A UG RWer explains Iraq to the rest of us

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by justbill_redux, Jun 16, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. akm495

    akm495

    Messages:
    1,156
    Argleby,

    I was looking for clarification in your post. I was not understanding your position.

    I do not agree with your analysis.

    1) There was no way to avoid war in Europe. FDR wanted war. Yes there was definitlty a big netrality contingent. People in America saw this as Europe problem. This was the same mentality during WWI. Wilson did not want to involve the United States in WWI. He kept us out of the conflict for three years. It was not until Germany re-established unrestricetd submarine warfare, and the Maximillan Affair in Mexico, did Wilson finnaly relent.
    FDR knew we had to go to war. The US told the world we are neutral, but in reality, we were suppoting the war effort through "lend lease". The Germans knew this, and between 1939-41, sunk US merchants ships bound for Britain.
    That is before they declared actuall war on the US.
    You are abolutly wrong, there was no avoiding this conflict. Germany, and Italy were just stupid enough to declare war.

    2) The Korean War. You need to familarize yourself with the Truman Doctrine 1947 , and the policy shift in 1950 from passive to active containment. The Korean war had nothing to do with regime change. It was to keep the status quo. Yes, North Korean would have lost the war if China did not send troops.
    McAurther was told not to push to the Chinese border. He disregarded his civilan leaders, and it cost him his job. It also prolonged the War for another 2.5 years.

    In the end, nothing changed. The policy of containment worked in Korea.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2006
  2. jyris

    jyris

    Messages:
    568
    Q32003:

    We’ll leave it that way whether I mind or not – and I don’t.

    Your statement that US intervention in WWII was welcomed by every European that wasn’t a Nazi or a fascist, while true, is also a bit incomplete. Millions of people in Eastern Europe were bitterly disappointed when America’s intervention didn’t go further to rid the world of Stalinist totalitarianism, since by the end of the war in Europe, it was abundantly clear that our alliance of convenience would not survive the defeat of a common enemy, and that the defeat of a war-ravaged USSR would have been relatively trivial at that time.

    Forty-five years later, more or less, the USSR crumbled from its inability to compete with its enemies (and other factors, to be sure). What did winning that contest cost the US? How many were killed in Korea and Vietnam (not to mention Europe, when territory that our troops had liberated was simply handed over to the Soviets)?

    Maybe – just maybe – we’ve learned from past mistakes.

    What were our European allies doing during the “ethnic cleansing” of Croatia and Bosnia? Why was US intervention even needed in Kosovo? You’d think that Europe, of all places, would know first-hand the danger of letting a local problem get out of hand.

    So, if you’re going to speculate about what North Korea might be like if the US hadn’t intervened in Korea, and had pursued a less-confrontational foreign policy during the Cold War, you’d better consider two additional factors in your analysis – that the USSR might well still be around, and that the Europeans have, regrettably, proven to be chronically inept at shaping the course of world events recently.
  3. q32003

    q32003

    Messages:
    1,157
    Argelby,

    I can read. The point was that Germany was militarily agressive. Period. It was agressive to its neighbors and the neighbors needed help that the US gave. The US help was welcome by any European that wasn't either a Nazi or a fascist. It's real simple: Germany launched attacks on its neighbors, starting a war, and the world responded. That war was pretty much all Germanys doing.

    I doubt there's anyone here arguing that the US shouldn't have entered the WWII conflict. It was in the interest of the countries who suffered from the German attack, and it was most definately in the interest of the US. The US entering this conflict, after it already had gone on for quite a while is NOT comparable to the regime changes that most speak of when talking about the US.

    Korea was an issue not only because the North invaded the South, but because two imperial superpowers decided to split the country in half. Were the Koreans ever asked what they wanted? It's not without irony that you bring up Korea as well as WWII. Japan was the occupier of Korea, and at the end of the war the spoils were to be divvied up by the winners. It's a shitty mentality. When I say that the US has been influential in the development in the region I simply mean that if the US had acted differently throughout not only the region but globally, the world would have been different. You can't simply assume that even the North would have been what it is today. Once again, look at Iran and see how one enforced "extreme" leads the people to support another extreme.

    Regarding your joke:

    There are two options - either you agree with what the poster wrote "According to the reasoning I've seen on this board, Japan must have been completly justified in attacking us." which I doubt, or you disagree. If you disagree, which you seem to do based on the way the joke was written, my opinion stands; you're either ignorant to how the theory of preemption affects other nations who will now claim the same right of prevention based on a claimed perceived threat, or, you just don't care about it - either case you'll end up regretting that (as will I).

    jyris,

    You'll have to trust me when I say that I stand by my opinions face to face, and that I'm not trying to hide behind a computer screen. The reason I wouldn't want to divulge too much personal information is the nature of the board we're on. I'm sure you'll understand. Let's just say that I'm neither American nor middle eastern and leave it at that if you don't mind.
  4. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    By not actively providing support for England and France. By remaining neutral in more than just name. There was huge public support for staying out of the war and, had Roosevelt wanted to, he could have easily done just that. Luckily, in my view, he didn't.

    Again, I think that's just wrong. A different leadership could have kept us out of the war easily. We were lucky to have the enlightened leadership we did.

    I think you misread my post. That was my point, that North Korea was not militarily aggressive to the US. You seem to have it confused with the opposite.

    My argument, as I explained in just my last post (and which you actually quoted in your reply), was that not every US invasion or overthrow of a government has been a bad thing. In the case of Germany and Korea, they were tremendously good things.

    I'm not sure what you think is inconsistent. And from what you've written, I can't even tell if you agree or disagree with me.

    Uh... yeah it was. The only reason the North didn't fall was because China entered the war.
  5. akm495

    akm495

    Messages:
    1,156
    How could we have avoided WWII in Europe? Once Germany and Italy declared war we were committed. Even if they did not, eventually Churchhill would have convinced FDR to declare war on them. It may have been a year or two later, but it would have happend. There was no way for the US to avoid war in Europe.

    How can you tell q3; "I said "militarily aggressive to the United States," can't you read? That's the whole point.", and then bring up North Korea's invasion of South Korea? How was North Korea invasion aggressive to the US?
    You keep bringing up these actions of 50-60 years ago to justify your arguement, but it is inconsistant.
    The Korean war was never about regime change.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2006
  6. Mr. Wet Wooly

    Mr. Wet Wooly

    Messages:
    1,984
    I don't see why that's relevant. You can get all the perspective you need from a poster's detailed arguments.
  7. jyris

    jyris

    Messages:
    568
    From this, I take it that you are not a US citizen. For the sake of perspective (and also to give vermeer an opportunity to launch one of his deeply offensive, but humorous, missives), are you willing to reveal your national allegiance?
  8. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    The fact is that the United States could have easily avoided entering the war in Europe if it had wanted to, and there are some today who maintain that's what we should have done (and I'm not one of them).

    In any case, my point was not to start a debate about the causes of military actions more than 50 years ago. I was responding to q32003 writing "Doesn't it get tiring to run around the planet overthrowing governments?" My point was that not every US invasion or overthrowing of a government has been a bad thing. In fact, in the two cases I mentioned, Europe and Korea, they did enormous good.
  9. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    I said "militarily aggressive to the United States," can't you read? That's the whole point.

    Not by Germany, it wasn't.

    It became an issue because North Korea invaded the South with 90,000 troops and a bunch of Russian tanks on June 25, 1950

    The North had taken Seoul, was advancing almost at will, and was decimating the South Korean army. They had far superior fire power and the backing of the USSR. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that if the US hadn't invaded, North Korea would have won the war.

    It is also beyond any reasonable doubt what kind of government they would have imposed on the South; the same fascist, murderous, torture-state that the North has enjoyed for more than 50 years.

    The US invasion prevented that. Anybody who tells you anything different is an idiot. Deal with it.

    Makes a difference to what? What are you talking about? Are you trying to imply that the US was somehow responsible for North Korea invading South Korea?

    Let me guess: it was all America's fault.

    Please explain how a joke about surrendering to Japan 60 years late shows that. Please, I'm dying to know.
  10. akm495

    akm495

    Messages:
    1,156
    They declared war on the United States. How is that for being militaryly aggressive.
  11. q32003

    q32003

    Messages:
    1,157
    Germany attacked several sovereign nations. That's not agressive enough? The US was welcomed to counter the threat Germany was posing. And it's not one of those "fluffy" bullshit Iraq threats that people talk about, it's after Germany invaded nations. It doesn't compare. Just accept it.

    Korea? Try reading up on why that became an issue in the first place. You can speculate all you want that a unified Korea would have been what North Korea is today, but that doesn't make it so. The US was influential in the development in that region just the same way it was in the rest of the world. That makes a difference.

    Your last comment shows that you either don't understand the ramafications of the supposedly "preemptive" policy your government has adopted, or that you don't care. I think you'll end up regretting it deeply.
  12. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    How was Germany being militarily aggressive to the United States before the US entered WWII? How was Italy?

    How was North Korea being militarily aggressive to the United States? They weren't. The US invaded leading a UN force in response to North Korea's invasion of the South three months earlier.

    And, as I said earlier, if the US hadn't invaded, all of Korea would now be the nightmare fascist state that North Korea is today.

    You don't know what you're talking about.

    You're right, they were completely justified. Maybe we can still surrender. Somebody call the Emperor.
  13. q32003

    q32003

    Messages:
    1,157
    What goofy said.

    And once again, let's check the "formula" first:

    nation A poses a threat to nation B
    nation B therefor has the right to preventively attack A

    okay, now what is "a threat"? In the case of Iraq:

    It "had" WMDs
    It had used WMDs
    It had invaded a sovereign nation (Kuwait)

    Iran vs the US:

    .....Iran / US

    WMD no / yes
    used no / yes
    invasions no / Iraq, Afghanistan, Jugoslavia, Panama, Vietnam....

    should we add toppling of governments?

    ....Iran / US
    ....no / Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Panama, Hawaii, Vietnam....

    Ok. So by the following we find that history teaches us that the US is much more likely to topple a government by either supporting "freedom fighters" or all out invasion. It has WMD's. It has nukes. It used nukes. It has invaded two nations in just two years. One of which is part of the evil "axis" of which Iran is another part. AND, it has previously overthrown a democratically elected Iranian non-theocratic government!

    By that very logic, Iran, probably more so than any other country on this planet should feel extremely threatened, by the US, and is therefor allowed (using the logic of pre"emption") to attack the US and change its regime.

    Or is it just that they're evil and the US isn't?
  14. goofy3

    goofy3

    Messages:
    160
  15. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    You mean like when we invaded Europe and Japan in WWII? Saving innumerable countries from becoming nightmare fascist states?

    Or invading Korea in the '50, saving the South from becoming the nightmare fascist state the North is today?

    Yeah, the US should never overthrow another government. Hate America first.
  16. q32003

    q32003

    Messages:
    1,157
    Huh. That's nice and simple, isn't it?

    Let's see.....

    The US says "Axis of Evil" and start their invasions....
    The US has Nukes....
    The US is the only country to ever use nukes...
    ....on a civilian population....
    The US has invaded far more nations in the last century than Iran....

    Yep, Iran is clearly a bigger threat to the US than the US is to Iran.

    Makes perfect sense....

    Doesn't it get tiring to run around the planet overthrowing governments?
  17. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    A nation developing nuclear weapons whose government regularly organizes rallies where huge crowds chant "Death to America."
  18. q32003

    q32003

    Messages:
    1,157
    The basic reason for why the government wanted to invade Iraq can be found in documents prior to 9/11. Is that what you are saying? Because if you look at history, it has nothing to do with WMDs. The fact that they found no WMDs gives us one out of two options: 1) The government knew they had no solid evidence that he had WMDs but didn't care - which basically amounts to lying to the American people, or 2) The government didn't understand how to evaluate and act upon information - which means they're incompetent. You're either defending a lying or an incompetent government.

    The claim that Iran is a threat is something I'll take with a grain of salt. Do this - define what constitutes a threat. And while you're at it - list all nations whose sovereign (and often democratically elected) government has been toppled by A) Iran, and B) the US, for the last century.

    I'd love to see who's the real threat based on empirical data. Enlighten me.
  19. Wowie69

    Wowie69

    Messages:
    788
    Considering that we attacked Iraq based on LIES, I would call it CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and many others are WAR CRIMINALS. They deserve to be placed in jail cells for the remainder of their lives.

    They have killed 40,000 innocent civilians. There can be no greater tragedy.
  20. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    The government of the US changes every two years.