Might Bush's Bad Cop be good for the US in the long haul?

[CarnalK]

adaher said (re:repelling Germany out of Poland):
Oh, I"m sure it would have. Hitler’s army was in pretty sorry shape by the time the German border was breached anyway. He had no more air force worth speaking of. But would it have been wise?

I meant in 1939/40.

[glee]

*Originally posted by adaher *
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, that should have been it for his regime. Stopping at the Iraqi border was absurd.

It’s good to see that, in your opinion, the International Coalition, organised with UN support, which successfully drove Saddam out of Kuwait, and kept to its international legal agreements, was ‘absurd’ to stop at the border. :rolleyes:

Since the US ignored the UN this time and simply invaded, I repeat my question:

Do particularly point to how the UN ‘restrained’ Bush from invading Iraq.

Originally posted by glee
Oh, you think the cause of WW2 was Germany invading Poland?
Have you ever studied any history?
Do the terms ‘Versailles agreement’ ‘hyperinflation’ and ‘Reichstag fire’ mean anything to you?

*Originally posted by adaher *
I know about those things, and I know about the root causes. But the invasion of Poland was the immediate cause, the casus belli, that kicked off WWII, just as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait kicked off the long 12 year war with Iraq. We could get into Kuwait’s history with Iraq if you really wanted to, but we are talking about immediate causes here.

Oh, so you think wars are fought because of immediate causes. And why did Germany invade Poland?
Why did millions of people die over the next 5 years?
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

*Originally posted by adaher *
As for the power of the UN, Western nations are a lot more likely to restrain themselves at UN behest than dictatorships.

I’m sure they are. But it’s voluntary, not because the UN has power. Also they recognise the legitimacy of UN decisions.

Here’s another question you continue to duck (presumably because you’ve realised how crass your original post was):

On June 6, 1944, the largest sea invasion in history took place in Normandy. It involved the UK, the US and many allies. Meanwhile the Soviet army set out to invade Germany from the East.
At the point when these massive armed forces arrived at the German borders, you consider that if the UN had existed, it would have stopped them.
Could you tell us which armed forces the UN would have used?

[adaher]

**Oh, so you think wars are fought because of immediate causes. And why did Germany invade Poland?
Why did millions of people die over the next 5 years?
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

**

Well, if you want we can get into violations of the Versailles agreement that were responded to ineffectually and compare them to Saddam’s own violations of his terms of armistice. Looks like somebody in the US government read his or her history books.

Could you tell us which armed forces the UN would have used?

I haven’t answered the question because I’m not sure how it’s relevant.