Noble to "liberate" French from Nazis, but not Iraqis from Saddam?

Isn’t there a contradiction of logic there? A racism on the part of the anti-war crowd and the French, that the use of force to liberate a population from a brutal dictatorship is okay as long as it’s France, but not if it’s not France.

Actually it was Luxemburg that we were liberating. It was just a geographical happenstance that the best way to do that was via France.

David Simmons, I believe France was occupied by the Nazis.

An alternative explanation of the events of 1944-45 is that America wanted to get at Germany, and the best way was through France. One hastens to note that France was entirely under the Nazi thumb (despite the technical nicety of an “independent” Vichy) and America made no effort whatsoever to rush to the aid of her historical ally. Lafayette, we are rather busy right now.

Only after Hitlers thunderingly stupid move in declaring war on the US in support of Japan did the liberation of Europe become a moral crusade worthy of our attention.

Our memory is long on self-regard, rather skimpy on fact.

France was being occupied by a foreign power. Iraq’s dictator is, say whatever else you will about him, home-grown.

And I don’t know that “liberating” the Iraqi people from “a brutal dictatorship” is even among the United States’ aims in planning a war against Iraq. Keeping a rogue state from using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors or against us is more the point. If it were just a question of a local tyrant oppressing the local populace, I doubt that we would be interested.

The intent is not there. Which is why the action is not noble. The intent is apparently based on national security, which the administration is having a difficult time proving despite the rhetoric, and methinks also influenced by domestic politics. Nobility is nowhere in the picture.

I think a more consistant OP would be:

Noble to “liberate” French from Nazis, but not Kuwaitis from Saddam?

except we did that already, and the French helped.

Sure, it’s quite “nobel” to free the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam, but by that extension, we then need to free the people of Cuba from Castro, and the people of North Korea from Little Kim, etc, etc, etc. GWB just started talking about the horrible plight of the Iraqi people because his other seven reasons for invading Iraq were not gaining mush traction.:dubious:

Saddam/Iraq hasn’t invaded anyone recently, IIRC.

During WW2 the french were part of the allies, as were the Dutch and several other European nations. Freeing them from the Germans was part of striking at the heart of Germany. Saddam sucks but as evil as he is…he’s no Hitler and Iraq in 2003 is not Germany in 1939.

The “debate” is now closed. This will be submitted as a candidate for the shortest debate of the 21st century. Drive safely.

Nobody ever tells me anything, Goddamit!

Splanky FYI David Simmons was about your age, during WWII, so he didn’t read about it in a history book.

[aside] It has always intrigued me, how the Nazis managed to keep even the slightest control over France when 95% of the population was actively involved in the Resistance. [/aside]

Not at all surprising. Look at what they did with the support of only 5% of Germans.

If you have time, I would like your participation in this thread .

I think getting rid of the House of Saud will be a good one. Um, what about abolishing slavery in Kuwait too?

September 1940 - Destroyer for Bases deal - U.S. transfers 50 old destroyers to Britain in exchange for use of eight British Atlantic bases.

November 1940 - Lend-Lease plan - U.S. “lends” military equipment to cash-strapped Britain.

August 1941 - Atlantic Charter - FDR and Churchill agree to war aims, self-determination, and condemnation of Nazism.

Of course, all this happened after the fall of France and the rest of Europe in 1940 to the German Blitzkrieg. We still hadn’t officially entered the war officially yet, but it was pretty clear that this was already an issue worthy of our attention. While it might have been nice to “rush to the aid” of France, I don’t believe we were in a position to do so militarily.

Of course, we shouldn’t have been involved in Europe at all since Germany didn’t attack us first, right?

Disregard one of the “officiallys”.

Ah, er, umm, I hate to mention this but all of the things you point to with obvious pride were of limited effectiveness in liberating France. You acknowledge this by mentioning the fall of France. So how does this bear on elucidator’s statement? In addition, I don’t see how it can be assumed that we would have immediately declared war on Germany after 7 Dec. 1941 if Germany hadn’t declared war on us.

The OP said: “Isn’t there a contradiction of logic there? A racism on the part of the anti-war crowd and the French, that the use of force to liberate a population from a brutal dictatorship is okay as long as it’s France, but not if it’s not France.”

The implication there being that we had as our prime objective the liberation of France in WWII. Ridiculous. As far as that’s concerned, Italy, Libya, Tunisia and part of Germany were also “liberated from a brutal dictatorship.”

And one brutal dictatorship liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria from another brutal dictatorship.

I don’t see any justification for a preemptive war against Iraq in the events surrounding our entry into WWII or in the conduct of that war in the clearing of Germany armies out of occupied territories.

Come to think of it, if I hadn’t spent some time writing this, which I don’t want to just throw away, I wouldn’t even git into this inane discussion.