse an alarming trend in the political landscape of our world here. Just as we did in the 1940s. At the time, the ideology was fascism. We defeated it and it hasn't been taken seriously since. Today, it's state sponsored/supported terrorism. We have the same choice before us. We have the same ability to deal with it today as we dealt with fascism back then. The only question is whether we have the will to succeed as we did back then.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Oct 08 2007 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
George W. Bush said

Quote:
We have an opportunity to reverse an alarming trend in the political landscape of our world here. Just as we did in the 1940s. At the time, the ideology was fascism. We defeated it and it hasn't been taken seriously since. Today, it's state sponsored/supported terrorism. We have the same choice before us. We have the same ability to deal with it today as we dealt with fascism back then. The only question is whether we have the will to succeed as we did back then.


Smiley: nodSmiley: nod

Working democracy? When almost every proffesional has either been murdered or exiled? Surely you jest?
Quote:

Making it harder for terrorists to obtain weapons with which to kill people around the globe by removing one of the prime potential sources for said weapons.


You fool! Iraq is now awash with weapons either looted from the weapons bunkers post invasion, or handed out by the US to its 'allies' and are now being used against you.
Quote:


Stabilize the region by removing from power a government that seemed hell bent on killing and/or invading anyone around or inside their country that they didn't agree with.


There is no way you could call the ME more stable now than it was 5 years ago. No way.


Quote:

Perhaps creating an example for the rest of the region. Maybe if Iraq can build a government in which it's not ruled by pure power and fear, it'll rub off on the rest of the people in the ME. They'll look across the border at Iraq and wonder why their leaders don't allow them the same freedoms.


Thats a lot of ifs and maybes....

I really challenge anyone to find someone in the region who looks at Iraq today with anything aproaching envy.....
Quote:

Put a nation in the region that's friendly to the west instead of antagonistic.


Well you got a puppet govt. in Iraq. The rest of the region hates your guts. Not a very good trade-off I'd say.

Quote:
Heck. Removal of Saddam from power. He was a pretty horrific guy, even by ME standards.


Worth tens of thousands of civilian deaths and several thousand US deaths?? Doubt it really...

The rest of it is just related to your paranoid delusions about the threat posed to west by 'terrorism' wich I might add has probably increased since you're C in C's idiotic and illegal invasion of Iraq.




____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#197 Oct 08 2007 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Working democracy? When almost every proffesional has either been murdered or exiled? Surely you jest?


No. I don't.

But lets leave the odd of success out of it. We're just looking at the potential positives. It's not like we knew what the odds were for the positives that occurred after WW2 to happen either, but that didn't stop us from doing what needed to be done.

Quote:
You fool! Iraq is now awash with weapons either looted from the weapons bunkers post invasion, or handed out by the US to its 'allies' and are now being used against you.


Sure. Hand guns. The occasional RPG. But we're not worried about someone operating a secret chemical weapons lab and handing the results to terrorists without us knowing about it, are we?

I'm not sure what you're point is here. All conflict requires that things get "worse" before they get better. If you only engage in a conflict if at no point will things ever be "worse" then before you started, you'd never fight. Ever.

What sort of logic is this? I'm curious. It's absurd to argue that a conflict is unjust purely because at some point during the conflict there are more weapons in play and people dying then there was before the conflict started. That's an absurd criteria IMO and certainly does not say anything in particular about Iraq.

Quote:
There is no way you could call the ME more stable now than it was 5 years ago. No way.


And there's no way you could say that Europe was more stable in 1944 then in 1942. What's your point? The US involvement (specifically after D-day) vastly increased the amount of violence and death in Europe, yet I'm assuming you'd agree that this was an important step in the right direction.

How about in 10 years? or 20? The positives specifically come about after we succeed. We haven't succeeded yet. Maybe you shouldn't look at how things are *now*, but at how they might be.

Are you that utterly unable to just stop and think about this rationally? Forget the odds. Just look at what would happen if we do succeed. Can you even do that?


Quote:
I really challenge anyone to find someone in the region who looks at Iraq today with anything aproaching envy.....


Today being the operative word. I'm sure no one looked at the towns we destroyed in France and Belgium during WW2 with envy either. But (again) we look back today and with no hesitation agree that it was worth it.

Yet again you show an inability to look forward. Even when I show example after example (from WW2 no less) of situations that were horrible, but in the end were necessary and universally accepted as the right thing to do, you're continue to insist that since things are worse "today" then they were before we invaded, that our actions must be wrong.

Same argument could have been made in Bastogne, right?


Quote:
Well you got a puppet govt. in Iraq. The rest of the region hates your guts. Not a very good trade-off I'd say.


Funny how it's a puppet government when that's a convenient argument, and the US is allowing them to form some crazy theocracy when that's convenient. Um... We're letting the Iraqi's decide how to form their government. We're certainly making suggestions along the way, but by no means are we forcing anything on them. In fact, we're not even forcing them to keep us in their country. If the Iraqi government votes to kick us out, we'll leave.

Strangely, they haven't done that. We didn't appoint a single one of their members of Parliament Paulsol. If your assumption is correct, then how do you explain this? Maybe they are a lot more free then you think, and they're a lot more willing to have US assistance then you think as well. But I guess it fits better into your simplistic world view to just assume the US is some overbearing authoritarian occupying force...

Quote:
Quote:
Heck. Removal of Saddam from power. He was a pretty horrific guy, even by ME standards.


Worth tens of thousands of civilian deaths and several thousand US deaths?? Doubt it really...


Not by itself no. Convenient that you ignore everything else.

Quote:
The rest of it is just related to your paranoid delusions about the threat posed to west by 'terrorism' wich I might add has probably increased since you're C in C's idiotic and illegal invasion of Iraq.


Yes. Because you know exactly how many global terrorist attacks there would have been if we'd not invaded Iraq.

Oh wait! You don't. Hmmm...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Oct 08 2007 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry? We went to war with Germany to destroy their WMDs? Who woulda thunk?
Smiley: laugh

LERN2JOKE
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Oct 09 2007 at 12:38 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Bringing about change in the middle east via introduction of a working democracy (more on this in a minute)


Israel and Yemen were already sort of working democracies. Plenty of other countries had a democratic parliament and such. Pretty much the least democratic country (more than Iraq even) was and is Saudi Arabia, the biggest US ally. Sure, this could be a part of the reason, but it isn't consistent by itself.

Quote:
Making it harder for terrorists to obtain weapons with which to kill people around the globe by removing one of the prime potential sources for said weapons.


Key word being potential. Iraq under Hussein didn't truck with terrorists (that weren't his). Iraq after the US leaves, well I'd say it's much more likely.

Quote:
Stabilize the region by removing from power a government that seemed hell bent on killing and/or invading anyone around or inside their country that they didn't agree with.


Two 1v1 wars in the past 30 years is hell-bent? Inside the country, agreed.

Quote:
Perhaps creating an example for the rest of the region. Maybe if Iraq can build a government in which it's not ruled by pure power and fear, it'll rub off on the rest of the people in the ME. They'll look across the border at Iraq and wonder why their leaders don't allow them the same freedoms.


Yeah, King Hussein of Jordan for example sure rules through power and fear. I guess you just mean Iran here. God forbid the ME continues to set its own examples...

Quote:
Put a nation in the region that's friendly to the west instead of antagonistic. Currently, every single regime in that region came to power as a result of being placed in power by foreigners. If our process allows the Iraqi's to decide (even if it's a painful process), they'll know that the result is their own choice. That's a pretty big thing, and something that we in the west tend to take for granted.


My god, hardly any nations in the Middle East are antagonistic to the west. Most are neutral bordering on suspicious, but antagonistic? Iran, Syria...and who else?

Quote:
Heck. Removal of Saddam from power. He was a pretty horrific guy, even by ME standards.


Agreed.

Quote:
On a more direct note:

More US influence in the region.

The ability to project force into the area from a friendly point (Iraq). Given the rise of terrorism from that part of the world, and the number of states that either directly or indirectly support said terrorism, this might be a good thing.


Missed the Saudi bases, the ease of establishing Pakistani and Qatar bases? The giant navy in the Gulf? We have the power to project force anywhere in the world within months. Hardly need a new ME area.

Basically all these positives could be applied to 5-10% of all countries in the world. You also are looking at it revisionist-ly. Go by the positives given by the Bush Administration pre-war. They changed according to public perception, but iirc started with links to al qaeda as a PR probe, then non-compliance with UN resolutions, then possessing WMD, then just before and after the invasion, protecting the Iraqi people from a madman. Only the last one remains on your list. No:

*Remove WMDs from Iraq
*Force Iraq compliance with resolutions it turns out they were complying with
*Stop Iraq from consorting with al qaeda

Perhaps in five years only one of your current positives will remain but you'll cling to that as the sole valid reason for invading Iraq. Or maybe you'll be able to admit that the war ended up a failure, both in policy and in practice.

Quote:
We have an opportunity to reverse an alarming trend in the political landscape of our world here. Just as we did in the 1940s. At the time, the ideology was fascism. We defeated it and it hasn't been taken seriously since. Today, it's state sponsored/supported terrorism. We have the same choice before us. We have the same ability to deal with it today as we dealt with fascism back then. The only question is whether we have the will to succeed as we did back then.


The Axis of World War II wasn't a trend, it was a juggernaut of conquering territory. And afaik the only fascist state aside from those directly defeated in the war was Spain (?) World War II wasn't to defeat the trend of fascism, it was to stop the trend of crazy mother@#%^ers seizing nations and going apesh*t on people.

Going to war or overthrowing leaders based on trends is a Cold War mentality that I'd hoped we'd grown out of. Apparently not. And of course Iraq never sponsored/supported terrorism, so invading them doesn't have anything to do with defeating that trend. According to some studies it's acheived the direct opposite effect.

Edited, Oct 9th 2007 4:42am by Palpitus
#200 Oct 09 2007 at 12:41 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:

Sure. Hand guns. The occasional RPG. But we're not worried about someone operating a secret chemical weapons lab and handing the results to terrorists without us knowing about it, are we?



That said, why didn't we go after Iran instead? We know they have em.


Please Gbaji, the whole weapon thing is moot. The whole weapon thing was moot from day 1 in the 1990's, the massive amount of stockpiled weapons we found in Iraq are evidence to this. Smiley: rolleyes
#201 Oct 09 2007 at 1:40 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji, you are a joke, seriously.

You said:

gbaji wrote:
and challenged you guys to explain to me what positives justified the negatives of our involvement in Europe during WW2 (arguably much higher cost and loss of lives), and show that similar positives simply didn't exist (or didn't exist in sufficient quantities) with regard to Iraq.


And when people gave you one of those "positives" you ask for, you reply:

gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry? We went to war with Germany to destroy their WMDs? Who woulda thunk?


So what, now we have to list you the "positives which are also reasons why we went to war in the first place"? What the fUck are you playing at? Do you want us to write a History Of The World too, with cites and quotes and pretty pictures?

It's a fUcking joke, seriously. Listen to yourself. You move the goal posts every single time. When someone gives you a straight answer, you either ignore it or change the question, what is the fUcking point of discussing with someone like that? It's such childish bad faith, man.

Grow a brain, and grow up.

Lie to yourself all you want, I couldn't care less, but spare us the 4 year-old kid bullsh*t. Anyone reading this thread will think you either suffer from severe amnesia, or that there are 16 monkeys locked in a cage each taking turns at writing posts under your name.

And if you really can't see how fUcking obvious the differences between WWII and Iraq 03 are, if you really think that both were "similar", or if you need us to explain to you why one was a "world war" and the other an illegal unilateral invasion, then you need a fUcking doctor, not a message board.

I hope for your sanity that you're just playing with us, and that you're not serious. Otherwise, it's probably time you checkled in to a real Asylum.



Edited, Oct 9th 2007 9:41am by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 219 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (219)