And I want a zebra.
duffer, you studied World War II for fifteen YEARS and didn’t know Germany declared war on the USA in 1941? It’s in every single comprehensive text on the war I’ve ever read. It took me about thirty seconds to find the text of the declaration of war through Google:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm
What were you studying all those years? Cereal boxes?
I’m afraid you guys simply aren’t sophisiticated enough to grasp the subtlety of Buskivik logic. I’ll try to break it down into digestible bits.
Before the war, the dreaded imminent threat of intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear VX-anthrax was the reason why an invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely necessary.
After the invasion, we discovered that no such thing exists. It should be obvious, even to Dopers, that something that does not exist cannot continue to be a cassus belli. Ergo, it necessarily follows that such weapons are not currenty the reason for war. The current reason for war is a noble and self-sacrificing liberation of the Iraqi people.
Following the Nixon Principle, previous justifications for war are rendered “inoperative”, and hence irrelevent, and the Admin is under no obligation to justify something which clearly does not exist!
Regime change is the reason for war, hence, it necessarily follows, that regime change always was the reason for war, as the previous reason in inoperative, and nobody goes to war without a reason.
Q.E.D.
While I have no issue with the point of the OP, I feel obligated to dispute these assertions. And ingestion is the least likely delivery method to cause ill effects.
From the CDC: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/ricin/facts.asp
Here’s the dangerous part:
Bush: Even though there were no WMD which Saddam was going to use and thus justify our pre-emptive invasion, we did the right thing.
So… Even though a dictator has no WMD, and thus, is not an imminent threat, it’s OK to invade.
And so, I guess we now have a theory with is even more aggressive than the pre-emptive reasoning given for the Iraq invasion. Originally, we were told that pre-emption, based on knowing that Saddam had and will use WMD, was justified.
And now? Well, we did the right thing without the imminent threat of WMD. So, that means, invasion without threat is OK.
You a bad man? OK to invade. You want and may use WMD at some unknown time in the future? OK to invade. We don’t like the look of your regime? OK to invade.
We did the right thing.
Ummm, everyone, reread what duffer said:
Emphasis mine. Note the word “before.” Everyone has come up with nice, obvious cites that Germany declared war on the U.S. AFTER we declared war on the Axis. This is nice, but it was NOT WHAT HE WAS ASKING FOR.
I don’t have a horse in this race, but I just wanted to clarify something that apparently wasn’t as immediately obvious to most people as it was to me, though admittedly it’s an easy thing to miss…
You have got to be fucking kidding,
This statement,
Posted by Duffer.
“Studying, ongoing, WWII for 15 years and haven’t seen this”
Has got to be the most ignorant thing I have read to date on these boards.
YES Germany declared war on the US, he(Hitler) was (by most historians take) hopefull Japan would show reciprocity and declare war on the USSR.
Fortunately this did not happen and there was no North Japan and South Japan to sort out after the war.
see also;
*reasons we dropped the bomb
*Korean conflict, the
*cold war, history of
ad nauseum
Well shit, if you want to nitpick let’s do it. The US declared war on Japan, singular. So the part with “before we declared war on the Axis powers” is incorrect. Now, if anyone wants to start rambling on about we declared war first because they were in an alliance, get a grip cause it didn’t work that way.
This is where the Saddam/Hitler strawman argument fails.
There seems to be a consensus that no war exists until one is declared. That the Nation “declaring” war actually started the conflict. Absurd.
For this to be true then the US “started” the war in the pacific, and invaded Germany without provocation.
If we for one second forget that US planes were routinely fired upon by Iraqi regular army troops for years AND that Sadaam did not meet the conditions of surrender from the previous war, then the no provocation folks have proved their point.
The US DID have sufficent provocation to enter this conflict. However, those against (and rightfully so) the war point out correctly that the weapons threat Sadaam alleghedly posed,simply didn’t exist.
Love Bush or hate him (I’m not sure what camp I reside in) he did the right thing by standing up to and destroying the Iraqii regime. (my opinion of course, but one I am confident history will bear out)
What happened in 1944 and 2001 bear a striking resemblance. the US was attacked on her own soil and the Nation wanted blood. Granted in WWII the enemy was clearer, but it would be a stretch of truth to claim Sadaam had no connections to terrorists.
Good riddance to bad garbage, let’s focus on making Iraq a soverign nation we can get out of and ignore again.
Ok I just read that after I posted it and yes I know what year Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Trust me I feel enough of an idiot and feel free to point it out. For Christs sakes I live within walking distance of the USS Arizona.
Yes, ass-chapping times. Yes marched against war. No, not ok with war, guess that sarcasm doesn’t come across well in these times. Just think that the “Saddam wanted WMD” is shaping up to be what will be consdered a valid argument by many.
Sorry for any confusion.
Agreed. I wondered if that’s what you intended, but there are just so many fools out there that almost any position, no matter how ridiculous, might be someone’s heartfelt truth.
With the way the administration keeps lowering the bar for justifying the invasion of Iraq, they’re getting dangeously close to an ethical standard that could be used to justify bin Laden’s attack on America.
That’s a awful bind to find oneself in, and it makes people twitchy.
President Bush will face Tim Russert on Meet the Press this Sunday, Feb 8.
NBC, 10:30 AM EST.
Look for an attempt by Tim to get W. to address the fact that the rationale given for invasion turned to be false and to not let W. just simply say it was the right thing, but to press him on what justifies invasion.
(And what about them foreign allies and domestic Senators who only consented to invasion because of claims of imminent WMD usage.)
Let the dance begin!
I was about to post a rebuttal… but I just give up, I´m sick of this stuff.
Ale:
Yeah, tell me about it. It’s really is amazing, ain’t it?
No argument is too illogical or too spurious for them to try.
And if that fails, they’ll just repeat the same thing over and over, as if repetition lends truth.
EvilGhandi
…er… you do know that the US was in fact attacked in 1942 ?
That it was at Pearl Harbour ?
That it was Japan that did so ?
I would be very interested in seeing any definative evidence that Saddam Hussain has links to terrorists groups, but in case you can actually do this, perhaps you might then explain how the US occupies the high moral ground in this matter, since the US has been backing terrorists and insurgents for generations, or perhaps you forgot about the Contras, or the Mujehadeen (wonder if there is any connection between these last and Al Qaeda - best not to look too deep into this one!)
Would you like to withdraw your erroneous statement or perhaps correct it to what you thought you meant to say ?
As I said, I haven’t been able to find the data that actually supports what the CDC (and lots of others) say. If you can find any, please share. As it is, it just sounds like accepted wisdom. Kinda like how “everyone knows” that Saddam has WMDs.
Sorry, I’m not going to do your research for you. If you feel that the CDC “and lots of others” pulled their conclusions out of their ass, perhaps you could contact the CDC for their studies.
Try here: http://www.cdc.gov/netinfo.htm
Apparently the date, December 7, 1941, didn’t live in all that much infamy.
Shucks!!