Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because you seem to think that Iraq is similar to 1940's Germany and Japan doesn't make it a good comparison. They're vastly different on any number of levels.
BTW, I'd like to see those articles you read that said Germany and Japan were likely to devolve into radical theocracies. Can you provide a link? Thanks!
The information was found in the New york times, and several other publications of the time. Yes, actual surviving newspapers that one of my co-workers father had been keeping in his attic. He has several others that pre-date the attack on pearl harbor that had an article which stated that we should not bother with Japan, they were not out to attack us, only out to gain more foot hold in oil.
The information was found in the New york times, and several other publications of the time. Yes, actual surviving newspapers that one of my co-workers father had been keeping in his attic. He has several others that pre-date the attack on pearl harbor that had an article which stated that we should not bother with Japan, they were not out to attack us, only out to gain more foot hold in oil.
Maybe I'm just ultradense, but I still don't see how that relates to Japan and Germany devolving into radical theocracies.
In any case, we went to war with Japan because they DID attack us. An opinion piece in a 67 year old newspaper wouldn't have any effect on that. And our involvement in WWII wasn't based on a domestic political agenda that tried to use fear to garner public support, like the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq.
I still say it's a poor analogy. Japan and Germany were well armed nations with military power equivalent to ours and were clearly real threats to the US in the 40's. Events have proven that Iraq never was. We were misled by dishonest leadership into thinking that it was.
Maybe I'm just ultradense, but I still don't see how that relates to Japan and Germany devolving into radical theocracies.
In any case, we went to war with Japan because they DID attack us. An opinion piece in a 67 year old newspaper wouldn't have any effect on that. And our involvement in WWII wasn't based on a domestic political agenda that tried to use fear to garner public support, like the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq.
I still say it's a poor analogy. Japan and Germany were well armed nations with military power equivalent to ours and were clearly real threats to the US in the 40's. Events have proven that Iraq never was. We were misled by dishonest leadership into thinking that it was.
I had a long post, but my computer decided to restart itself, so let me try again.
My point was not to compare the two conflicts, but to show that there are similarities between what the population and the media was saying.
Prior to the pearl harbor attack, There were frequent articles in the newspapers that were saying that Japan should be left alone, all they want is oil, And they would not harm us. Up until three days before the attack these articles were being written.
The option then was to do nothing, which ended in us being attacked
Papers up until the invasion and including now said that Iraq should be left alone, they are no threat to us, if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.
We took a different option this time, and did a pre-emptive strike.
Was it right? only history will tell.
Both Germany and Japan had its rocky end to the war, it is not as clean as the school books that deal with history depict. We did not all sit and sing kumbya right afterwords. For a few years after the "end of conflict" in Germany, we had a group of Nazi's known as the Werewolves that tried to stop the U.S forces from staying in Germany as an Occupying force. They would move land mines into supply routes, they would string steel cables over the roads between trees, set at shoulder height (if you look at examples of the Willy's jeep you will see a triangle rod that is welded to the front bumper to catch these cables). The Werewolves would also attack with PanzerFaust's (equivalent to a shoulder fired rocket) from the ditches. They did try in vain due to low numbers of combatants, but they tried.
In Japan, and thought the pacific, you would have children and adults laying in front of tanks holding land mines. You would have people running at tanks and vehicles with bamboo sticks with explosives mounted at the end. Again they did try, but with few members, they did not make an impact.
I don't know where people keep coming up with this one reason for going in "WMD's" Bush had cited it as one example of many reasons for going in, in his state of the union, and various other speeches he gave before going in.
In fact, there were 29 U.N resolutions passed on Iraq that stated many failed fixes that Saddam was required to do, they ranged from sending information on his dismantling of WMD's (we did know he had them, he used them on the Kurds in the north in the late 80's.), Human rights violations, Weapons exeeding range set by the UN. and various other reasons. The 29 resolutions are readily available, and I have read them all.
What we have seen in the past week was a goal that has been met. The Iraqi military has started its first campaign of ridding the country of insurgents. They were pulling the strings, and asking us for backup support (they do not have an active airforce yet). This is one of the goals that has been set by the White house in terms of reaching our goals. They still have along way to go, but I think they will get to a point where we can make our military presence much less than it is now.
I do not think we will ever be fully out of Iraq in a military aspect. We are still in Germany, we are still in Japan, we are still in South Korea. But We can get to a point where we can go to a smaller force.
Soooooooo why is it that we the peons....oops I mean we the people see this but the govt you all chant for and elect do not?
I believe that the government does see it and quite plainly in fact. To think that you or I are privy to some profound wisdom and knowledge that the United States government is not is rather silly don't you think? Even still though, while you and I alone may not have some secret key or tool of vision, when added with millions of other voices like so many tentacles of an octopus, we can collect vast amounts of information, and some of it likely does contain pieces of a greater puzzle that no one person can see whole.
Lets assume the government does know all these little facts about the likely outcome of this conflict, we also have to then take into account that the entire government is not a homogeneous beast, there are factions. Some will wish to end this conflict and go another direction, others will want to keep instability in the region while keeping the US directly out of it, and others will want to wish for a physical US presence in country for as long as our interest (whichever interest that may be) warrants our presence.
So we can only ask, why does this particular administration wish to continue as we are and why are not other factions trying to stop them? I would imagine it has to do with strategic position and oil, as every war today, when you boil it down, is over wealth or resources (or control of) As to why others are not stopping this course of action, I suspect they are trying in a way that allows them to have their cake and eat it too as they too are complicit in starting this endeavor. What is the most important thing in the world to a first term politician if not a another term?
Quote:
Does anyone here really really really think your govt is doing the right thing for this country as a whole?
I have no doubts that some do. Some for ideological reasons, some for profit, and some for power. I however do not think our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a wise course of action, either strategically, morally, or philosophically.
Quote:
Ok so we leave and let Iraq collapse. So what. I dont care. Most of us dont care either. But bushy the Dictator "The Decider" cares. Look how this fake phony illegal undeclared war that was labled "mission accomplished" back in 2003 lined bushy and all his cronies pockets so wealthy.
Iraq has collapsed and there is nothing anyone on this planet can do to stop it. Iraq was lost before we ever entered into their country, and I do not say this because I wish it so, but because it is a reality that few care to address. There were other ways of dealing with Iraq that would have cost a great deal less in lives, money, credibility and reputation. Keep in mind, that Bush is as much a tool as a tank or a plane, as listening to him speak for a mere moment should be enough for anyone to say to themselves, this man is not capable of pulling this off on his own accord, so then ask Qui Bono, or who benefits. This should be the very first thing ever asked about a decision such as engaging in war with another.
Quote:
Some one won the war. But it was not we the peons.
The peons rarely win wars, in fact people are as expendable as bullets only slightly more expensive and difficult to produce. No poor fool wants to wage wars, people want to raise families, sell their corn, build their cars, watch TV, eat burgers on the grill and carry on with life, but it is those who manage those imaginary lines that surround any given group of people who decide when, where, and whom will fight wars. It has pretty much always been this way and I have seen no profound change in mans attitudes or level of understanding that would alter my view.
You may wonder as many do, why does this not seem to change. People as individuals are rather rational and reasonably intelligent, yet put them into a collective and they surrender their will to the mob. Its not the words or actions of our enemies we should fear as much as the silence of the well meaning.
As to the people comparing the conflict to Japan and Germany... both of those countries were expanding imperialist powers bent on taking over their respective regions of the globe via millitary domination and conquest. That's often a legitimate reason to go to war because you don't want the world to be taken over by *******s and Napoleons even worse than you are. Iraq was run by an ******* but he wasn't really threatening to take over anything.
I had a long post, but my computer decided to restart itself, so let me try again.
My point was not to compare the two conflicts, but to show that there are similarities between what the population and the media was saying.
Prior to the pearl harbor attack, There were frequent articles in the newspapers that were saying that Japan should be left alone, all they want is oil, And they would not harm us. Up until three days before the attack these articles were being written.
The option then was to do nothing, which ended in us being attacked
Papers up until the invasion and including now said that Iraq should be left alone, they are no threat to us, if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.
We took a different option this time, and did a pre-emptive strike.
Was it right? only history will tell.
Both Germany and Japan had its rocky end to the war, it is not as clean as the school books that deal with history depict. We did not all sit and sing kumbya right afterwords. For a few years after the "end of conflict" in Germany, we had a group of Nazi's known as the Werewolves that tried to stop the U.S forces from staying in Germany as an Occupying force. They would move land mines into supply routes, they would string steel cables over the roads between trees, set at shoulder height (if you look at examples of the Willy's jeep you will see a triangle rod that is welded to the front bumper to catch these cables). The Werewolves would also attack with PanzerFaust's (equivalent to a shoulder fired rocket) from the ditches. They did try in vain due to low numbers of combatants, but they tried.
In Japan, and thought the pacific, you would have children and adults laying in front of tanks holding land mines. You would have people running at tanks and vehicles with bamboo sticks with explosives mounted at the end. Again they did try, but with few members, they did not make an impact.
I don't know where people keep coming up with this one reason for going in "WMD's" Bush had cited it as one example of many reasons for going in, in his state of the union, and various other speeches he gave before going in.
In fact, there were 29 U.N resolutions passed on Iraq that stated many failed fixes that Saddam was required to do, they ranged from sending information on his dismantling of WMD's (we did know he had them, he used them on the Kurds in the north in the late 80's.), Human rights violations, Weapons exeeding range set by the UN. and various other reasons. The 29 resolutions are readily available, and I have read them all.
What we have seen in the past week was a goal that has been met. The Iraqi military has started its first campaign of ridding the country of insurgents. They were pulling the strings, and asking us for backup support (they do not have an active airforce yet). This is one of the goals that has been set by the White house in terms of reaching our goals. They still have along way to go, but I think they will get to a point where we can make our military presence much less than it is now.
I do not think we will ever be fully out of Iraq in a military aspect. We are still in Germany, we are still in Japan, we are still in South Korea. But We can get to a point where we can go to a smaller force.
With all that verbage, it appears that you're going to great lengths trying to justify your continued support for Bush's failed policy. In so many cases, the simplest explanation is the one that's closest to the truth.
Bush lied us into an unnecessary war. A war that benefits his Saudi pals and his cronies in the oil industry, not to mention Cheney's company, Halliburton. This is what all events subsequent to the invasion point to. The plan was never to get control of the Iraqi oilfields in order to lower the price of fuel for the consumers and commercial market. The plan was obviously to keep the Iraqi oil off the market, drive the price of oil sky-high, and watch the Saudis, Exxon/Mobile, Texaco/Chevron and the others struggle to carry their bags of money to the bank.
With all that verbage, it appears that you're going to great lengths trying to justify your continued support for Bush's failed policy. In so many cases, the simplest explanation is the one that's closest to the truth.
Bush lied us into an unnecessary war. A war that benefits his Saudi pals and his cronies in the oil industry, not to mention Cheney's company, Halliburton. This is what all events subsequent to the invasion point to. The plan was never to get control of the Iraqi oilfields in order to lower the price of fuel for the consumers and commercial market. The plan was obviously to keep the Iraqi oil off the market, drive the price of oil sky-high, and watch the Saudis, Exxon/Mobile, Texaco/Chevron and the others struggle to carry their bags of money to the bank.
Wow, how many times have we heard the terms haliburton, failed presidency, oil, prices all in the same sentence.
The humanitarian items started in Resolution 688 (1991) in which the UN realized the opprsession of the kurdish population in parts of Iraq, they insisted that Iraq imidiatly ceased the oppression and return the region to peace. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/5
This part of Resolution 687 (1991) is what got saddam in big grouble, it is section 7. of that resolution that states
" (a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of
the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amount
s
and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site
inspection as specified below;"
as you can remember, he never gave a full report to the secritary general.
If you bounce forward to the famous resolution 1441 (2002) they state
"recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."
continuing on
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,"
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"
Resolution 1154 (1998) is a good one to find more information on the UN regarding the declarations of destruction by the Iraqi government at the time.
"3. Stresses that compliance by the Government of Iraq with its obligations, repeated again in the memorandum of understanding, to accord immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to the Special Commission and the IAEA in conformity with the relevant resolutions is necessary for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991), but that any violation would have severest consequences for Iraq; " (section 3)
Resolution 707 (1991) condemns Iraq for non compliance with weapon destruction. and threatens that they are in breach of the Cease-fire signed in resolution 687
" Affirming that the aforementioned failures of Iraq to act in strict
conformity with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) constitutes a
material breach of its acceptance of the relevant provisions or resolution 687
(1991) which established a cease-fire and provided the conditions essential to
the restoration of peace and security in the region,"
"2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area;"
by this statement alone, we were authorized by the U.N. to use any means necessary to bring them into compliance. This resolution set forth the actions of force, but we did not choose to fulfill them at that time.
as you can see, by doing research, you will find that 1. Bush did not lie. 2. The U.N. cannot be counted on to move forward with the threats. 3. Saddam sealed his own fate by not disclosing the information that the U.N. was requiring and 4. It was not for oil.
I hope you will read the resolutions, I have gone through everything up to 2003 resolutions. They are quite informative, including the U.N. condeming Iraq for keeping some missles that had a longer range than required, and the use of (1) singe drone aircraft, which was also prohibuted.
I can say that there are comparrasons even to this and Germany. After WWI Germany entered into a treaty forcing them to disband military. They followed through for a few years, but then started training pilots to fly aircraft under a different banner. They trained them as combat pilots in Russia. Trained tank crews in "tractors" and came out years later showing military strength. you know the rest up to 1939.
For all those who see positive progress in Iraq or even that it may be a winnable situation(whatever that may constitute) I must ask, how long and how much?
How long should we allow for this to be won. How much should we be willing to spend in order to do this?
If we were to "win" Iraq, then I must ask, what will be the benefit to Joe citizen in the US or to the nation at large?
For all those who see positive progress in Iraq or even that it may be a winnable situation(whatever that may constitute) I must ask, how long and how much?
How long should we allow for this to be won. How much should we be willing to spend in order to do this?
If we were to "win" Iraq, then I must ask, what will be the benefit to Joe citizen in the US or to the nation at large?
I don't know how long and how much. We are after all still in many country's we have defended during wartime. I would say that the government in Iraq should be given the deadlines to have things completed by, and if they do not complete them by a reasonable time frame, we pack up and pull out.
The benefits would be a more secure middle east, which in-turn helps our economy via fuel. Nation at large would benefit from the increased stability.
What Iraq will become is like the seed of a tree. If the freedoms and prosperity emerge, and grow. It will be a shining example in the area of what the citizens could have. This would then start to spread throughout the region.
I look at this as more of a follow through on empty promises shown by the U.N. almost every one of the resolutions had said that consequences would happen if Saddam's regime would not follow them. We simply followed through on the threats made by the U.N.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
