A quibble, sir. A minor point, to be sure, but that’s the trouble with quibbles. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US. Hitler was not actually obligated to do so, his alliance with Japan specifically stipulated mutual defense from aggression, the fact that Japan initiated the war nullifed any obligation on the part of Germany. It might, theoretically, been possible for the US to have been at war with Japan without actually being at war with Germany, though I think all of us would find such a scenario most unlikely.
You are proving Radon’s point, glee. Even though the US and the USSR were never really friendly, they did indeed cooperate to destroy Hitler. It’s cold comfort to der Fuhrer that the US and USSR subsequently became total enemies.
Similarly, suppose Saddam provided nukes to al Qaeda which were used to attack London or San Francisco. It wouldn’t offset the damage if Saddam and Osama later became adversaries.
This makes as much sense as supposing that evil martians will provide 1920s style death rays to al Qaeda, i.e. none whatsoever.
Ahh, but december, you ignore the crucial point: that there is no evidence of any kind, whatsoever, to lead us to the conclusion that Saddam and Osama were anything but adversaries. Saddam was a secular cynic, Osama a religious fanatic. Given Saddam’s position in Iraq, such that paranoia is not a mental disorder so much as a survival skill, why do you imagine that Saddam would hand over lethal weaponry to a declared enemy?
Almost the entire World was at war. Why on earth you think it makes sense to say WW2 was an alliance between the US and the USSR to destroy the Axis powers, I don’t know.
Would you say the US allied with the Channel Islands in WW2? If not, why not?
Still, if you do want to use your ‘logic’ try this one:
if Bush invades other copuntries for no good reason, will he make unlikely alliances against the US?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
Similarly, suppose Saddam provided nukes to al Qaeda which were used to attack London or San Francisco. It wouldn’t offset the damage if Saddam and Osama later became adversaries.
[QUOTE]
I love your use of ‘similarly’. It doesn’t bother you that both your examples are preposterous?
Here’s another ‘logical’ Decemberism:
The US had to attack Iraq, just as it attacked Germany in WW2, because both Saddam and Hitler had moustaches.
Then whats worse… rejected the creation of an international tribunal… a brainchild of the US itself in a way…
So its good when the US is in command… and bad when its independent.
Glee: The US had to attack Iraq, just as it attacked Germany in WW2, because both Saddam and Hitler had moustaches.
Well no Glee, in WW2 we had an additional motive. Herr Hitler was fixing to sink your limey butts into the sea.
Bit of an exaggeration there, Milum. Germany declared war on the US not the other way round. Despite our sympathy for our cousins over the pond, the American people were not remotely interested in going to war to save “limey butts”.
To continue this particular hijack I would tend to disagree with this statement. I began writing a long post on this but this is not the thread. To summarize my view
Versailles was not especially harsh treaty -very comparable with treaty ending Franco Prussian War in terms of severity wrt France and Germany (Alsace/Lorraine, reparations designed to crush neighbor for mid-term future)
France’s economy recovered and war reparations made - loss of Alsace and Lorraine rankled, but reparations forgotten.
Germany refused to allow meaningful reparations payments to allies, preferring hyperinflation to paying France and England, actively working against the young plan (or was it the Dawes plan - US lends money to Germans who pay reparations to Allies who pay back US loans). (Germany also refused acknowledge defeat or to suppress right-wing agitators/street thugs, which actively promoted claims of German victimization). THe allies, particularly England, were unwilling to step in to enforce the treaties.
Later, as Germany took more steps to undo versailles - occupation fo Rhineland, Saar, rearmament, the allies were again unwilling to use force to stop Germany from taking these steps (which at least until Czechoslovakia had the figleaf of national self determination).
By not enforcing the provisions of the treaty the Allies got all the negative PR and karma without having much of the desired effects. A gentler treaty, an enforced treaty, or giving Pershing his two more weeks of war would probably all have some beneficial effect wrt to start of WWII.
This is something that people have a hard time believing. I heard over and over people in my neck of the woods in 1939-40 say, “We pulled their chestnuts out of the fire last time [WWI] but we aren’t going to do it again. Besides they haven’t paid us the money they owe us for WWI yet.”
When I mentioned this in another thread someone hopped on me that just because a “few of your relatives in Iowa” talked thus didn’t mean that the whole country did. True, but it wasn’t just a few of my relatives. There were heavyweights like Sens. Vandenburg, Nye, Borah, Wheeler et al prevented any serious aid to Hitler’s opponents almost up to our entry into the war because we were attacked. During the Presidential campaign of 1940 Wendell Wilkie who was running against FDR thought it politically wise to condemn FDR for aiding Britain and said that his reelection “would bring us into the war.”
I still think that the mistaken notion that we entered the war to save the world from being dominated by Hitler is a factor in the support many of the historically challanged give to GW, Rummy, Wolfie and that bunch in their Iraq adventure.
As I listen to the guys out at my golf club talk I realize that most of them don’t give a damn if the justifications given are all a bunch of crap. Their attitude seems to be, “Patience hell! I’m gonna kill somebody!” Unfortunately that also seems to be the attitude of GW, Rummy, Wolfie and that bunch.
Once again, Glee
Why the Channel Islands are not relevant.
The argument has been put forth that that Saddam would never have helped al-Queda due to the severe ideological differences between them. Without arguing that Saddam did help al-Queda, I can more or less disprove the argument that has been put forth.
By using an example. In the Second World War, the USA sent many many shiploads of military gear to a country that it hated, the USSR. This was to help the USSR in its battles against the common enemy, Nazi Germany. You will note that the Channel Islands were not hated by the United States.
The large amount of military aid to an enemy is an example of something that happens frequently in politics and in war: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or temporarily my friend.
All I’m claiming is that my use of the example of the USSR strongly weakens the argument that Saddam would never have helped al-Queda because they are such opposites. They had an enemy in common, the USA.
To repeat, there is nothing in my argument about mustaches or the Channel Islands. And I am not claiming that WW2 was simply an alliance between the US and the USSR.
David Simmons: I understand that it’s quite natural that we all tend to become more conservative as we get older - indeed in my travels as a younger man through the United States I met more than a few WWII veterans who had served in the Pacific Theatre and they alway gave me the impression of being quite worldy and unbiased overall - hence, I wonder, how has this quantum shift unfolded where the truth has become somewhat secondary to jingoism?
I only wish this possibility were preposterous. Unfortunately, it was somethinbg to worry about.
– We know that Iraq did provide some al Qaeda operatives with WMDs. That was the example in the OP.
– We know that Saddam was working to acquire nukclear weapons for many, many years.
– We know that al Qaeda has tended to use all its weapons to attack the US and other western nations.
Just put the three pieces together.
You know that is not true.
We know he was a long, long distance from actually getting to be a threat with it. You know that too.
Do you know what “all its weapons” are? No, you do not.
Once again, you’re not just adding one and one and one to get four, you’re adding zero and zero and zero. This is beneath even your standards.
OK. Put the three pieces together.
Piece number one is a recycled lie. It’s not true now, and it wasn’t true the first time when Powell used it.
Piece number two is something that was true more than a decade ago, but which has been false for more than a decade.
Piece number three is probably true, but entirely unconnected to pieces one and two.
Put the three together, and what have you got? Nothing, not a fucking thing, nada that supports the invasion of Iraq.
But it does all provide some insight into the lengths that Bush and his supporters will go to to ignore anything resembling truth, hoping that complete bullshit will win over the gullible.
This whole thread was devoted to debunking this bullshit, and yet you blithely restate it as fact. :rolleyes:
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re after. Most of those of whom I spoke at the golf club are not old and most aren’t WWII vets, or veterans of any war.
I’m relatively ignorant of formal psychology education but I would put a lot of it down to the World Trade Center/Pentagon destruction. People seem to be willing to accept all kinds of federal government interference and additionally seem only to want to strike out at something. Since Al Qaeda is an amorphous target, “let’s hit at something that will hold still and we don’t like” appears to be a response to frustration.
And, of course the "glorious days’ when the “greatest generation saved the world from Hitler,” being now 60 years removed and outside the experience of most, is imagined as a lot different from the reality of that time.
Pakistan gave weapons to the Taliban that helped Al Qaeda… they also worked and got nukes… and they are allied to the US.
Israel has got nukes too and I dont see the US bothering them either.
The issue is not what Saddam did or was… but if those wrongs justified an invasion in the middle of a terrorism upsurge. Saddam might have helped Al Qaeda… but so did a bunch of people, including Saudis… even more than Saddam might have. Military solutions to terrorism have always failed. If the US intends to occupy the whole middle east they are asking for a lot of trouble.
Americans might feel safer for hitting Iraq… but then there are so many americans now to kill in Iraq that its kind of pointless to make terrorist attacks in faraway “homeland” US isnt it ? Proof is a soldier killed in Iraq every day or two.
In the end the issue is… Ideally should people fear the Policeman or the Law ? They now “fear” the US… not any Law. So any peace the US gets out of its heavy handed policies will only be kept as long as the military power is constantly used. Without UN backing any US adventures are just rogue cop stories… and do not build a better future.
David:
You know, that’s kinda my take on it as well. My evidence is only anecdotal, but anyway:
I was at a wedding party here (in Sweden) earlier this summer and the bride had a couple of friends from New York City who flew over just for the occasion. To be specific, there were three: a married couple and their friend. It was the literally the first time I had spoken face-to-face with Americans since 9/11, and, especially considering the fact that they were New Yorkers, I thought I’d pick their brains a bit about it. This turned out to be a terrible faux pas on my part, especially as it gradually became apparent that I was opposed to the war in Iraq.
I remember in particular standing in line for the men’s room, and the following conversation.
Me: I just think this whole Iraq thing is a mess; we’ve got no real business going in their, especially without UN support.
New Yorker: (tightly) Well, you know, man, they just never should have bombed the World Trade Center. They never should have done than.
Me: No, of course not…but you do realize, don’t you, that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?
New Yorker: Yeah, right. Will you excuse me a minute? (walks off in disgust, refuses to talk to me for the rest of the evening.)
In other words, the topic was so emotionally charged that even then, a year and a half after the event, this fella still couldn’t hold a calm, rational conversation about it.
I learned later, from the third American at the party, that New Yorkers still won’t talk about 9/11, and that it’s considered very impolite to bring it up in company. Just still too much of a shock, I guess. The emotional reaction is so strong that it has become literally impossible, socially, to criticize most of Bush’s policies, especially the Iraq war, without being painted as an Al Queda sympathizer.
Anyway, I think you’re spot on, Dave. By demonizing Hussein, the administration gave the public a target to focus its anger on, which is perhaps also why public opinion was so resistant to reason, in part. We had to strike back, and well, if bin Laden is too smart to find, we’ll strike someone else instead.
Read the above post by Svinlesha ! That more or less sums up how too many americans are thinking.
Aww Contrary, as they say in Lubbock, too few, far too few. But we’re gaining on 'em!
“Truth is mighty and will always prevail, and there ain’t nothing wrong with that, 'cept that it just ain’t so.”
Mark Twain